So, Lets' talk about Black Widow.

[Kyberwulf]

I don't get this hype of Black Widow.

I am not disparaging Scarlett Johansson. I think she is a decent actor.

I am talking about the character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Her character isn't anything super special. I mean she has skills, but nothing about her arc really gives us anything to bite onto. I mean to say, she is like Hawkeye in the respect.

I guess I am asking people who like her.

What is the appeal of Black Widow in the MCU?
1. Try to limit the response to just the MCU movies. No tie ins, no comic books, just the movies.
2. No trying to lean on the crutch that we "Need" more female hero things.

[Saph]

She's the first major female superhero they brought into the MCU, so she gets more attention than she otherwise would. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[Mordar]

She's the first major female superhero they brought into the MCU, so she gets more attention than she otherwise would. That's pretty much all there is to it.

I think she also brings a lot of "every day" to the movies. See, for instance, her running conversation with Steve Rogers in Winter Soldier. She seems by far the most "human" of the heroes, possibly excepting Hawkeye, but he spent half of one of his few movies mind controlled, and we only got to see the "human" side for a bit in Ultron.

She is the only character depicted as capable of subterfuge, and we actually get to see a little bit of it. To steal from D&D, it's like she is the only character using non-combat skills. Sure, Tony and Bruce fling technobabble from time to time, but that's as much narration and Knowledge skill checks.

I do think there is a little bit of an issue with your initial formulation, however. She doesn't really have an arc and is not meant to be bitten, if you will. She is a support character present to be a foil during character development scenes, and a capable-but-grounded combatant during fight scenes. She's just like Nick Fury, Rhodes, Hawkeye, Falcon and a few others in that regard. Basically anyone without a solo movie is pretty much there to provide support for the solo-movie-character's story(ies).

Oh...and she really looks like she is good at the stunt fighting stuff.

- M

[Darth Ultron]

What is the appeal of Black Widow in the MCU?


She is a Super Spy. Really that is her appeal. She is in the class with James Bond, Alias, Mission Impossible or Borne. And Super Spies have always been popular.

Yes, in the MCU Black Widow and Hawkeye do fall on the ''low" end of Super...but they are still Super. Not everything in the MCU must be ''the End of the World" type stories.

A good half of Marvel's characters are more 'normal' compared to ''gods and magic and super science''.

It is also a great way for Marvel to put out a less expensive movie, at least in special effects. You don't have to spend millions in CGI Spam to make a Super Spy movie look good.

[HMS Invincible]

Any confirmation on a black widow movie? The superspy niche hasn't really been filled.

[Rogar Demonblud]

She signed a contract for a BW movie. Then the Gunn thing happened, and she came out fairly vocally about Disney screwing the putative pooch. Disney has since put essentially the entire known Phase IV slate on hold, probably at least in part because they have no real idea how they're bringing all the Fox stuff into the MCU.

[Dienekes]

Personally, and I can't speak for anyone else of course.

Originally, there was very little appeal to her. She has no character in Iron Man 2. She is there to look good and hint toward a more developed universe.

She really hit her stride in the first Avengers, and even more in the following Captain America movies. Where she acts as a humanizing element to Rogers. Her ongoing query about trying to get Steve a date, her fear of the Hulk, her ability to manipulate a god. All of it worked pretty well, and hints toward her tragic backstory is enough to make her interesting. Then comes the Civil War movie, where, honestly, of all the characters in that film (which I liked despite it's flaws) she's the one with the most dynamic arc of the film. Where she tries to guide Roger's into just following orders before swapping sides at the last second in a way that made sense for her character. Pretty well done, I though.

Which isn't to say that it's always been well done. Avengers II unfortunately went with the love interest with Banner thing, which was boring at best and didn't offer anything interesting for her to do. In my mind the decision to pair them off was probably part of why she got captured mid-movie to give Banner one more problem to face. She also seemed much less fun that movie. Which is par for the course with that whole film.

There is also the thing about Marvel movies. While they kind of focus on all the big heavy hitters with all the neat effects. Honestly, all the best action scenes that stick out to me where the lower powered ones. Widow running through a hall of mooks and kicking all their collective asses with style was probably the best part of Iron Man 2. And while Avengers was certainly impressive and fun to watch everything blow up in New York. The best choreographed fight was between Widow and Hawkeye. The fist fights in Captain America II and III were also pretty well done.

Do I think she can carry her own movie? Honestly, no. She seems to work best when she can play off someone. I'd watch the hell out of a Widow/Hawkeye team up movie. I'm actually a bit surprised they didn't do that when they had the chance.

[Ramza00]

Which isn't to say that it's always been well done. Avengers II unfortunately went with the love interest with Banner thing, which was boring at best and didn't offer anything interesting for her to do. In my mind the decision to pair them off was probably part of why she got captured mid-movie to give Banner one more problem to face. She also seemed much less fun that movie. Which is par for the course with that whole film.

Scarlett Johansson gave birth to a daughter 09/2014. To my understanding (I have not dig into this deeply, so don't quote me on this for I only have a passing knowledge and I have not researched this fully) some of the Avengers 2 plot was rewritten to make it easier to film the movie while Scarlett was pregnant. I assume this included Ultron capturing Scarlett and deciding to have her observe his victory for he was lonely.

Avengers 2 announced Scarlett was pregnant in 03/2014 during filming and the film was later released 04/2015.

Now Scarlett had 3 body doubles during filming the movie and the body doubles did all the actions scenes. Note this would not be unusual even without a pregnancy for at least 1 body double doing an action scene is the norm in MCU movies for they are action movies and the stars are "assets" like commodities and it is better to insure a body double for sometimes things go wrong in stunt work and a physical injury is bad news for production and getting the movie on time, let alone a permanent injury or death if the worse were to happen. The pregnancy just meant they had 3 body doubles instead of 1 or 2.

[Rodin]

Do I think she can carry her own movie? Honestly, no. She seems to work best when she can play off someone. I'd watch the hell out of a Widow/Hawkeye team up movie. I'm actually a bit surprised they didn't do that when they had the chance.

Plot-wise, there isn't really any reason they can't. You just get Black Widow to haul Hawkeye out of his unofficial retirement for a mission. There's even a good setup for it provided by Spiderman - there's lots of alien tech getting into the hands of the black market, and a Blofeld-style villain is putting together a nasty plot with it. Widow and Hawkeye do secret agent stuff, something goes awry, so they blow everything up.

He's married and she's in love with Banner, so there's no danger of a forced romance mucking things up. Just two badasses who have been friends for years kicking ass.

In terms of actually making the film, it depends of course on how interested Jeremy Renner and Scarlet Johansson are in doing it. Renner being as absent as he is from the movies is suspicious to me - either he wants to focus on other projects or he's on the outs with the filmmakers.

[Eldan]

There's a few characters that I feel that even after several movies, I just don't have a handle on. Mainly Scarlet Witch and Vision. They were in three movies and I still couldn't sum up in one sentence what Scarlet Witch's personality was like. Same for the Vision. Black Widow is a bit better, since she got a few good scenes in the first Avenger and Winter Soldier, but I think she suffers from the same thing: the big avengers all have very distinct personalities, and personalities that stand out a lot. I could easily list 20 adjectives that describe the personality of Tony Stark. If I read a line of dialogue out of context, I could make a pretty good guess as to which Chris said it. Not so with Black Widow. I can't really think of any line of dialogue of hers that stuck in my mind.

[Saph]

There's a few characters that I feel that even after several movies, I just don't have a handle on. Mainly Scarlet Witch and Vision. They were in three movies and I still couldn't sum up in one sentence what Scarlet Witch's personality was like. Same for the Vision. Black Widow is a bit better, since she got a few good scenes in the first Avenger and Winter Soldier, but I think she suffers from the same thing: the big avengers all have very distinct personalities, and personalities that stand out a lot. I could easily list 20 adjectives that describe the personality of Tony Stark. If I read a line of dialogue out of context, I could make a pretty good guess as to which Chris said it. Not so with Black Widow. I can't really think of any line of dialogue of hers that stuck in my mind.

Yeah, I think this is a good point. Cap, Thor, and Tony all have really well-defined personalities in the MCU - no matter what's happening, they still act recognisably the same way. With Scarlet Witch, Vision, and Black Widow it feels as though their personalities change from movie to movie based on the needs of the plot.

[lord_khaine]

Well.. honestly in some way think thats good that. That it is a little hard to get a read on Black Widow.
She is meant to be a super spy. And both a master manipulator and actress.
But i think we got at least a glimmer of whom she were in her talks with Banner.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

She is a Super Spy. Really that is her appeal. She is in the class with James Bond, Alias, Mission Impossible or Borne. And Super Spies have always been popular.

This. If I look at the first Avengers movie then there's three people there who are mostly useless. Hawkeye gets a pass because he coordinates the team in the final battle and he's scarily effective when mind controlled by the villain. Cap gets praised by everyone all the time but is plain useless period. Black Widow doesn't get to play to her strengths. But she does have good scenes in Marvel movies. The scene in the Avengers where Fury calls her to bring her back in, and there's one where she kicks a building worth of security guards, I seem to remember. I'd watch a whole movie of that. Cat burgling, trash talking, roof jumping, flirting, misleading, intriguing, back flipping, gun slinging, there´s so much they can do with the character, but a lot of that will never be the main thing of an Avengers movie, which is why a standalone Black Widow film would be awesome. Contrast Captain America, he punches people, and everyone keeps talking about how super that is in a Universe with actual superheroes everywhere. "Look at this man, he runs twice as fast as this other guy that will be flying past him at the speed of sound while dodging missiles half an hour from now, running fast is so awesome!" Yet he got like a bajillion solo movies. There are plenty of action heroes who punch people, many of them are awesome in their own right, but there's nothing special that makes Cap stand out.

Black Widow is one of the coolest characters in these movies, I'd probably rank Falcon and Hulk above her, but not really any others, and like Falcon (and to some extend the Hulk, but after two pretty recent sort of failed solo movies they were still willing to give him a large part in Thor's story line, so they get a pass on that one) she does not get attention like some of the more boring heroes do.

She's awesome, that's it.

[Kyberwulf]

See.. this is the level of hype I don't understand. He just made this case for his unimpressed German is with Captain America. For all the lackluster skills Capt' has.. he is impressed with the even less powered "super" heroic non super person?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

See.. this is the level of hype I don't understand. He just made this case for his unimpressed German is with Captain America. For all the lackluster skills Capt' has.. he is impressed with the even less powered "super" heroic non super person?

Are you calling me a German or did autocorrect butcher that sentence?

My point is: I think she's a cool character with lots of different skills and potential for great scenes. Her personality has been written a bit inconsistent sure, but overall I think she is one of the most interesting characters when allowed to use her potential.

My problem with cap is not really his power level, it's that there's nothing really special about him. He does what every action hero does. It's interesting, that's why we have action heroes, it's just not quite as interesting as characters that play with that skill set a bit more. The rest of my hate on him is just because of how in universe everyone keeps raving about how he is the specialiest special person of them all, while he's obviously the blandest. That's weird.

[Eldan]

Yeah. I found that especially jarring in Winter Soldier, where there was apparently a Captain America museum exhibit that was treated by the movie with near-religious reverence... in a world that has apparently had Captain Marvel and Ant-man for decades and now how Iron Man and Thor.

[Calemyr]

Yeah. I found that especially jarring in Winter Soldier, where there was apparently a Captain America museum exhibit that was treated by the movie with near-religious reverence... in a world that has apparently had Captain Marvel and Ant-man for decades and now how Iron Man and Thor.

Cap was the original, however, fighting in World War 2 as an open super who achieved meaningful results and ultimately "died" a hero's death. Sure, we might now have an eccentric inventor who built his own super powers and an alien "god", but Rogers was the original and revered for it. Now bored gym teachers casually mention that he's a wanted criminal now but whatever. I doubt they'd regard his museum exhibit as sacred anymore. And yes, Ant-man was around for decades, but he and his wife flew under the radar. Dunno what will happen to keep Marvel out of the news, but it's a fair bet that she won't have her face in the history books like the Star Spangled Man with the Plan.

As for Black Widow... I have to admit I don't see the hype, either. She is an excellent addition to a story, acting as a relatable foil to the day's hero, but a poor focus for one. Same with Hawkeye, for that matter. They're too "normal" to be the focus, but that normality is needed when the protagonist is too alien. I probably wouldn't see a movie starring either of them in theaters, but I'd probably pick it up when it came out on DVD. Of course, I'm not a fan of theaters, so that might not be saying much.

