Renegade Cut 55 - The Absence of Superhero Diversity

[Ginger Tea]

The latest Renegade cut discusses how super hero's in movies are predominantly white heterosexual males and a few other good points. The show is good check it out.

He set an arbitrary start date of when Batman Begins came out and only Hancock seemed to buck the trend, that said he conceded that it was an original IP and not based of comic books. There in lies half of the problem.

Even though Marvel and DC are adding more diversity, movies are based of established characters, characters created as white heterosexual males and still written as such. I agree that the black widow should not just be a supporting character in a team up franchise, she is established now, giving her a debut movie between iron man 2 and Avengers would probably tank in comparison to the others (save for Hulk as I have no idea how well that went down) but post avengers where more people know of her than 'that chick in IM2', but nope she's just a (presumed) tag along in Capt2.

Hancock might have tanked if anyone else of any race played him, its success might lie squarely on the shoulders of Smith before he found out about bring your kid to work day. That and there was no prior expectations and source material to go on.

[Gravekeeper]

The latest Renegade cut discusses how super hero's in movies are predominantly white heterosexual males and a few other good points. The show is good check it out.

Ehhh, comparing the comics and movies is kind of unfair here. He hits on the problem himself without realizing it. A comic takes a month with a couple good artists and writers. These movies take 2-3 years millions of dollars and hundreds of people. Marvel and DC release hundreds of comics in the same time frame as one movie. So of course they're going to go with their big names first, they have a better chance of standing on their own and are more familiar to the main stream. And while they do intend to expand the diversity, its a slow process specifically because of how long the movies take to make.

He also buffers that list considerably with a lot of middling movies some of which are only just technically superhero movies. But then seems to largely blame Marvel and DC.

As for Black Widow, she wouldn't have survived her own outing. She has very little media exposure outside of the comics and in the comics she was introduced as a villain of Iron Man first. However, now that she is established, they are looking to give her her own movie and have been since 2010. But the Avengers 1 and 2 were slotted for filming first.

And yes, she will be in Cap2, along with Falcon. Scarlet Witch has also been added to Avengers 2. Everyone is purple and green in Guardians of the Galaxy though. Although it does have a raccoon.

I trust Marvel to do the "right thing" in this case. DC on the other hand is a disaster as far as handling women, minorities and gay people. To quote one critic, DC won't give Wonder Woman her own movie because it would be too confusing for movie goers. Marvel is handing us a raccoon with a machine gun.

[Ginger Tea]

I should add the 'check it out' part was mostly the series in general, not that specific episode, hes normally a film focused guy (and a breath of fresh air on a site famed for angry snarky reviews aka That Guy With The Glasses, as Welshy disappeared he's been the only non ranty reviewer who offers opinions more than cheap jokes).

I'm not sure how well known Green Lantern is outside of the comic world prior to the movie, which was OK, not great or overly bad, just watchable but also forgettable.
Would it have been better using another of the Lanterns? I don't know as my exposure to the corps is that movie and whichever version of him is running in whatever random animated show I see.

Why he never addressed Guardians I don't know, it's a new upload and it's not as if information and clips are not available. I personally forgot about it till just now, I know eff all about that aside from 'squirrel' even the extent of Marvel or DC.
Though you have pointed out its Marvel and a racoon, I always swap it for squirrel, I think due to squirrel girl also from the marvel universe, though I think I've only encountered her Ultimate version.

[HYHYBT]

Why would a Wonder Woman movie confuse people? Unless, of course, it was done horribly.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not sure how well known Green Lantern is outside of the comic world prior to the movie, which was OK, not great or overly bad, just watchable but also forgettable.

I was aware of him prior to the movie, though not in any great detail. That movie was awful though and sunk him as a movie franchise pretty quick. Which is a shame. As Ryan Reynolds could work as Hal Jordan. I didn't realize just how awful the depths of the movie were until much later when I actually checked out some other Green Lantern stuff and learned just how bad the movie had handled it.

That movie sat in development hell for 10 years though before they finally started to get it sorted out. Then it still went through 2 directors, 3 writers and 4 screenplay writers.

DC frankly just sucks ass at movies. The Dark Knight trilogy was a fluke. Then they tried the same approach with Superman because hey it worked for Batman, right? Gah.

Why would a Wonder Woman movie confuse people? Unless, of course, it was done horribly.

I don't know. DC. They won't make a Wonder Woman movie but they'll bring shit like Jonah Hex to the big screen.

WW is slated to show up in Superman vs Batman. But that means they're going to make a dark, gritty emo WW to go with dark, gritty emo Superman and Batman.

Oh right, Ben Affleck Batman at that. I don't think Gal Gadot can get enough bulk on her to pull off WW either. She's been working out for months and hasn't even caught up with Madonna.

[Ginger Tea]

Why would a Wonder Woman movie confuse people? Unless, of course, it was done horribly.

