Anonymous said: Do you think that Marvel could have introduced another superheroine in phase 2? I'm not talking about something huge but maybe a few scenes here and there. Do you think there was space in any of the movies?
LOL, they easily could have introduced more female characters AT ANY POINT during the Avengers franchise. There is no narrative reason why not. The story arc of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was not carved onto stone tablets by the hand of God.
There’s “space” in literally every Marvel movie to add more female characters or introduce another superheroine. Here are some suggestions:
- Give Frigga & Sif more screentime in Thor & Thor 2, possibly by removing one of the Warriors Three.
- Make Coulson and/or Sitwell women.
- Make 50% of background characters women, instead of 10% or whatever it is right now.
- Include a Hawkeye-style superheroine cameo in any of the Phase 1 or Phase 2 movies.
- Introduce a superheroine during a post-credits sequence like they did Quicksilver & Scarlet Witch. For example, a female supersoldier being created secretly at the end of the first Captain America movie.
- Make any of the supervillains or their henchmen female. Maybe replace Brock Lumlow (CATWS) with an equivalent female character from the comics.
- Cut 5 mins of action sequences from The Avengers and use that time to show the origin of a female character mutating thanks to a Chitauri weapon or something.
It’s not a matter of “space.” If they can make space for a bunch of Agent Coulson cameos and an appearance from Stan Lee in every single movie, they could’ve introduced a superheroine any old time. Or at least made half of the background characters female. They just decided not to.
On Wonder Woman and Heeled Boots
Yesterday Warner Bros. revealed the costume Gal Gadot will wear for her role in Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.
The costume has her wearing boots. I don’t care for the inclusion of boots. Yes, she’s been drawn wearing heeled boots (including her first appearance)
but she’s also been drawn wearing greek sandals
and boots with no heel.
So there is no continuity over the last 70 plus years although there certainly has been some rethinking of how female characters are presented in media during that time.
A few years ago when they were making the disastrous NBC pilot they also had Wonder Woman wearing a heel. Here’s what I said then:
Wonder Woman is free of vanity. For her a costume should be utilitarian — to cover what needs be covered and to make her recognizable to scare off weak-willed adversaries and alert others to her involvement.
Having heels on her boots adds nothing. A boot heel will not make her run faster or kick harder or assist her in doing her job or make her recognizable. The only thing a heel does is please the eye. And that is something Wonder Woman should not care about.
A few folks have stated the heel is required to give her the height to stand with her co-stars Affleck and Cavill. That also does not require a costume with a heel as we’ve seen from dozens of films starring actors who are shorter than their female co-stars.
This is not about hating high heeled boots; I love high heeled boots. It’s fine if Wonder Woman wore them in her “civilian” identity. Rather, this is about questioning a costuming choice which puts the emphasis on Hollywood’s requirements for a Woman rather than the Wonder of the character.
"Painkiller Jane," Woman-Directed Bisexual Woman Superhero Movie, Announced While Marvel and DC Twiddle Thumbs
In a time when both Marvel and DC seem to refuse to make movies starring female superheroes, it was announced today that the Soska Sisters will be directing a Painkiller Jane movie. This means that not only is there going to be a comic book superhero movie starring a woman, but that movie will be directed by two women and the character that the movie is about is a bisexual woman.