[The Jack]

The real shortstick is Scarlet witch and Vision, though I'd like to see more of hawkeye because I think the actor's pretty good (as an actor, I don't know jack about him as a person).

Falcon is in this weird place because the backstory he gave makes him one-of-probably-dozens if I recall correctly. He doesn't seem like a special dude, he's iron-man light with military experience. But hey, I would really appreciate stories of regular/specialist soldiers going against the kind of enemies that the heroes fight, because I don't think I've seen anything in an avengers film that properly equipped military personnel could't deal with... except maybe wounding thanos, because if he can beat Hulk, and Hulk can take artillery...

BW get's good-enough coverage in each film I think, but aren't her comic appearances like... she's a villain for a lot of it, right? That strikes me as a good way to ruin a character. A lot of it might be steeped in now-irrelevant cold war stories, but i think her conflict (Is a weapon, can't trust herself with people) isn't something you can do an arc for in one movie.


Vision was made at the end one movie, did nothing for another, and then got taken out at the start of the next.
Scarlet witch has had very little development other than a relationship with someone who's doing nothing. Her brother died too soon.

[comicshorse]

.

BW get's good-enough coverage in each film I think, but aren't her comic appearances like... she's a villain for a lot of it, right? That strikes me as a good way to ruin a character. A lot of it might be steeped in now-irrelevant cold war stories, but i think her conflict (Is a weapon, can't trust herself with people) isn't something you can do an arc for in one movie.


Don't think so, she's been a good guy since at least the mid 80's as far as I know

[Iruka]

The real shortstick is Scarlet witch and Vision, though I'd like to see more of hawkeye because I think the actor's pretty good (as an actor, I don't know jack about him as a person).


He seems like a pretty cool dude (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ27iS1mkuo).

[Dr.Samurai]

Cap was a WW2 super soldier that sacrificed himself and defeated Hydra. So of course there will be a memorial.

Additionally, he has the heart. He's the pillar of the team. Tony makes weapons, has a change of heart and becomes a hero, creates Ultron, has a change of heart and opposes Ultron, signs on to the Accords, has a change of heart, etc.

Steve Rogers is a constant. You can rely on him to do the right thing no matter what. That's what makes him special and compelling. He's the one that says "this is what we're going to do" and gets the planet-hopping god, the raging hulk monster, the super spies, and the billionaire playboy to follow along.

An argument can be made that he is the reason the Avengers were torn apart in Civil War. However, keep in mind that Steve breaks out the fugitive Avengers, and sends the note and phone to Tony, setting up a super hero team that can oppose Thanos in Infinity War.

Steve Rogers *is* special. He's not just a bland normal guy, though I can see where people might think that.

All that out of the way, Black Widow is cool but I probably wouldn't watch a solo movie or a Hawkeye team up movie either. I do like spies, but these are MCU jokey cocky spies, so it loses some of its appeal. And the characters are too normal for me and so they're not that interesting. (Also Hawkeye is too gimicky for me as well for a standalone or team-up movie.)

[Darth Ultron]

See.. this is the level of hype I don't understand. He just made this case for his unimpressed German is with Captain America. For all the lackluster skills Capt' has.. he is impressed with the even less powered "super" heroic non super person?

Well, Cap does get a level of hate because he is American.

The broader point is Marvel is not just about Super Heroes. Marvel has always done other stories. SHIELD has always been Super Spy stuff. Technically Dr. Strange is about magic. Ghost Rider is about horror. The Punisher is crime drama. Daredevil is urban drama. Guardians of the Galaxy is a space opera.

Marvel has a big tent.

And Super Spy has been a popular bit forever. SHIELD, Moon Knight, Spider Woman, Silver Sable, Deadpool and Black Widow are all in the spy world. Even Iron Man, when not blasting stuff with his suit on, has roots in this world.

It is true that if your story is just a basic fight fest like ''aliens are attacking New York, punch them!", that is not the Black Widows strong point. But, that is the point....and she even makes this point in the Avengers movie: ''what if it's not about the big gun?"

Yes, the movie will be Mission Impossible X:The Black Widow. But then again, Super Spy stuff is popular.

If your a fan of James Bond or Jason Borne, then the Black Widow movie is for you.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, Cap does get a level of hate because he is American.

I'll cop to this. The worst part is that this doesn't make him special, almost every superhero leading a film has been American (ones I can list off the top of my head: Thor, probably one of the ones after I stopped watching every film, his majesty King Blank Panther), and a decent number of the B-listers are American. The second biggest concentration of superheroes is eastern European, and I can't name for the life of me one culturally western European or Asian superhero in the MCU. Not one ethnically Asian or Middle Eastern superhero either, depending on if we're counting Russian as 'European' or 'Asian'.

Culturally the MCU is stuffed with Americans, which means that a character specifically designed to be Americanly American and presented as the most moral and heroic hero is very grating to those who aren't American. While I'll cop to the fact that use Englishmen aren't blameless of this ourselves (although our film industry is nowhere near as large and doesn't tend to have 'global level' stories in the way American films do), but it still annoys me that the biggest example of the cinematic universe is adding American after American after American and people don't seem to get why there's a backlash to Mr American.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Don't think so, she's been a good guy since at least the mid 80's as far as I know

She's been going back and forth since the late 60s. Some times she's good, a lot of times she's more anti-hero, she does relapse to villain status occasionally (pretty much any time they need a traitor in the Avengers).

On a broader level, the problem for a Black Widow movie is that she has three story beats. Sidekick to a male hero (why a solo film?), Double agent, no, triple agent, wait, who is she really working for again? (Atomic Blonde) and Break free of her conditioning and destroy the secret program that made her (Salt).

[Kyberwulf]

OH yeah, that's right. I forget that part of people trying to convince me.

Black Widow.... is "Normal". She is no way part and parcel normal. She does WAY to many super things, just to be mundane. Jumping onto a moving vehicle going who knows how fast... getting onto said vehicle and keeping on the keeping on. Being locked in a Vehicle with a greneda.. and yeah.

As for the spy bit, the thing about that, is that they could do ANYONE as a spy movie. Not only that, because she is so superpowered. It wouldn't really be that.. entertaining to watch. It would be like putting Steve Rodgers into a Sports movie, and expecting that to be entertaining. Like putting him into, Rocky and expecting the Rocky Apollo fight to have any weight. Black Widow in a spy movie, would be like.. All the other people like her movies. Atomic Blonde, Red Sparrow, Underworld, or Resident Evil. First off, I don't even get the feeling she as ever really weak, so I don't think she would ever really be put into a situation were she was challenged. I guess that's what I am saying. She wouldn't really be put into a situation were she would be seen as human. In a weird way, I think that is one of my main problems. In a movie full of fantastical people with fantastical abilities, Black Widow always seems to be the one least human.

Except for James Bond, most of the other people mentioned as spy movie characters, seem to at least struggle. They seem to be challenged in their respective rolls. Black Widow is almost.. TOO capable. All these other characters seem to have to rise to the occasion, whereas Black Widow just seems to be.. at that level in the first place.

[The Jack]

I think of superheros as a very american phenomena though. Us europeans just aren't as into celebrating powerful minority figures, and all the eastern european supers are american cold war inventions for one reason or another. I think I've said this before, but I think Ironman or batman are more american, in spirit, than Captain America.

I think the weird outlier is that the green lantern core members are exclusively from one country (I don't know of other green lanterns that aren't Hal,John or Guy).

Heroes and villains;
MCU wise...
Vision is technically American, but he's British enough.
Thor, while asgardian, takes pages from germanic europe.
Claw, I guess.

Marvel wise
Professor X is a brit, and a number of characters related to him are the same.
Octavius is german
Hydra's full of western europeans.
...and this is a rather fruitless exercise, so I'll stop. I think DC distributes things a bit better.

But basically, a big bunch of superheroes/villains were the soviet mirror to the good old 'muricans, before that it was the WW2 Axis, which spanned a far shorter time frame. Let us only be happy that we didn't have a big wave of -war on terror- characters.

[Anonymouswizard]

Vision is technically American, but he's British enough.

Speaking as an Englishman (the kind of Brit he's supposed to be), no he's not. He's got an English Accent (been a while since I've seen a movie with him, but I remember it as low RP), but culturally he's very much American. He doesn't even have the stiff upper lip, cup of tea, or quiet desperation! He reeks of Americanism to an actual Brit.

I mean, I get that the British idea of a hero isn't as much a superhero as it is either the heroic naval officer or John Constantine, but I've forgotten where I was going with this because I need to check on the status of that Constantine cartoon and if they're going to be pronouncing his name correctly this time (rhymes with turpentine).

[Mordar]

I think of superheros as a very american phenomena though. Us europeans just aren't as into celebrating powerful minority figures, and all the eastern european supers are american cold war inventions for one reason or another. I think I've said this before, but I think Ironman or batman are more american, in spirit, than Captain America.

Cap was first published in 1941 as the ultimate recruitment poster boy. 1941 is radically different than 201x, of course, so I wouldn't necessarily argue the point currently...but Iron Man never caught the attention of even the US market in anything close to the same way as Cap, at least not until the MCU began. I think Cap was viewed as what Americans should aspire to be...Iron Man (particularly as portrayed by RDJ) is viewed as the ultimate Murican tourist. Rich, entitled, borderline (or not so) offensive...but capable of throwing huge sums of money at problems until they go away.


Heroes and villains;

Marvel wise
Professor X is a brit, and a number of characters related to him are the same.
Octavius is german
Hydra's full of western europeans.
...and this is a rather fruitless exercise, so I'll stop. I think DC distributes things a bit better.

But basically, a big bunch of superheroes/villains were the soviet mirror to the good old 'muricans, before that it was the WW2 Axis, which spanned a far shorter time frame. Let us only be happy that we didn't have a big wave of -war on terror- characters.

There are a handful of English/British/Irish heroes/villains (Captain Britain, for one...Black Knight, Psylocke (at least before the melding), Banshee, Wolvesbane...and a few bad guys as well).

There are a handful of Japanese heroes/villains, though mostly just to fill out Wolverine's backstory.

Canada has a couple teams...with the same caveat as the Japanese above.

Interestingly, most of the non-Americas are X-men, which is totally fitting as they were meant to be a stand-in for the need to accept people of all creeds, colors and super powers.

- M

[Darth Ultron]

On a broader level, the problem for a Black Widow movie is that she has three story beats. Sidekick to a male hero (why a solo film?), Double agent, no, triple agent, wait, who is she really working for again? (Atomic Blonde) and Break free of her conditioning and destroy the secret program that made her (Salt).

There is no reason you can't put the Black Widow in any Super Spy plot. Really, any Bond plot will do. The ''La Femme Nikita'' spy woman has been a thing for decades. And it makes sense when you remember the Black Widow character is like 50 years old.




As for the spy bit, the thing about that, is that they could do ANYONE as a spy movie. Not only that, because she is so superpowered. It wouldn't really be that.. entertaining to watch.

Well, have you liked any action movie from the last 30 years or so? Because just about all of them have had Super Humans. And it goes double for Spy Movies. James Bond has never been a ''boring, normal human''. Ethan Hunt and Jason Borne are also super human.



Except for James Bond, most of the other people mentioned as spy movie characters, seem to at least struggle. They seem to be challenged in their respective rolls. Black Widow is almost.. TOO capable. All these other characters seem to have to rise to the occasion, whereas Black Widow just seems to be.. at that level in the first place.

Most ''spy characters" don't struggle...that is part of the trope. You might also note the movie is a prequel: so it is a pre Black widow.

And it is the 21st century...we are in the time of demi god heroes.... Rae is the Most Powerful Super Duper Jedi for ''reasons", same way Captain Marvel will be ''the most powerful hero in the universe" for ''reasons".

[The Jack]

I've been living in england for the majority of my life. Vision's english enough without being annoying about it. If he started getting into rugby or whatever the **** they think we do it'd get on the nerves.

But hey, I'm an uncultured pig. Tea is horrid, pubs are ****e and watching sport aught to be a torture. I deeply resent how class based we are and...


So anyhow, Vision's fine. I appreciate Hemsworth (from 'straya) and thor's Shakespearean nonsense...

Black widow;
What's the typical enemies of black widow? She's often a SHIELD operative, no?

I kinda want to see more of Hydra. Go crazy with them.
Rebuild SHIELD for me, MCU.

[Legato Endless]

Well, have you liked any action movie from the last 30 years or so? Because just about all of them have had Super Humans. And it goes double for Spy Movies. James Bond has never been a ''boring, normal human''. Ethan Hunt and Jason Borne are also super human.