Well there is the 'pants to be darkened' fiasco that is the unaired pilot.
But WB basically said "we shall introduce her in BvS and if that movie is bank, we will green light a solo movie."



Forgot Jonah hex was a comic book movie, thought it was just a meh movie that only got bums in seats cos of Megan Fox.

Constantine was a good movie for me, but that is because I didn't know for 3-6 months after I saw it that it was a hellblazer movie and I have yet to read a hellblazer issue.
It was mindless fun in parts, not too shitty in others and any really shite parts are all but forgotten, had I been a reader, I would probably be livid in the first five minutes (or not gone at all joining the 'Keanu is not a blond scouser elebenty' brigade).

That steel movie mentioned, I would not have known it was a comic book movie and not just a 'superhero' movie if it wasn't for the nostalgia critic years back, hell I wouldn't even know the movie existed till then either.

In the 80's I could name these superheroes
Batman (cos of the TV show)
Superman (cos of the movies)
Wonder Woman (due to clips of the 70's show)
Then I draw a blank.
All DC none due to the comic books.

Marvel
Spiderman (70's movies then and his amazing friends adding)
Firestar
Iceman
Hulk (TV show)
Alpha Flight (Marvel UK used to have two comics in one to pad the pages of a monthly US edition cut into weekly parts, I think it was a back page to ROM and I only read a few issues)
Power Pack (back pages to the star wars weekly as well as Hercules and maybe a few others that I probably never read. Hell the ROM/Alpha flight thing might have been on the back of that too)
Machine Man (back pages of Transformers)
Thor (only by way of mention in Adventures in Baby sitting (aka a night on the town)

Then another blank drawn, I'm trying to rely on my memory and not goggling who got a TV show or when, just if I personally saw it at the time.

Marvel had a better comic score as the UK arm did a two for, else it would basically be TV shows as Transformers and Starwars were the only comics I read.

I never watched the xmen cartoon growing up, so my first real interaction was the movie, I knew of wolverine but not much of him, the others, very little out side of a few nameable characters.

Punisher I had read before the Dolph Lungren movie, it was cheesy but hey it's more a brainless movie of the time than anything else like War Zone.

Captain America, the movie and forgot about him due to the movie.

FF Channel 4 showed a dated looking cartoon before the business morning section before they relaunched with the big breakfast.

So there are few DC characters I would be hyped about a movie in the 90's and all we got was Batman (if any came out they have skipped my mind or I didn't even know they existed or were a comic movie to begin with eg Steel), for Marvel there is more, but my and the UK in generals exposure to American comics would probably keep it to a small pool so if they did a movie we might not even know its a comic book character.

[siead_lietrathua]

that's one thing i've always noticed about the two companies. DC seems to put all energy behind their heavy hitters, where marvel spreads it out in their 'verse to attract a wider variety of tastes.

[Gravekeeper]

that's one thing i've always noticed about the two companies. DC seems to put all energy behind their heavy hitters, where marvel spreads it out in their 'verse to attract a wider variety of tastes.

Marvel employs talent and has its own in house studio that handles all of its movies. DC goes with outside help. Marvel figured out the formula for casting, talent and production. DC lucked out with The Dark Knight and now thinks that will work for everything. So they just keep rehiring Christopher Nolan's personal studio to do everything.

Its not that Nolan makes bad movies. But he makes utterly joyless soul sucking movies. It works when you're handling one of the gritter versions of Batman. But Superman? No. Wonder Woman? Oh hell no.

The reason the Avengers was basically the perfect comic book movie is because Marvel seems to remember that this stuff is suppose to be FUN. It can be dramatic and serious when needed, but it doesn't have to give up fun and adventure to do it.

I don't know, it just seems like the people at Marvel actually enjoy making movies. And the actors enjoy making the movies with them. Whereas everyone in a DC movie has to go seclude themselves in a psychological prison for 3 months to make sure they meet Nolan's misery quota.

[siead_lietrathua]

Whereas everyone in a DC movie has to go seclude themselves in a psychological prison for 3 months to make sure they meet Nolan's misery quota.

so wait, nolan has the fortress of solitude for reals? j/k.

[crashhelmet]

As for Black Widow, she wouldn't have survived her own outing. She has very little media exposure outside of the comics and in the comics she was introduced as a villain of Iron Man first. However, now that she is established, they are looking to give her her own movie and have been since 2010. But the Avengers 1 and 2 were slotted for filming first.

And yes, she will be in Cap2, along with Falcon. Scarlet Witch has also been added to Avengers 2.

Don't forget that Marvel learned their lesson from Fox when they tried and failed horribly with Elektra.

I believe they could easily do a great movie with the Black Widow character, but what kind of movie would it be? Would it be a Superhero movie? Or would it be just another Jack Ryan-esque spy thriller like Salt or Alias brought to the big scereen?