Pretty much. Heck, the Kingsman series is less grounded than Black Widow or Ethan Hunt and it's been successful enough to spawn a franchise.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Black Widow;
What's the typical enemies of black widow? She's often a SHIELD operative, no?

Generally, she isn't an agent of SHIELD. They'll contract work to her, but her well established preference for solving an issue with multiple bodybags goes against their code.

Her typical enemies are pretty much all Red Room related. Professor Phobos, Madame B, Starlight, Red/Steel Guardians (one of whom she was married to as a trophy wife) and various other Black Widows, most notoriously Yelena.

Actually, I'm having trouble thinking of any other persistent foes of hers. Well, Tony, Clint and Steve every time she goes rogue (she's tried to assassinate each of them a few times).

Somewhere on the Net I saw a comprehensive biography somebody built for her--it's insane. Did you know she was named Romanov to celebrate the elimination of the dynasty (who were slaughtered on the day she was born)?

[leafman]

I had an idea for a Black Widow movie, but I guess they already used Yelena Belova in Agent Carter (under cover as Dottie). But I suppose they could use someone else from the Red Room project to hunt down Natasha. Just do a whole spy vs. spy type story and expand on her past. I think it'd put butts in seats and help grow the character.

To the OP's point, the hype for Black Widow is lacking because they haven't spent a whole lot of time developing her as a character. She ends up being just another person on screen kicking butt for most of her screen time. A solo movie with a well written spy thriller plot would do a lot for the character.

[HMS Invincible]

I had an idea for a Black Widow movie, but I guess they already used Yelena Belova in Agent Carter (under cover as Dottie). But I suppose they could use someone else from the Red Room project to hunt down Natasha. Just do a whole spy vs. spy type story and expand on her past. I think it'd put butts in seats and help grow the character.

To the OP's point, the hype for Black Widow is lacking because they haven't spent a whole lot of time developing her as a character. She ends up being just another person on screen kicking butt for most of her screen time. A solo movie with a well written spy thriller plot would do a lot for the character.

The reasoning is a vicious circle. The characters aren't given development, so nobody likes taking a risk on a undeveloped character. At a certain point, you just brush past the criticism, and take a risk. If your movie team is skilled enough, it won't matter. Listening too much to hardcore fans usually ends up with the movie equivalent of incest, a dead end.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Well, Cap does get a level of hate because he is American.

As the hating German in question (;)): not a problem for me. They're pretty much all Americans, in an American movie series made primarily for American audiences. There might be a case for putting more effort into other countries film industries in there, but if I was bothered by Americans I would have to give up television. Although of course this does beg the question why his name is Captain America. It's like Superman. You're all super men, pick an actual name already.

On the flip side, a captain is a good embodyment for the US and the positive stereotypes its inhabitants associate with it. A military action person, high enough up to be considered a big success as an individual yet low enough to get his hands dirty. So they nailed that. I don't even know what to pick to get similar figureheads for other countries. Sir Britain? ("Harold, leave the crumpets, we're going for a little drive.") Engineer Netherlands? ("I stopped the sea from claiming my country, and now I'm going to stop you!") Baker Belgium? ("Taste waffles, you uncultered barbarian!")

[Eldan]

I would totally watch a movie where a team of European superartisans teamed up to defeat, I don't know. The evils of assembly line production?

[Rakaydos]

I would totally watch a movie where a team of European superartisans teamed up to defeat, I don't know. The evils of assembly line production?

Not a movie, but I recommend the webcomic Scandinavia and the World. Nations anthropomorphized as their stereotype (America has 2- the dumb but good natured Christian jock, and the self centered but caring yuppy liberal) interacting in ways that poke fun at less well known facts about those Nations.

https://satwcomic.com

[Anonymouswizard]

I've been living in england for the majority of my life. Vision's english enough without being annoying about it. If he started getting into rugby or whatever the **** they think we do it'd get on the nerves.

But hey, I'm an uncultured pig. Tea is horrid, pubs are ****e and watching sport aught to be a torture. I deeply resent how class based we are and...

Maybe it's because I'm from almost exactly the area they stole the accent from, but he really just comes off as an American with an English accent.

Also yes, you are an uncultured Barbarian, and I know need to visit the pub to calm down.

[Eldan]

Not a movie, but I recommend the webcomic Scandinavia and the World. Nations anthropomorphized as their stereotype (America has 2- the dumb but good natured Christian jock, and the self centered but caring yuppy liberal) interacting in ways that poke fun at less well known facts about those Nations.

https://satwcomic.com

Very familiar, yes. Of course, I'd also watch an SATW movie.

[Darth Ultron]

As the hating

Well, no one hates Captain America more then some Americans. Roughly half of America hates Captain America and the American Ideals he stands for, as does at least half the World. He is seen as ''wrong and old fashioned".

Of course, the other half of America does love cap, and agrees with him.


One of the many tangled webs of Black Widow history has her being a ''super solder" just like Captain America....wonder if they will go that route?

[HMS Invincible]

Well, no one hates Captain America more then some Americans. Roughly half of America hates Captain America and the American Ideals he stands for, as does at least half the World. He is seen as ''wrong and old fashioned".

Of course, the other half of America does love cap, and agrees with him.


One of the many tangled webs of Black Widow history has her being a ''super solder" just like Captain America....wonder if they will go that route?
Do you have a link that half of America hates Captain America? Are you referencing civil war from the comics?

[Rogar Demonblud]

It's a swipe at how divided politics in our country are now.

I'd guess that Cap is actually pretty popular right now. Aspirational characters usually are, because it's easy to project your values on them.

[Sapphire Guard]

Captain America in himself is okay, although I was initially turned off by the name.

I had issues with Civil War, though, where everyone forgot that non US countries existed, such that

The US Secretary of State could order the German police to kill someone in Romania, and the head of security for Europe's counterterrorism task force works for the CIA.

[Dr.Samurai]

Captain America in himself is okay, although I was initially turned off by the name.
You think it should have been Major America?

[Rogar Demonblud]

I had issues with Civil War, though, where everyone forgot that non US countries existed, such that

The US Secretary of State could order the German police to kill someone in Romania, and the head of security for Europe's counter-terrorism task force works for the CIA.

The second one actually is workable, as it's a NATO TF rather than EU.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Well, no one hates Captain America more then some Americans. Roughly half of America hates Captain America and the American Ideals he stands for, as does at least half the World. He is seen as ''wrong and old fashioned".

Of course, the other half of America does love cap, and agrees with him.

The best thing about this comment is that most Americans that read this probably assume their half is the half that loves what Cap stands for, even those that don't like him as a character. :smallbiggrin:

I mean he really is more about "be brave and stand up for what you believe in and stuff bla bla" than any actual divisive political stances, as are most good symbols.

And that's about as far as we can get into that, because no politics.

[Darth Ultron]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Rakaydos]

A link? Lets just say Captain America would have a 'Make America Great Again' hat. Does that make it clear. board rules prevent me from responding properly, but I disagree. He would not agree with what that hat is associated with.



Well, Cap does believe in the Classic American ideals, as he is literally a Classic Guy. The character is literally part of the Greatest Generation.

You might want to go back and look at what the Greatest Generation actually stood for. It's not what the Boomers would have you believe.

[Darth Ultron]

You might want to go back and look at what the Greatest Generation actually stood for. It's not what the Boomers would have you believe.

Right, you want the Generation before the Boomers.

[AMFV]

The best thing about this comment is that most Americans that read this probably assume their half is the half that loves what Cap stands for, even those that don't like him as a character. :smallbiggrin:

I mean he really is more about "be brave and stand up for what you believe in and stuff bla bla" than any actual divisive political stances, as are most good symbols.

And that's about as far as we can get into that, because no politics.

I think that Captain America would definitely be on my side and not the side of the traitorous unpatriots who happen to disagree with me on any issue, no matter how small.

[Rakaydos]

Right, you want the Generation before the Boomers.

Two generations. It goes Greatest generation, Forgotten generation, boomers, gen x, milinials, gen z.

[Darth Ultron]

Two generations. It goes Greatest generation, Forgotten generation, boomers, gen x, milinials, gen z.

You forgot Generation Y (they come after X)

In any case, the Classic Captain America will be going away in phase 4. And we will either have a Cap-less MCU or they will update Cap to a ''new cool way"...exactly like they did in the comics.

And chances are we will get a ''new cooler" Black Widow too...just like in the comics.

[TeChameleon]

You forgot Generation Y (they come after X)

In any case, the Classic Captain America will be going away in phase 4. And we will either have a Cap-less MCU or they will update Cap to a ''new cool way"...exactly like they did in the comics.

And chances are we will get a ''new cooler" Black Widow too...just like in the comics.

And they'll naturally have Iron Man replaced by his teenaged self when the other Avengers travel in time to drag him forwards to try and get present Tony to be less psychotic, and then the universe will hiccup because reasons and everyone will quietly forget that ever happened, just like in the comics :smalltongue:

Hopefully 'new cool' MCU Cap won't have those bizarre, hideous black vinyl trousers (overalls?) that Bucky!Cap sported in the comics, though >.>

There are a surprising number of British and Canadian Marvel characters, due in large part to the influences of Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons, Grant Morrison, and probably others who I'm forgetting on the British side, and mostly John Byrne on the Canadian side (er, as far as I know. At the very least, a huge chunk of the famously Canadian Marvel characters seem to have been created by Byrne).

Of course, Alpha Flight are in that lovely weird limbo of 'too popular to just quietly forget, not popular enough to sustain their own book', and Wolverine became so popular that he ended up unpopular due to overexposure, so who even knows where that will go >.O

There are also a tiny handful of characters whose nationality will probably make a lot of people go "... wait, what?" Did you know that Ka-Zar, Jessica Drew (Spider-Woman), and Blade are English? Then again, given Ka-Zar's status as a blatant Tarzan knockoff, his Britishness probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise <.<

Anyways, Black Widow? My first thought is that she'd be most fun as a deuteragonist with another character being the main focus, but constantly coming in on her in the same kind of situation she was in in her intro in the first Avengers movie- skip all the relatively dull setup stuff and just let the Maestro work her magic. Maybe even pair her with someone extremely unlikely, like Thor or the Hulk, who would be utterly useless at gathering needed intelligence, and provide some comedy as they blunder through the delicate socio-political manoeuvering like a wrecking ball in a china shop.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Two generations. It goes Greatest generation, Forgotten generation, boomers, gen x, milinials, gen z.

I thought it was greatest generation, boomers, gen X, millennials (=gen Y), Generation Screw Everything (=Gen Einstein, =Millennials 2 the new millennium, =Gen Z, =The fourth babyboom, =the fifth greatest generation), Generation Puc.

So I literally forgot the Forgotten Generation. :smallbiggrin:

Makes sense that something exists there, since greatest are supposed to be the ones who fought in WW2 and boomers the ones born after it.

(That also means Generation Screw Everything would be the sixth greatest generation rather than the fifth, unless maybe you ask the people who like to blame everything on millennials.)


We really should start just calling them names like the Beatles Generation, the MTV generation and the Pokémon generation though. Much more recognizable, and way more divisive.

[The Jack]

Jessica Drew (Spider-Woman), and Blade are English? .


Wait, What?


*looks them up*

Wow.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Engineer Netherlands? ("I stopped the sea from claiming my country, and now I'm going to stop you!")

I now have this character in my head who's power is to conjure up "mental machines" around himself. They have limited effect on humans and man made objects, but they are very good at manipulating the natural world and the elements. No remote controlled machines, no machines for other people to drive, no conjuring unbound projectiles. So if a building is collapsing the rips out trees to build support beams, if a town is flooding he'll bulldoze a dyke, if someone is firing artillery rounds at him he'll fling back rocks.

If this shows up in a Marvel comic: you read it here first.

(Of course with the amount of existing Marvel characters i'm probably ripping off several of them here, so...)

[Frozen_Feet]

What's the appeal of Black Widow, you ask?

You have to be blind to not see the appeal of ScaJo in tight black outfit and red hair, I say. :smalltongue:

...

My biggest disappointment with Infinity War was that she's blonde now. :smallfrown:

[The Glyphstone]

What's the appeal of Black Widow, you ask?

You have to be blind to not see the appeal of ScaJo in tight black outfit and red hair, I say. :smalltongue:

...

My biggest disappointment with Infinity War was that she's blonde now. :smallfrown:

The irony being that neither is her natural hair color, apparently (brown, IIRC).

[Frozen_Feet]

Well the same is true of all other redheads and most blondes I've dated, so it's not a big deal. :smalltongue:

[Calemyr]

The irony being that neither is her natural hair color, apparently (brown, IIRC).

In fairness, the blonde is because she has been a fugitive for the last two years and no self-respecting spy would keep the same hair color for long when you're on the wanted list.


A link? Lets just say Captain America would have a 'Make America Great Again' hat. Does that make it clear.

Huh. I would have thought the opposite, myself. To be honest, though, I think Civil War managed to schism along another fissure than the party line, which I'm grateful for. You don't have to be standing on a particular wing to understand where both sides are coming from, or how both sides are being a bit stupid. The Sokovia Accords should have been written with them at the negotiating table, or at least allow the Avengers to offer amendments. And Thunderbolt Ross was not a good person to put in charge of it.

[The Glyphstone]

In fairness, the blonde is because she has been a fugitive for the last two years and no self-respecting spy would keep the same hair color for long when you're on the wanted list.




Yeah. I was just a little amused they had her go from one dye job to another dye job instead of dropping the dye and having her use her natural hair color for the 'disguise'.

[Darth Ultron]

And they'll naturally have Iron Man replaced by his teenaged self when the other Avengers travel in time to drag him forwards to try and get present Tony to be less psychotic, and then the universe will hiccup because reasons and everyone will quietly forget that ever happened, just like in the comics :smalltongue:

Well, your thinking too ''old badwrong " comics. You want the ''new cool" comics where the Armored Avenger is a woman.



Anyways, Black Widow?

Depends on what kind of movie they want to make. If they want to go all ''strong woman", they will need a goofy weak male spy(''The White Fly"). They might go full ''all woman movie" so her partner would be a techy spy woman(''the brown recluse").

[Friv]

Yeah. I found that especially jarring in Winter Soldier, where there was apparently a Captain America museum exhibit that was treated by the movie with near-religious reverence... in a world that has apparently had Captain Marvel and Ant-man for decades and now how Iron Man and Thor.

That doesn't surprise me.

From the point of view of the "average person" in the MCU, Captain America was an outlier for a very long time. He was this super-soldier who came out of nowhere in World War II, saved the world, and then died.

Both Incredible Hulk and Iron Man established that while other superheroes have been active in the world, they haven't been seen. The Hulk, despite being active for years, is just an urban myth until everything explodes at the university. Coulson walks into Tony Stark's office with a plan to conceal Iron Man's existence, and then Nick Fury makes fun of him for thinking that he's the first superhero. Scott Lang is shocked to see footage of Hank Pym as Ant-Man, because SHIELD successfully concealed it, and all evidence is that the world at large still doesn't know that Lang isn't the first Ant-Man.

It's not until the modern day that a combination of technology, Tony Stark's attitude, and an explosion in the number of powered people causes them to enter the mainstream. From that angle, Captain America's museum exhibit is still a really big deal, and Cap's back in action within a few years of the beginning of the new boom.

[Sapphire Guard]

A plot for a Black Widow movie is easy enough- with the leaks from SHIELD, some old enemy finds out about something she did and wants revenge, or some secret comes out that she has to protect. There. Done.

[Darth Ultron]

A plot for a Black Widow movie is easy enough- with the leaks from SHIELD, some old enemy finds out about something she did and wants revenge, or some secret comes out that she has to protect. There. Done.

Except the movie will be a prequel.

So more: Young pretty girl in Russia wants to be a ballerina. KGB grabs her and does the ''you will be killer agent, da". They send her to get the ''secret missile mirofilm " at the peace talks in Paris. She does her mission, but encounters say Agent Colson and he is like ''don't be evil". And then she becomes ''good"(ish) and helps defeat the KGB and joins SHEILD.

Maybe the movie will be a flash back...like Natasha is babysitting Haweye's kids at the farm house....and the kids are like ''tell us a story"...and then the screen does the ''wavy back in time effect"....

[Rogar Demonblud]

We already know that Natasha went rogue and left a bloody swath until Hawkeye was sent to kill her. He decided to recruit her instead. Phil might have done her intake interview, though.

[Peelee]

We already know that Natasha went rogue and left a bloody swath until Hawkeye was sent to kill her. He decided to recruit her instead. Phil might have done her intake interview, though.

Hold on, are you saying that Darth Ultron has no idea what he's talking about? Perish the thought!

[Rogar Demonblud]

Come on, Avengers 1 was like 20 films ago.

[The Glyphstone]

We already know that Natasha went rogue and left a bloody swath until Hawkeye was sent to kill her. He decided to recruit her instead. Phil might have done her intake interview, though.

I could see this as a movie. Do it as an Enemy At The Gates style spy vs. spy thriller, flashing back and forth between Natasha's training in the Red Room and her 'present day' hunt/duel around some European city with Hawkeye, who she assumes is trying to kill her.

[Kitten Champion]

I'd do the fairly straightforward story that I've seen done a number of times with Black Widow in the comics, someone from her past appears and she feels obligated to deal with it herself as part of her ongoing character arc towards personal redemption. With the narrative offering some exploration of her past relative to her current self, and the fact that she's pursuing this on her own being an in-story character choice while providing a meta-justification for this being her titular movie. Presumably Hawkeye and non-Hulk Banner would be involved too in secondary roles though.

As to why to make a Black Widow movie, you have the hottest female actor on the planet within the most popular movie franchise in the last 20 years. You can hem and haw over the specifics and criticize her overall characterization, but from a basic studio-which-wants-money perspective it would take a real effort to argue a Black Widow movie down based on its market potential.

Remember, this is a Hollywood which really wants to muster up a Scarjo-led action movie franchise and will green-light some really questionable comic book licensed movies.

[Kyberwulf]

Just because its Scarlett Johansson isn't really a good reason. There have been three attempts with her trying to be the main lead in a movie. The one where she is an alien. I don't think that on worked out to well. Lucy, again.. Not that great of a movie...I don't know HOW it got a sequel. Then Ghost in the Shell? Again, I don't know how it worked out. Not amazing I think.

Going off the weak character of Black Widow... I don't know if that is much of a reason to make a movie off her.

[Kitten Champion]

Just because its Scarlett Johansson isn't really a good reason. There have been three attempts with her trying to be the main lead in a movie. The one where she is an alien. I don't think that on worked out to well. Lucy, again.. Not that great of a movie...I don't know HOW it got a sequel. Then Ghost in the Shell? Again, I don't know how it worked out. Not amazing I think.

Going off the weak character of Black Widow... I don't know if that is much of a reason to make a movie off her.

Lucy was actually wildly successful financially speaking making more than 10 times the production budget, Under the Skin was critically successful but it was never a ScarJo vehicle so much as a limited release art-house film that couldn't afford to advertise off its limited budget, and Ghost in the Shell made money but not enough to justify a franchise.

However, that's irrelevant. Hollywood is about safe assumptions based off of easily-observed trends, she's high profile enough to make a movie around and Black Widow being "weak" is incredibly, deeply secondary to her being a household name globally. Studios have made pretty ambitious investments hoping to get something like the kind of instant recognition a character like Black Widow now has.

This is as risk-averse a decision you could make in the present market, it's why it's been announced and is in early pre-production.

[TeChameleon]

Black Widow being a 'weak' character is debatable, but she is most definitely a marketable character, which is probably the single biggest reason she's likely to get a movie.

Oddly, Natalya is one of the few characters I thought were made noticeably stronger by the MCU, rather than simply being done fairly well or, at worst, competently (... for the most part. Discussion for elsewhere >.>). Getting to see her tradecraft in action, rather than her simply being yet another combat gymnast, along with her 'red in the ledger' motivation being made explicit via a simple, punchy and reasonably memorable phrase, made her more believable and interesting, at least in my books. Add in ScarJo's surprisingly good 1000-yard stare at select moments, and you can believe that this is a woman who has seen some ****. And would really rather not see any repeats of it.

Speaking for myself, I'd really prefer to see her paired with someone rooted in the more fantastical elements of the MCU- thus my earlier vote for Thor or the Hulk. Honestly, her relationship with Banner (what happened to Betty Ross, anyways?) would serve as an ideal jumping-on point for him. Could lead to a rather entertaining scene where her and Banner are ambushed by rogue KGB leftovers, out to exact payback for whatever, and then the evil Russians having a nice collective "Oh, ****!" moment as they slowly realize exactly who they've caught in their... 'trap'. Maybe Banner's along as her tech guy, maybe they're just on vacation, maybe she's rescuing him because he's been kidnapped, whatever, but it wouldn't be hard to bring him in on a movie she's headlining.

And hey, getting some Hulk focus worked well enough for Thor, no?

[Tvtyrant]

I thought it was greatest generation, boomers, gen X, millennials (=gen Y), Generation Screw Everything (=Gen Einstein, =Millennials 2 the new millennium, =Gen Z, =The fourth babyboom, =the fifth greatest generation), Generation Puc.

So I literally forgot the Forgotten Generation. :smallbiggrin:

Makes sense that something exists there, since greatest are supposed to be the ones who fought in WW2 and boomers the ones born after it.

(That also means Generation Screw Everything would be the sixth greatest generation rather than the fifth, unless maybe you ask the people who like to blame everything on millennials.)


We really should start just calling them names like the Beatles Generation, the MTV generation and the Pokémon generation though. Much more recognizable, and way more divisive.

The Forgotten Generation was the one before the GGs, Silent Generation is after, then boomers.

[HMS Invincible]

I don't like most of scarjo's non mcu movies, though I always give her another chance. I did like that movie where she plays the phone ai/Siri. Oh and she was in Sing, so her track record isn't terrible. Just not as good as you might expect.

Is there a link about black widow going rogue in the MCU?

[Rodin]

Lucy was actually wildly successful financially speaking making more than 10 times the production budget, Under the Skin was critically successful but it was never a ScarJo vehicle so much as a limited release art-house film that couldn't afford to advertise off its limited budget, and Ghost in the Shell made money but not enough to justify a franchise.

However, that's irrelevant. Hollywood is about safe assumptions based off of easily-observed trends, she's high profile enough to make a movie around and Black Widow being "weak" is incredibly, deeply secondary to her being a household name globally. Studios have made pretty ambitious investments hoping to get something like the kind of instant recognition a character like Black Widow now has.

This is as risk-averse a decision you could make in the present market, it's why it's been announced and is in early pre-production.

Ghost in the Shell basically had the problem where they tried to capitalize on name-recognition among anime fans while making the story generic enough to please mainstream audiences.

The result was that very few anime fans went to see a in-name-only adaptation and the mainstream fans showed their traditional aversion to generic Sci-Fi and also stayed away. So-so reviews did the rest. And even then, Scarlet Johannson was a big enough name draw for the film to make money.

A Black Widow movie wouldn't have the same problem. You have a ready-made audience in the Marvel fans who have proven they'll go to see any Marvel movie, no matter how obscure the hero. This is because consistent quality works, as even a "bad" Marvel movie is better than most of the dreck out there. The MCU also seems to have avoided the Sci-Fi curse, possibly because it's more associated with superheroes but more likely because franchised Sci-Fi does a hell of a lot better. There's also no danger of angering the original fans, as they haven't been annoyed at Black Widow's characterization in the MCU thus far and so you just pull from that.

It seems like a no brainer to me, and is certainly less risky than Captain Marvel will be.

[lord_khaine]

A Black Widow movie wouldn't have the same problem. You have a ready-made audience in the Marvel fans who have proven they'll go to see any Marvel movie, no matter how obscure the hero. This is because consistent quality works, as even a "bad" Marvel movie is better than most of the dreck out there. The MCU also seems to have avoided the Sci-Fi curse, possibly because it's more associated with superheroes but more likely because franchised Sci-Fi does a hell of a lot better. There's also no danger of angering the original fans, as they haven't been annoyed at Black Widow's characterization in the MCU thus far and so you just pull from that.

Yeah, whatever else you want to say, you cant argue with the consistency they have put out.
In all the movies that has been produced, only 1 were so bad i regretted watching it.
Thats a pretty good track record. And so i am going to go watch Marvel simply out of curiosity.

[Kitten Champion]

Ghost in the Shell basically had the problem where they tried to capitalize on name-recognition among anime fans while making the story generic enough to please mainstream audiences.

The result was that very few anime fans went to see a in-name-only adaptation and the mainstream fans showed their traditional aversion to generic Sci-Fi and also stayed away. So-so reviews did the rest. And even then, Scarlet Johannson was a big enough name draw for the film to make money.