Everyone is purple and green in Guardians of the Galaxy though. Although it does have a raccoon.

And a Tree.

[Gravekeeper]

Don't forget that Marvel learned their lesson from Fox when they tried and failed horribly with Elektra.

Gah, Elektra. >.>

Black Widow would have to be more of a spy thriller. However, I can see it working. They did a fantastic job with the first Captain America movie. Keeping it really grounded in reality despite it being a superhero movie. A similar approach would work with Black Widow as she's in the same boat as Captain America: Neither of them have any sort of flashy super powers. Just pure physical combat.

Scarlett Johansson can carry a movie as a lead no problem.

Now, Hawkeye on the other hand. That's never going to happen as a solo movie. >.>

And a Tree.

The best part is Groot is being voiced by Vin Diesel.

[Jetfire]

Voiced and acted by Vin IIRC; he's doing the stilt suit that will be greenscreened into Groot.

Don't forget that Marvel had bad years movie wise too, that they're only putting behind them now that they have the house of Mouse behind them. (Though admittedly they had some huge successes once the tech caught up to pull off X-Men and Spiderman, but GhostRider, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Electra missfired).

On the other hand, DC SHOULD be in a similar situation. They've got Yakko, Wakko and Dot backing them. The problem is, WB has no clue what to do with DC's properties and is still at the "Throw stuff at the wall and see what stinks". They are letting DC's editors run the comic properties into the ground, and can't figure out how to properly leap from the funny pages to the silver screen with a few exceptions.

The other big difference between them, I think, is that Marvel's willing to take the chances with their B and C listers. Announcing an Ant-Man movie and a Guardians movie made everyone go WTF, but now GOTG is possibly one of the more anticipated movies for the summer, and Ant-Man's looking more and more promising. It probably goes along with Marvel not having A+ listers like DC. They've got a solid A-tier, most of them in the Avengers, but they have flexibility to go to the lower tiers and try them out.

DC/WB, they have an A+ tier with Batman and Supes, and then everyone else is B-tier and struggling to find their voice. They (DC/WB) seem stuck in the idea that "If it doesn't tie into Bruce and/or Clark, it's Crap), which is leading to the increasingly name heavy Batman and Superman movie.

At least on the TV side WB seems to be more flexible. Certainly Smallville was Clark focused, but Arrow is standing strong on its own and kicking out Flash. But it doesn't build the movie universe like Marvel's trying with SHIELD.

Finally, to touch back on the OP a bit; part of the problem with the lack of diversity in comics stems from the fact that most of these guys have been on going for 50+ years. Their true origins come from an era where the strong white male hero was expected. Both companies have done a good job diversifying through the years (but can still do better), but their strongest properties still come from those origins and changing those origins risks a huge backlash.

Marvel making Nick Fury black is probably one of the biggest changes the company could risk (and that's still a B-level character that's risen in popularity in recent years); and I suspect the only reason its been accepted so easily is because they got Samuel Freakin' Jackson to be so perfect for the role.

[Andara Bledin]

Marvel making Nick Fury black is probably one of the biggest changes the company could risk (and that's still a B-level character that's risen in popularity in recent years); and I suspect the only reason its been accepted so easily is because they got Samuel Freakin' Jackson to be so perfect for the role.

Well, the Ultimates universe Fury was based on Jackson in the first place, so getting him to play the part was almost required, though the movie continuity is it's own universe, as it were, it tends to be close to Ultimates.

[Kheldarson]

Well, the Ultimates universe Fury was based on Jackson in the first place, so getting him to play the part was almost required, though the movie continuity is it's own universe, as it were, it tends to be close to Ultimates.

Here's the scene for you, btw: http://comicallygraphic.blogspot.com...tes-vol-1.html

[Ginger Tea]

Agents of shield works (more or less) as it's based in the Avengers universe, if Coulson wasn't in it (or the odd Fury cameo) it could be any damn super spy show.

As the rights to Spiderman FF and Xmen are owned by other studios, there is probably zero chance of seeing the triskellion (sp) in the background of New York based super hero's (like Spidie).
This also prevents them from making a TV show of Spiderman, with the option to bring him to the big screen with the same cast and even if they could, who would fuck it up first and result in the movie cast of MJ or Parker being someone else yet the rest is the same and then it goes back to the original cast for the small screen.

I think if Lois and Clark had a movie, it would have been shite, it would either look like a double length TV episode or it would be a movie with movie budget then going back to it's smaller budget weekly show.

I think it came out long before the Xfiles and I recall reading that they were one of the first shows to actually invest heavily in episodes production values, so that when the movie came out, granted it had a bigger budget and more extravagant set pieces, when the next season came on TV it was more or less seamless when you watch the previous season then movie and current.

I don't know if the Star Trek TNG movies came out after the show as BBC 2 was a few seasons behind so we got the first movie long before the last season aired, but the final seasons still looked like a TV show, though way better than the first season.