Ghost in the Shell had a lot working against it of its own devising.

That they established everything in that movie around "we have Scarlett Johannson" speaks of how much confidence they had in her. Because as others have noted, it's quite apparent that GitS 2016 began more as an ensemble piece and was transfigured into a Scarjo vehicle pseudo-Superhero Origin movie with the rest of the supporting cast getting the minimum of screen-time for their increasingly thinly-sketched characters.

Ultimately, a Black Widow movie doesn't require a huge marketing push to sell itself. Many of the assets you'd want for the movie are already at your disposal, as you've got 20+ movies and each reduce the difficulties in implementing the next and the main character is already cast and well-established. You don't necessarily have to pay for elaborate new special effects here too, given the presumed emphasis on a more grounded spy-fiction part of the Marvel universe. Writing a narrative is really quite easy for the character as she already has a thematic centre (redemption) and a history you can easily work with that's at best been lightly alluded to through Black Widow herself and the Peggy Carter television show which may-or-may-not count as far as they're concerned..

In the end you have a movie that's not hard to set up, will probably cost less than an Ant-Man movie, and will probably make several times its production cost back even if it doesn't make Black Panther bank at the end of the day -- all while continuing to build the Marvel brand, in this empire of cross-media synergy - while satiating those who've been vocally asking for this for years.

[Rogar Demonblud]

(what happened to Betty Ross, anyways?)

Same thing as happens with every Designated Girlfriend character. It becomes very evident very quickly that they add nothing to the story while draining the budget of time and money, and they get quietly dropped because it's easier than turning them into a real character. That's pretty much what happened to her a few years after the Hulk smashed onto the scene in the comics, and she really only shows up for a bit after another reboot/retcon before getting once again shuffled off into storage. They tried to change that when they expanded the Hulk into a sub-universe of its own (Red Hulk, A-Bomb, etc) but even as Red She Hulk, she can't cut it.

[TeChameleon]

Same thing as happens with every Designated Girlfriend character. It becomes very evident very quickly that they add nothing to the story while draining the budget of time and money, and they get quietly dropped because it's easier than turning them into a real character. That's pretty much what happened to her a few years after the Hulk smashed onto the scene in the comics, and she really only shows up for a bit after another reboot/retcon before getting once again shuffled off into storage. They tried to change that when they expanded the Hulk into a sub-universe of its own (Red Hulk, A-Bomb, etc) but even as Red She Hulk, she can't cut it.

Mmph. I suppose that's why so many superhero universes feel weirdly pseudo-incestuous... you end up with the feeling that supers can only be with supers, despite the fact that there aren't all that many people out there who end up in a relationship with a co-worker, at least not a long-term one.

It'd be nice if writers weren't so... writer-y sometimes. Every time a new writer comes onto a title, they're desperate to make their own mark on a comic, and for whatever reason, trying to set up a new ship seems to be a favourite way to do it. Then we end up with things like **** Grayson, the town bicycle of the DCU, or Daredevil's genitalia of death (along with Punisher's, Cyclops', Hank Pym's, Hulk's, Spider-Man's...).

I really, really wish there were more comics out there like the first Jaime Reyes' Blue Beetle run- his supporting cast were fully-realized characters and just as much fun to read about as the super-types that kept rampaging through their lives (the scene of Jaime's mum reaming out Guy Gardner as he stammered and blushed is still one of my favourites).

[Kyberwulf]

See that's the same thing with Black Widow. They would be going off name recognition.

As someone pointed out, Ghost in the Shell was pretty generic. I feel that the movie they will put out with Black Widow would be pretty Generic itself. I mean, so far nothing put out in the movies make her stand out. I mean other then the fact that she is a female, and is "hot".

Which I think is kind of a horrible reason to put out a movie.

[Darth Ultron]

As someone pointed out, Ghost in the Shell was pretty generic. I feel that the movie they will put out with Black Widow would be pretty Generic itself. I mean, so far nothing put out in the movies make her stand out. I mean other then the fact that she is a female, and is "hot".

Which I think is kind of a horrible reason to put out a movie.

A generic movie with a ''hot'' person in it, is the basic Hollywood movie. It's even true of a Marvel movie. Take Thor or Iron Man: generic ''bad guy take over the world" movie with a ''hot" guy.

What can they really do to make a movie ''stand out''?

[Rodin]

A generic movie with a ''hot'' person in it, is the basic Hollywood movie. It's even true of a Marvel movie. Take Thor or Iron Man: generic ''bad guy take over the world" movie with a ''hot" guy.

What can they really do to make a movie ''stand out''?

By writing a good movie.

No, seriously. That's all it takes. I mean, consider the premise: Badass super spy who looks hot investigates plot that can endanger the world, stops it single-handedly and blows up the villains lair. Did I just describe the Black Widow movie, or a James Bond movie?

It all comes down to whether you get a good script. If we're talking Black Widow from the first Avengers film, I am entirely onboard. Black Widow from Age of Ultron? Much less excited.

[Darth Ultron]

It all comes down to whether you get a good script. If we're talking Black Widow from the first Avengers film, I am entirely onboard. Black Widow from Age of Ultron? Much less excited.

Well, most movies have a good premise...or idea. It is just the final product might not be too great.

But, Marvel has a good track record...like 20 movies and, what, maybe five ones 'not good'?

[Velaryon]

Rodin and Kitten Champion (among others) have already laid out why a Black Widow film is as close to a safe bet as Hollywood ever gets. The only thing I have to add to that is that DC has already proven via Wonder Woman that a female-led superhero film can work well and make money. There's a billion or so dollars out there with Black Widow's name on it that's just waiting for Marvel to come scoop it up. All they have to do is make a good movie and avoid stepping in any socio-political landmines along the way.

So what would a good Black Widow movie look like? Well, there a lot of directions they could choose to go: origin story, random adventure while she's a Russian spy, story of how she defected, random story while working with SHIELD, or something more-or-less present-day that happens during or after all her appearances in everyone else's movies.

I would argue that the story should tell us something we don't already know - if it's just a rehashing of the backstory exposition Natasha has had in other films, then it runs the risk of being lackluster - the movie may make money but won't be received well enough to merit more. And that's why I wouldn't do her origin story.

I think the best bet lies in telling the story of how Black Widow was recruited to SHIELD, while also setting up at least one new character and a possible future conflict. I'm light on specifics here though, because I'm not familiar enough with her comics history to suggest any good ideas.

[Kyberwulf]

I am not talking about female led anything. I am specifically trying to avoid bringing politics into this. Outright politics anyway. Trying to keep this focused to Black Widow.

See the thing is, to me Black Widow is just going to be another one of those movies. Underworld, Resident Evil, or other films like that. Where the hero of the story isn't really threatened, or challenged. I know people are going to bring up stuff like Bond. I don't want to see another bland character like that. I don't think that Black Widow won't be given the trust by people making it, to show that she is human. That she can actually be damaged.

Just a side thing. The whole, Marvel has a good track record. I have to disagree. They usually make eh movies to okay movies. Nothing stellar. I think they made something like,... only 5 good movies. The rest have been coasting off the good ones, or are subpar but given boosted value because "Marvel"

[Friv]

Okay, but do you have an actual reason to believe that? Black Widow has gotten the crap kicked out of her several times already in the MCU; she's hell on two feet against mooks, and she's very competent, but that hasn't stopped her from losing fights, or winning fights and getting hurt bad, multiple times.

Why would they change that fact once she's the lead instead of the co-lead?

[Dr.Samurai]

I think one of the best parts of Winter Soldier (have I mentioned it's my favorite yet?) is how vulnerable they all were. Seeing Fury get the drop on him twice, watching the Winter Soldier rip their only lead out of a car window straight into moving traffic and tearing the steering wheel out of the car, and of course watching the Winter Soldier fight Cap and Nat.

She gets the drop on him with the cell phone diversion and he still nearly kills her but for the little EMP disk thing she throws. Still doesn't matter because even when you think she's about to escape he shoots her through the parked cars and gets the jump on her again. Cap saves her of course but it's also not the first time he's almost taken Nat out (she refers to the scar she has from a previous attempt).

I don't see why she'd be a juggernaut in her own solo movie.

[Darth Ultron]

Underworld, Resident Evil, or other films like that. Where the hero of the story isn't really threatened, or challenged. I know people are going to bring up stuff like Bond. I don't want to see another bland character like that. I don't think that Black Widow won't be given the trust by people making it, to show that she is human. That she can actually be damaged.

Even for non super hero action movies it is common now a days to have bland immortal invulnerable characters. It is what ''people want to see". People just want to see ''cool CGI spam" and ''Cool one liners". And, that IS what people pay to see...so they are not wrong.

''Damage" is not a thing in current action movies. Current action movie heroes are not human. Try and think of the last movie that had a damaged, human action star.

And the above goes double for a female lead.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Die Hard movies always have a subplot about how much damage McClain is soaking. For female lead, try Atomic Blonde.

[Frozen_Feet]

Hilariously enough for Darth Ultron's point, both Ghost in the Shell and the new Tomb Raider movie have their female leads get horrifically beaten up and injured. Of course they both still have their moments of implausible of action hero durability, but the point stands.

[Darth Ultron]

Hilariously enough for Darth Ultron's point, both Ghost in the Shell and the new Tomb Raider movie have their female leads get horrifically beaten up and injured. Of course they both still have their moments of implausible of action hero durability, but the point stands.

Really? Maybe the tread is reversing itself a bit back to 'damage'.

[Rodin]

I'm not sure I'd even agree there was a trend.

Just pulling from the MCU:

2008: Iron Man - Tony Stark starts off the movie getting shrapnel in his heart, nearly dies when Obediah steals the arc reactor, and his suit gets beaten to crap during the fight.

2012: Avengers - Hawkeye gets mind controlled by Loki, Black widow gets the crap kicked out of her by the Hulk, and Stark just about dies from exposure to outer space.

2013: Iron Man 3 - The entire movie is about Stark having PTSD from the aforementioned space excursion.

2014: Winter Soldier - As mentioned above, Nick Fury nearly dies, Black Widow gets injured more than once, and Cap gets shot multiple times before getting knocked unconscious and only lives because Bucky decides to save him.

2014: Guardians of the Galaxy - Groot sacrifices himself to save them all. He survives (kinda), but it's hardly him being invulnerable. Gamora also comes close to death via spacing.

2016: Civil War - Rhodes gets crippled, and of course there's the brutal showdown between Cap and Iron Man where both get beaten to all hell.

2016: Doctor Strange - The hands bit aside, he also has to astral project to guide his own surgery to stop himself from dying.

2017: Guardians of the Galaxy 2 - Yondu outright dies in this one. We see the fragile side of Quill with all of his parentage issues.

2017: Spiderman Homecoming - Spiderman gets trapped under rubble and nearly gives in to despair.

2017: Thor: Ragnarok - Thor loses an eye. We get a deep look at the troubles Banner has with the Hulk.

2018: Blank Panther - T-Challa loses the fight become king and nearly dies as a result.

2018: Infinity War - Loki dies, then everyone else dies too. The heroes straight up lose.

--------

So when we're talking about Marvel movies at least, the effect simply doesn't exist. There are a few movies where you can argue the hero isn't that threatened, but those tend to be either the really early Marvel movies or those with a more comedic bent like Ant-Man.

[Frozen_Feet]

Really? Maybe the tread is reversing itself a bit back to 'damage'.

Or maybe you just don't watch enough movies. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Hilariously enough for Darth Ultron's point, both Ghost in the Shell and the new Tomb Raider movie have their female leads get horrifically beaten up and injured. Of course they both still have their moments of implausible of action hero durability, but the point stands.

I mean, the Major tearing her own limbs off in an effort to crack open a tank with her bare hands and then being smashed into walls and having her skull slowly cracked open like an egg is perhaps the most iconic scene in the original movie. They had to do that one.

Plus it's based on a Japanese source and it seems to me they have a bit less hesitation about showing battle damage. To put it mildly.

[Eldan]

Speaking of Ghost in the Shell, the original, I must say that it's a movie that I like just as much for the plot, cinematography, lighting, music and things like that than I do for the story and world-building. And the new version just didn't manage to display any of that. They remade some scenes shot for shot, but just worse. There's a few excellent analysis videos on Youtube. This shot here is an excellent comparison for me:

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1280/1*H_0tTke350p8K-yje1Xb_g.png

The stark lighting is gone, the character is detailed instead of in silhouette, the background is too dark and the city barely visible, and so on.

And they managed to take not just the colour, but also all the details otu of the backgrounds. Somehow, they managed to make a real background less detailed than an animated one.

I mean, this is an extreme example:
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54018827/Ghost_Shell_1995_Screenshot_0684.0.jpg
https://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/9/8215/thumb_620x2000/ghost-in-the-shell-2017-water-fight-paramount-pictures.mp4.jpg

(Not the same shot, exactly, but same fight scene and same background. But it's pretty symptomatic.

[RossN]

I agree plenty of action heroines get put through the ringer and I don't think being 'invincible' would be a problem with Black Widow. I think a far more serious liability for a Black Widow solo story is that I can't see Marvel being willing, or even able to make her look dorky.

Almost every Marvel main character is, at least at some point, made to look buffoonish in his or her film. This happens to some people more than others (looking at you Thor and you Peter Quill) but almost everyone goes through slapstick or gets called an idiot to their face. Even Captain America gets to act adorkable ('I understood that reference!')

It is extraordinarily hard to imagine Black Widow being the butt of a joke. As a character she has issues certainly, but what she lacks are foibles.

[Frozen_Feet]

Waitasecond... Natasha calling Clint's baby a traitor (because they turned out to be a boy) wasn't dorky enough?

Or her trying to pair Steve up with random women?

[RossN]

Waitasecond... Natasha calling Clint's baby a traitor (because they turned out to be a boy) wasn't dorky enough?

Or her trying to pair Steve up with random women?

Nope. In both cases Natasha is trying to be funny and succeeding. That's a good trait to have and a lot of characters have it as well as dorkiness but the two are different.

The thing about Marvel Cinematic Dorkiness (TM) is that the audience is chuckling at the character, not with them. Those chuckles might be entirely affectionate at a streak of corniness - like Steve's comically serious 'to-do' list of pop culture in Winter Soldier, or they might be a bit more mean spirited, like the way Scott Lang constantly comes across as a bit of a chump in his films.

To take examples of Marvel female characters showing that kind of dorkiness I'm talking about look at Valkyrie from Thor Raganarok who is so drunk in her opening scene she literally falls out of her ship or (especially) everything about Mantis from Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (and even more in Infinity War.)

Marvel heroes really need to be just a little bit of a jerk or a fool or just full of themselves sometimes, even if they are hypercompetent otherwise. I'm not sure they'd be able to do that with Black Widow.

[Mordar]

Even for non super hero action movies it is common now a days to have bland immortal invulnerable characters. It is what ''people want to see". People just want to see ''cool CGI spam" and ''Cool one liners". And, that IS what people pay to see...so they are not wrong.

''Damage" is not a thing in current action movies. Current action movie heroes are not human. Try and think of the last movie that had a damaged, human action star.

And the above goes double for a female lead.

I don't think "current" means the same thing to me that it does to you. Maybe you're just way older than I am.

Do you know why John McClaine stands out among all of the action movie characters from the 1980s forward? Because he established the unique identity of being the action hero who consistently gets the crap beat out of him. Sure, Stallone characters take a few hits along the way. Arnold gets tagged once in a while. Chan, Li, Statham, Lundgren, Snipes...all the rest...virtually never injured except in the rare case that they need to be captured for the plot or to die heroically).

Heck, roll it back to westerns. Aside from Shane and John Wayne in *2* roles, both of which he is the star but also the "old mentor" character...what gun-slinging stars die? Magnificent Seven? Only because it is a remake of a film that wasn't an action film but one literally about the death of an era.

Nope, this isn't anything new.

- M

[The Jack]

Black widow has struggled? I don't recall.

I mean, huge props to her/her stunt double; She's the character I see exerting herself more than any other hero; she tries the hardest and has the most interesting choreography, but I don't think I've seen her struggle outside of -wholeTeamStruggle- situations. She did very well against that Thanos child, and that Thanos child ****ing ruined far more powerful characters in earlier acts.

[Rodin]

Black widow has struggled? I don't recall.

I mean, huge props to her/her stunt double; She's the character I see exerting herself more than any other hero; she tries the hardest and has the most interesting choreography, but I don't think I've seen her struggle outside of -wholeTeamStruggle- situations. She did very well against that Thanos child, and that Thanos child ****ing ruined far more powerful characters in earlier acts.

Two cases have been mentioned already in the thread - she had a rough fight against the Winter Soldier, and she had to run like hell from the Hulk on the heli-carrier.

[Tvtyrant]

She is the most normal avenger and still rushes into fights she can't win.

She loses to Bucky in Winter Soldier and in Civil War, she fights in both Sokovia and New York where falling would kill her much less getting shot, confronts the Hulk/Banner numerous times, even betraying Black Panther could have easily gotten her killed.

A movie about her, Hawkeye and Fury when she switched sides would be great.

[Darth Ultron]

A movie about her, Hawkeye and Fury when she switched sides would be great.

I don't think it will be that movie. This will just be her standalone origin movie. Really, like half the movie will be her as a girl ballerina('You will dance, da!") and her training montage('you will shoot fluffy, da'). So that only leaves a little time for her first real mission ('you will steal the mircofilm, da') and maybe a mission montage(maybe set to the song She works hard for her money?). So to add in Hawkeye/Fury and such...well, you'd only have like 15 minutes of movie left.

It might work better to end the movie with her as an agent of evil, and have the post credit scene is where Fury hands Hakeye a file and says ''I have a new mission for you".

Then Black Widow 2: Along Came a Spider (or Tangled Webs) would focus more on the switching sides.

[The Glyphstone]

Devoting an entire movie to backstory for Black Widow and not at the minimum ending with her recruitment to Shield would be like...I dunno. Like having an entire movie about Steven Strange's studies at med school and his residency in hospital. Or an entire movie about Scott Lang's time in prison. They're parts of the character's pre-superhero backstory, that doesn't mean they need two hours of screentime devoted to it.

[Legato Endless]

Having Natasha spend half the film in ballerina school seems impossible to me. Not because that's necessarily a terrible idea, but that sounds like a film trying to be far more patient and cerebral than any MCU film has ever attempted. After two dozen films, Marvel's been consummately committed to keeping the scenes moving fast enough for the more attention deficient members of the audience.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Having Natasha spend half the film in ballerina school seems impossible to me. Not because that's necessarily a terrible idea, but that sounds like a film trying to be far more patient and cerebral than any MCU film has ever attempted.

It would also totally not be why I'd watch a Black Widow movie. That's like one of those horror prequels where the scary doctor is still a slightly disfunctional med student.

Gimme some cool action already. If I want Black Swan I'll watch Black Swan.

[RossN]

Having Natasha spend half the film in ballerina school seems impossible to me. Not because that's necessarily a terrible idea, but that sounds like a film trying to be far more patient and cerebral than any MCU film has ever attempted. After two dozen films, Marvel's been consummately committed to keeping the scenes moving fast enough for the more attention deficient members of the audience.

To be fair Natasha's lack of foibles (dorkiness if you will), which I brought up earlier already make her character very tonally different from other Marvel leads, so I'm struggling to see her fit the conventional MCU format to begin with.

[Darth Ultron]

Devoting an entire movie to backstory for Black Widow and not at the minimum ending with her recruitment to Shield would be like...I dunno. Like having an entire movie about Steven Strange's studies at med school and his residency in hospital. Or an entire movie about Scott Lang's time in prison. They're parts of the character's pre-superhero backstory, that doesn't mean they need two hours of screentime devoted to it.

To use another Marvel Example: Captain America. In the First Avenger, does cap join the Avengers or did hey save that for a later movie? How about Iron Man? How about Thor?

You don't ''have" to do the SHIELD stuff....and in a lot of ways it is better if they wait. Literally almost half of the movie will be the background origin that is standard for a superhero movie: ballerina life in Russia and the evil spy training. That is at least thirty minutes. Then you have to show her do her first mission and then show her do like a hundred other missions in a mission montage. Then you could do the SHIELD stuff...but you'd only have like twenty minutes of movie left. And that would really ruin the story as it would just be so rushed.


Having Natasha spend half the film in ballerina school seems impossible to me. Not because that's necessarily a terrible idea, but that sounds like a film trying to be far more patient and cerebral than any MCU film has ever attempted. After two dozen films, Marvel's been consummately committed to keeping the scenes moving fast enough for the more attention deficient members of the audience.

In the average Marvel origin movie, it does take at least half way through the movie before we see the hero fully. You get a lot of character stuff, often a 'pre hero' action bit, and a training montage. And that character stuff is important...remember the ''boring cerebral" bit in Captain America The First Avenger when Steve just talked to the doctor?

The worst way to make a movie would be to do the minute of ''one day there was a girl Natasha, and then she became the all powerful Black Widow" and just watch CGI spam fights for the rest of the movie.

[The Glyphstone]

To use another Marvel Example: Captain America. In the First Avenger, does cap join the Avengers or did hey save that for a later movie? How about Iron Man? How about Thor?


You completely missed the analogy then. It's not about 'joining the team', it's about 'becoming the hero(ine)'. That's what an origin story is, the process of the non-hero(ine) becoming the hero(ine). Wasting an entire movie on something that every other Marvel flick has condensed into 10-20 minutes or less is just bad storytelling. We need an entire movie about Black Widow's training and evil spy life the same way we need a movie about Doctor Strange's med school and career as an ******* neurosurgeon.

Or to use your example, Iron Man. Zero screen time is used showing Tony' childhood or how he became a billionaire genius playboy philanthropist. He just is and the movie rolls with it on its way to the interesting bits.

[Rodin]

You completely missed the analogy then. It's not about 'joining the team', it's about 'becoming the hero(ine)'. That's what an origin story is, the process of the non-hero(ine) becoming the hero(ine). Wasting an entire movie on something that every other Marvel flick has condensed into 10-20 minutes or less is just bad storytelling. We need an entire movie about Black Widow's training and evil spy life the same way we need a movie about Doctor Strange's med school and career as an ******* neurosurgeon.

Or to use your example, Iron Man. Zero screen time is used showing Tony' childhood or how he became a billionaire genius playboy philanthropist. He just is and the movie rolls with it on its way to the interesting bits.

We also have proof that you can start the character as a fully fledged Superhero and still do an origin story, courtesy of Spiderman: Homecoming. When we start the film he's a kid with powers playing at being a crimefighter. By the end of the movie, he's learned that whole "with great power comes great responsibility" bit and properly matured into Your Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman.

[Darth Ultron]

You completely missed the analogy then. It's not about 'joining the team', it's about 'becoming the hero(ine)'. That's what an origin story is, the process of the non-hero(ine) becoming the hero(ine). Wasting an entire movie on something that every other Marvel flick has condensed into 10-20 minutes or less is just bad storytelling. We need an entire movie about Black Widow's training and evil spy life the same way we need a movie about Doctor Strange's med school and career as an ******* neurosurgeon.

But your missing the focus?

Ballerina/Doctor lets say at least 10-15 minutes.

Training Montage-Dr. Strange sure had one. 15-30 minutes.

Did the movie you watch have Steven become Dr. Strange, Master of the Mystic Arts in less then 20 minutes? Because in my copy of Dr. Strange, at the twenty minute mark Steven is still just the wounded guy in New York.

So that is a good 20 minutes of character story. And then it's like 30 minutes of training...

[The Glyphstone]

But he's already a skilled doctor at the start of that montage. You dont need to make a movie about BW becoming a spy, is what im saying. You make a movie about her transition from evil spy to good spy, because that is the most important facet of her character as it relates to the universe. If you need a backstory sequence, have that be a series of missions where she is becoming more disillusioned with her loyalties. She goes entirely rogue at the 30min mark, right about when the 'training' would begin for another hero. She starts with her spy skills, the 'training montage' equivalent is her as a free agent 'training' to use those skills in the service of good, or at minimum in the service of herself. Boom, character development and skill advancement without wasting screen time.

[Legato Endless]

To be fair Natasha's lack of foibles (dorkiness if you will), which I brought up earlier already make her character very tonally different from other Marvel leads, so I'm struggling to see her fit the conventional MCU format to begin with.

I think it's a matter of how drastic one ranks the changes. To me, changing up the pacing would be two steps down from an MCU film without jokes. I can picture it, but it doesn't seem probable until the brand starts fizzing. Changing the tone or surface genre aesthetics is a lot easier because the MCU already has a plug-and-play formula.


To use another Marvel Example: Captain America. In the First Avenger, does cap join the Avengers or did hey save that for a later movie? How about Iron Man? How about Thor?

I don't think that's really equivalent. Natasha joining Shield signals her coming into her own. It's the same moment as when Rogers goes off to rescue the POWs or when Thor regains his zap-zap.


And that character stuff is important...remember the ''boring cerebral" bit in Captain America The First Avenger when Steve just talked to the doctor?

Honestly the most boring part of Cap 1 to me is when he's blowing up the Hydra bases without the faintest hint of dramatic stakes. The scenes with the Doctor are fine. It's only crime is being less likable than the mentor in the first Ironman. I fully agree the film has to setup elements to pay them off, like any good composition, I just don't think it'll be half the film. Strange has an unusually long act structure because it's doing a lot more weight lifting than most other MCU films. (Strange had to introduce and explain magic and it's associated subculture. The MCU's political structure of inept bureaucracies, laughing evil secret societies, and hyper motivated special agencies has already been introduced previously)


But he's already a skilled doctor at the start of that montage. You dont need to make a movie about BW becoming a spy, is what im saying. You make a movie about her transition from evil spy to good spy, because that is the most important facet of her character as it relates to the universe.

Similarly, Thor is already a skilled warrior when the first film opens. T'Challa is already equal to Rogers at the start of his film, and he's king by the end of Act 1. Neither film has a montage, it just has the protagonists learn to be less entitled after getting stripped of their prestige.

[RossN]

I think it's a matter of how drastic one ranks the changes. To me, changing up the pacing would be two steps down from an MCU film without jokes. I can picture it, but it doesn't seem probable until the brand starts fizzing. Changing the tone or surface genre aesthetics is a lot easier because the MCU already has a plug-and-play formula.

I think my issue is that I see tone as every bit as much part of the MCU formula as pacing.

Obviously there are differences within the MCU there - Ant-Man is far more comedic than The Winter Soldier for instance. That said the jokes at the heroes expense are key to keeping them human (or alien, robot or Norse divinity depending.)

Black Widow is by far the most serious main character in the MCU. That doesn't have anything to do with how good she is. There are smarter characters and there are more powerful characters and there those that like Doctor Strange are both. The difference is they tend to get treated to the odd custard pie in the face now and again - to use Doctor Strange again as an example, he's a extraordinarily brilliant man who bends the laws of the universe to his will... who at one stage is reduced to futilely running on the spot as an item of his own clothing pulls him back. He's also a guy with a huge ego who upon introducing himself to a teenager has the teen assume he's using his 'made up name'.

With Natasha though I'm really struggling to see how they can do something similar. She's snarky (like every other character) but otherwise she's played almost completely straight. That doesn't mean they'll make a bad film at all, but it does kick away a major plank of the MCU formula.

[Aotrs Commander]

Why do we even need it to be her backstory? Can't we just, I dunno, have a good old regular adventure? Prequels can be so tedious and overdone. I mean, we're already doing that with Carol, so...



And hey, just give her someone who is funny, so she can play foil. Worked for T'Challa, didn't it, and she's not as straight-laced as that, even.

(Say, Hunter, from Agents of SHIELD? Can it be him, please? Given as he didn't get his own show after all?)

[Darth Ultron]

But he's already a skilled doctor at the start of that montage. You dont need to make a movie about BW becoming a spy, is what im saying.

Right, the movie is about making him a Wizard.....but only after more then 20 minutes of character back story.



You make a movie about her transition from evil spy to good spy, because that is the most important facet of her character as it relates to the universe. .

In the origin movie, you need to set up the character first. That is the first 20-30 minutes...



character development and skill advancement without wasting screen time.

It is not a 'waste of time', it is telling a good story.


Why do we even need it to be her backstory? Can't we just, I dunno, have a good old regular adventure? Prequels can be so tedious and overdone. I mean, we're already doing that with Carol, so...


They have to do it, as prequels are over done.

And for a superhero, the origin movie is the basic first movie, see: Iron Man, Captain America, Dr. Strange, Ant Man, etc. To do the ''here is the hero, no questions, just watch the movie" is not the Marvel way. Though it was done in Spider Man: Homecoming....

Sure, they might do both: Black Widow fights a bad guy in the now, and she finds a golden fish necklace on him. And she looks at it and says ''oh no Dr. Evil is back".

Then cue the 30 or so minute flashback origin story.

Then come back to the present where she fights Dr Evil...again.

[The Glyphstone]

The thing is, Black Widow doesn't need to be set up in her first solo movie. She's been a secondary protagonist in two different movies (IM2, CA2) and an ensemble-lead protagonist in 4 movies (A1, A2, A2.5CW, A3) already. For every other super with the exceptions of Black Panther and Spiderman (Wasp debatably counts), their first solo movie was also their first-ever movie. The audience needed that origin story to learn who the character was, in addition to learning their powers - and since you're doing that anyways, you might as well see how they got them.

Widow is different, because we've taken care of all that. Anyone who is watching Marvel movies knows exactly who BW is, and more or less what her abilities are. She's already firmly established in the cast, so if anyone she is the person least in need of an 'origin story'. As DU noted, Spidey escaped the need for an origin-story movie; since Marvel has already set that precedent of breaking their own formula, Widow is a great candidate to do the same. Tell an original, interesting Widow story, but we don't need to hammer a square peg into a round hole simply because all the previous films had round pegs.

[AMFV]

Right, the movie is about making him a Wizard.....but only after more then 20 minutes of character back story.

Right, because the character had not been introduced prior to that moment.



In the origin movie, you need to set up the character first. That is the first 20-30 minutes...

Black Widow's "Origin" movie was Iron Man 2. They've already introduced the character.



It is not a 'waste of time', it is telling a good story.

Nope. It is telling a story that we know the end to already. And probably doing it badly. It could be possible to do it well, but that's the much riskier option and Marvel is good at avoiding risky options.



They have to do it, as prequels are over done.

Not in the MCU. We have a grand total of 2 movies set before other movies. One because of the snap which is fairly obvious and barely counts as a "prequel" since it is roughly contemporaneous. The other because they are bringing in a character that had not yet been introduced who is going to show up in a film next year.

Note: I'm not counting "The First Avenger" as a prequel since it is a different studio and because it too is a character introduction that occurs before any other films involving that character.



And for a superhero, the origin movie is the basic first movie, see: Iron Man, Captain America, Dr. Strange, Ant Man, etc. To do the ''here is the hero, no questions, just watch the movie" is not the Marvel way. Though it was done in Spider Man: Homecoming....

Sure, they might do both: Black Widow fights a bad guy in the now, and she finds a golden fish necklace on him. And she looks at it and says ''oh no Dr. Evil is back".

Then cue the 30 or so minute flashback origin story.

Then come back to the present where she fights Dr Evil...again.

The thing about those movies "Iron Man","Captain America" "Dr. Strange" and so on is that they were the FIRST introduction we had to the characters in question. The same with Marvel. We have had multiple movies to introduce us to Black Widow, so basically going back and retreading the ground to get her to where we know she will be is going to be very tricky to pull off. I doubt Marvel would do that.

I mean look at their movies examining characters who were introduced in other movies. Black Panther... did not feature the origin story and had the character start out powerful. Spiderman: Homecoming... did not feature an origin story and started with the character as we knew him. The Wasp... we didn't get her origin story either, no training montages nothing. Pretty much all characters who have been thoroughly introduced they have avoided retouching their origins and retreading ground.

This is good. I don't want to have to watch 10 minutes of Black Widow being brutalized as a child, and 35 minutes of her violently and amorally murdering people she doesn't like. I already like the character (reasonably well), and unless it's done very well that sort of thing is going to be terrible.

[Darth Ultron]

Right, because the character had not been introduced prior to that moment.

The character is there Steven Strange....he does not become Wizard Strange until the 1:30 mark (with only 15 minutes of movie left).



Black Widow's "Origin" movie was Iron Man 2. They've already introduced the character.

There was no origin. She is just there. There is the whole ballerina and Agent of Evil plot.



Nope. It is telling a story that we know the end to already. And probably doing it badly. It could be possible to do it well, but that's the much riskier option and Marvel is good at avoiding risky options.

But, again, we don't know the MCU's spin on her origin. She was a ballerina and Agent of Evil and switched sides to join SHIELD. There is lots of story missing.




Not in the MCU. We have a grand total of 2 movies set before other movies. One because of the snap which is fairly obvious and barely counts as a "prequel" since it is roughly contemporaneous. The other because they are bringing in a character that had not yet been introduced who is going to show up in a film next year.

The Phase 4 or whatever seems to have a 'past' focus....like Captain Marvel.




The thing about those movies "Iron Man","Captain America" "Dr. Strange" and so on is that they were the FIRST introduction we had to the characters in question. The same with Marvel. We have had multiple movies to introduce us to Black Widow, so basically going back and retreading the ground to get her to where we know she will be is going to be very tricky to pull off. I doubt Marvel would do that.

Right, they should have done the movie years ago......but the Black Widow is not a big, well known character. So Marvel stuck with the classic well known characters and made a cinematic universe....now they can go back and do other characters.




This is good. I don't want to have to watch 10 minutes of Black Widow being brutalized as a child, and 35 minutes of her violently and amorally murdering people she doesn't like. I already like the character (reasonably well), and unless it's done very well that sort of thing is going to be terrible.

Well, you won't get that in a Marvel movie anyway....

You will get more: Ballerina Natasha tries to be a good dancer as it's her mom's dream. Then like her dad losses a bet to ''Demtri" and takes Natasha as ''payment''. Then her parents get ''sent into a gulag" and ''taken care off". Then full of anger and hate she becomes the Black Widow....you know so she can learn the name of the bad guy that took out her parents (spoiler: it's Demtri...aka...the Red Guardian).

As the Black Widow is a hero...and Disney is for kids...I doubt will will see much of her ''murder" anyone....but sure, she can kill like mook soldiers and assorted bad guys.

Unless maybe they go with making her a Super Soldier like Captain America (or make her like 100 years old so Captain America and Wolverine could save her from Hydra during World War II).

[The Glyphstone]

You're insisting that BW's solo movie will be bad because the only BW solo movie you can conceive of is the worst, most cliched by-the-numbers origin story possible. That's a self-fulfilling logic loop there.

[Darth Ultron]

You're insisting that BW's solo movie will be bad because the only BW solo movie you can conceive of is the worst, most cliched by-the-numbers origin story possible. That's a self-fulfilling logic loop there.

I never said it would be bad.

And, well, ''by the numbers" is the Marvel way. Like remember back to Spider Man, there is the whole wrestling bit. I knew people that said it was dumb....but my answer was: Well it was in Spider Man #1.

If Marvel wants to hire me, I'd write a good origin story. Now guess we can't do the Cap and Wolverine save Black Widow from Hydra in World War II.....but I still like the story.

So it will be in the early 90's Cold War....and have Super Patriot and the Puma, both as American secret agents(or SHIELD). And they save her from Hydra. But Natasha would still be a girl(born in '84 remember) so she would not know about the Hydra part. Maybe even have the two heroes die saving her...to give her that first spark of Freedom. Then she grows up to become the Black Widow, but as a double agent.

[AMFV]

The character is there Steven Strange....he does not become Wizard Strange until the 1:30 mark (with only 15 minutes of movie left).

No, he becomes a wizard significantly prior to that point, with a lot of talent. He doesn't become a powerful wizard till near the end, but he's already mastering incantations that are far beyond beginner level within the first hour. In fact by the 50 minute mark he is using proficiently an infinity stone, something that VERY few people are capable of. I would say that he has reached very nearly full power by the midpoint of the movie.



There was no origin. She is just there. There is the whole ballerina and Agent of Evil plot.

Which nobody is really interested in. In fact the parts about Black Widow's past were largely considered to be the WORST parts of Age of Ultron, which is widely considered one of the worst movies in the current MCU run.



But, again, we don't know the MCU's spin on her origin. She was a ballerina and Agent of Evil and switched sides to join SHIELD. There is lots of story missing.

But not really good story, they could tell the story in flashbacks in her movie, and that would probably be the best way, to allude to it rather than to actually explore her being an assassin. We don't like movies where we watch heroes do morally reprehensible things.



The Phase 4 or whatever seems to have a 'past' focus....like Captain Marvel.

Captain Marvel is NOT phase 4.

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Phase_Three



Right, they should have done the movie years ago......but the Black Widow is not a big, well known character. So Marvel stuck with the classic well known characters and made a cinematic universe....now they can go back and do other characters.

Black Widow WAS not a big well known character, she certainly is now. And as such introducing her at this point would seem a little insulting to me at best.




Well, you won't get that in a Marvel movie anyway....

You will get more: Ballerina Natasha tries to be a good dancer as it's her mom's dream. Then like her dad losses a bet to ''Demtri" and takes Natasha as ''payment''. Then her parents get ''sent into a gulag" and ''taken care off". Then full of anger and hate she becomes the Black Widow....you know so she can learn the name of the bad guy that took out her parents (spoiler: it's Demtri...aka...the Red Guardian).

Also from what we've seen in Age of Ultron, she was never a ballerina and was being trained as a secret spy super soldier from a very young age. So they're discarding that bit of comic lore, and it turns out that in the comics she wasn't a ballerina, she believed (falsely) that she was. So that puts even less story for you there, bud.



As the Black Widow is a hero...and Disney is for kids...I doubt will will see much of her ''murder" anyone....but sure, she can kill like mook soldiers and assorted bad guys.

The Black Widow, before she worked for SHIELD was an assassin and not a nice one, I don't want to see that and it would be a profoundly dark movie. I expect that Marvel will have learned from the DCEU, we don't want to see villain movies, they're boring and unpleasant.



Unless maybe they go with making her a Super Soldier like Captain America (or make her like 100 years old so Captain America and Wolverine could save her from Hydra during World War II).

They did that. She was a child in 1928, in the comics at least. And in Age of Ultron we see that she is much older than she appears.

[TeChameleon]

Yeh, an origin movie for Black Widow would be intensely pointless at this stage.

For that matter, I don't know that a straight spy movie starring her would be a great way to go, either. Ideally, her movie would be rooted in the larger Marvel (Cinematic) Universe, complete with Norse deities flying around, rich white party boys in overpowered tin underwear, cabals of wizards who have watched Inception way too often, giant green rage monsters, leftover magic Nazi cults, recently-defrosted super solders and all.

The Bourne Identity starring ScarJo could be fun, but it's hardly the best that the MCU could do.

[Rodin]

If I was to do a Black Widow movie, I'd probably have her trying to deal with some of the black-market alien tech that's out there. While she's on the mission, she encounters another member of the Red Room, one of her former friends/rivals. The focus then becomes an exploration of her backstory through how she's changed since her Red Room days. By confronting her past and rejecting it we see her come to terms with the red in her ledger. Add Hawkeye in as a present day friend for her to to contrast her relationship with the Red Room agent. He also provides a good way to get banter going to lighten the tone of an otherwise dark movie.

A bit cliche, perhaps, but better than doing a prequel. I'm not all that bothered with how she came to join SHIELD, but her character is so tightly bound to her past that you pretty much have to explore it somehow in order to get character development.

[Peelee]

You're insisting that BW's solo movie will be bad because the only BW solo movie you can conceive of is the worst, most cliched by-the-numbers origin story possible. That's a self-fulfilling logic loop there.

On the one hand, I really don't want to overuse the Shocko the Elf gif. On the other, if there was ever a time for it...

[The Glyphstone]

And can we take a moment to ponder the ridiculousness of Natasha being born in 1984 anyways, when that would mean she was all of seven years old when the Soviet Union fell, taking the KGB and the Red Room with it. Even if the FSB simply took over running the RRA seamlessly, that still puts her 'graduation' somewhere around 2000. With Avengers 1 in 2012, that's a remarkably small window for her to have a career as an assassin, particularly since WS's timeline also means she was working for SHIELD at least as early as 2009; the Red Room has definitely deteriorated since Peggy Carter's era in quality if their indoctrination can't even hold an agent's loyalty for less than ten years.

Heck, just jump it back to 1974 and the dates add up a lot better. She's graduating just as the Soviets are starting to disintegrate, leaving her as a mercenary assassin without a country to serve; only one set of useful skills and no particular compunction about where or use to use them on.

[RossN]

And can we take a moment to ponder the ridiculousness of Natasha being born in 1984 anyways, when that would mean she was all of seven years old when the Soviet Union fell, taking the KGB and the Red Room with it. Even if the FSB simply took over running the RRA seamlessly, that still puts her 'graduation' somewhere around 2000. With Avengers 1 in 2012, that's a remarkably small window for her to have a career as an assassin, particularly since WS's timeline also means she was working for SHIELD at least as early as 2009; the Red Room has definitely deteriorated since Peggy Carter's era in quality if their indoctrination can't even hold an agent's loyalty for less than ten years.

Heck, just jump it back to 1974 and the dates add up a lot better. She's graduating just as the Soviets are starting to disintegrate, leaving her as a mercenary assassin without a country to serve; only one set of useful skills and no particular compunction about where or use to use them on.

I thinks that's just an unavoidable side effect of using a character who is played by a woman in her late twenties through her early thirties. When she was first introduced I think it might have been possible to follow the comics and say she was older than she looked because of [weird science] reasons but having seen Natasha established as a relatively normal human in multiple films - a very badass one but still human compared with the metahumans she hangs out with - I don't think it is viable to run that angle anymore.

[The Glyphstone]

I thinks that's just an unavoidable side effect of using a character who is played by a woman in her late twenties through her early thirties. When she was first introduced I think it might have been possible to follow the comics and say she was older than she looked because of [weird science] reasons but having seen Natasha established as a relatively normal human in multiple films - a very badass one but still human compared with the metahumans she hangs out with - I don't think it is viable to run that angle anymore.

Eh, I think it'd be easy enough to say she got a reverse-engineered version of the super serum, one that slowed her aging but only gave a fraction of the other physical benefits. Only Captain America, Red Skull, and Bucky are Original Recipe super-soldiers, but I can't imagine the Russians/Soviets didn't at least try to develop their own formula.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, comic timelines get a bit wonky sometimes. The whole gradually drifting origin stories(save for Cap, of course), throw a lot of things out of sorts.

Original comics nick fury would be pretty old by now. I guess maybe super science or something? I'll be curious to see how they address it in the MCU, but yeah, backstories can be messy. I wonder if we'll get more background on why the USSR was firing a nuke at the US(ant man films). Definitely got to be more to that than what we know.

On a related note, it's got to be a major failing of the US gov that they didn't reactivate Falcon's entire team to have a whole set of Falcons, yeah? Guy was part of a squadron. Sure, he might be B-tier in power for superheroes, but his tech doesn't come from anywhere exotic so far as we know. I don't think anything keeps them from deploying squads of Falcon-equivalents.

[Rogar Demonblud]

They did that. She was a child in 1928, in the comics at least. And in Age of Ultron we see that she is much older than she appears.

Canonically (as much as such exists in a medium with constant retcons and reboots), she was born the day it was announced in her village that the Imperial family had been liquidated--hence her last name, in celebration of such a victory.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, she's as old as Steve in the comics, and IIRC explicitly does have a Russian super-serum variant.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I wonder if we'll get more background on why the USSR was firing a nuke at the US (Ant Man films). Definitely got to be more to that than what we know.

It was explicitly stated to be militant separatists in the movie. I suppose we could be told they're trying to manufacture an incident to keep Moscow busy or something.


On a related note, it's got to be a major failing of the US gov that they didn't reactivate Falcon's entire team to have a whole set of Falcons, yeah? Guy was part of a squadron. Sure, he might be B-tier in power for superheroes, but his tech doesn't come from anywhere exotic so far as we know. I don't think anything keeps them from deploying squads of Falcon-equivalents.

From what we're told in the movie, the military tried out a bunch of people, found two who could use the wing-pack, and one of them got snuffed by a RPG hit. The project was then mothballed (probably for cost). No squadron involved. And now that Stark has redesigned the wing-pack, the original is massively outclassed. Although I suppose there could be a clause in the Sokovia Accords that force Tony to surrender all his patents to the government.

[Tyndmyr]

It was explicitly stated to be militant separatists in the movie. I suppose we could be told they're trying to manufacture an incident to keep Moscow busy or something.

Yeah, but there's gotta be more story there, right? Maybe a cool overlap story for a tale set in the past? Between Cap's backstory, Old Man Stark, Hank Pym, Winter Soldier, etc...we're starting to develop a fairly rich past for the Avengers. Could easily be some tales set way back.


From what we're told in the movie, the military tried out a bunch of people, found two who could use the wing-pack, and one of them got snuffed by a RPG hit. The project was then mothballed (probably for cost). No squadron involved. And now that Stark has redesigned the wing-pack, the original is massively outclassed. Although I suppose there could be a clause in the Sokovia Accords that force Tony to surrender all his patents to the government.

They should probably break that idea back out again if Falcon is effective. Granted, he's probably one of the lowest tier avengers, but even so. Worth reactivating.

Can't see Stark giving up his tech, though. That's basically the entire plot of Iron Man 2.

[The Glyphstone]

There was the Agent Carter Netflix series, which filled in some of the old material.

And thinking of that, there's another reason to discourage a cliched recruitment+training based BW story...because we've already seen it. The Dottie Underwood arc went into some detail on her training - child abuse, ballerina stances (not dancing, just holding the poses for long periods as physical exercise), and best-friend-murdering included. A lot of people would get rather upset with Marvel if they billed us a big-budget BW movie and just recycled the Underwood plot with a different actress/child, when they could be adding something new to the verse instead.

[Tyndmyr]

That's fair. And while the MCU-tv shows are okayish, I guess, they're not really something I want to see reworked into films. It's a very different feel.

Random aside for MCU thing that's been bugging me timeline/age wise. Remember when Thor said "I'm 1,500 years old, and I've killed twice that many enemies"?

I dunno, I just feel like a rate of 2/year doesn't really match up with what we know of Thor. Was he a late bloomer when it came to murder?

[Legato Endless]

I think it's more he was born in a era of relative peace. He came after the more chaotic times of the war with the Dark Elves, Surtur's defeat, Hela's solidification of Odin's empire, and he was only 1 year old when Odin beat the Frost Giants. He's gotten into some skirmishes and brawls as he grew up, but he probably hasn't fought in a real campaign before the MCU starts. Hence his rather flippant and trigger happy feelings about upsetting the peace in Thor 1. Alternatively, Thor is not a noted mathematician among his people.

[RossN]

Eh, I think it'd be easy enough to say she got a reverse-engineered version of the super serum, one that slowed her aging but only gave a fraction of the other physical benefits. Only Captain America, Red Skull, and Bucky are Original Recipe super-soldiers, but I can't imagine the Russians/Soviets didn't at least try to develop their own formula.

That would have been fine in Iron Man 2 or the first Avengers flick but I don't think you can really pull that sort of thing now that she's so familiar to the audience and (along with Hawkeye) presented as the normal one in a world of superbeings. Among other things it actually makes her seem less impressive - even if it 'only' stops aging.

[Kitten Champion]

They stated her age in Winter Soldier in the sequence with Zola in the bunker, she's around 33.

[Darth Ultron]

but I can't imagine the Russians/Soviets didn't at least try to develop their own formula.

The MCU has stated more then once that every government wants super solders. Agent Colson even gives this as the reason for Dr. Banner's experiments. It's is also a huge plot point in Agents of SHIELD.




And thinking of that, there's another reason to discourage a cliched recruitment+training based BW story..

Also, see the movie: Red Scorpion.

[The Glyphstone]

The MCU has stated more then once that every government wants super solders. Agent Colson even gives this as the reason for Dr. Banner's experiments. It's is also a huge plot point in Agents of SHIELD.



Also, see the movie: Red Scorpion.

The Dolph Lundgren movie? Aside from being about Soviets, Im not seeing the connection.

[AMFV]

The Dolph Lundgren movie? Aside from being about Soviets, Im not seeing the connection.

I think he's trying to present a film that matches his narrative description of the evil person who turns good. But despite that fitting it, it's not really similar in that the main character is not as reprehensible as Natasha was supposed to have been. Which is the problem with showing that, either they'll flanderize Natasha or they'll have to show her doing truly terrible things.

[Darth Ultron]

The Dolph Lundgren movie? Aside from being about Soviets, Im not seeing the connection.

Er...the Red Sparrow movie.....it has a ballerina spy!

[AMFV]

Er...the Red Sparrow movie.....it has a ballerina spy!

Wasn't that not a tremendous box office success? And didn't it get mixed reviews? I mean it's unlikely that Marvel will use that one as a template given how risk averse they typically are.

[The Glyphstone]

Er...the Red Sparrow movie.....it has a ballerina spy!

And now you have me picturing Dolph Lundgren as a ballerina spy.:smallconfused: It's like Vin Diesel's Tooth Fairy movie, but somehow worse.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm pretty sure that was The Rock in the Tooth Fairy movie. He does like doing slightly goofy comedies every so often.

[Kyberwulf]

See.. this is what I am talking about. I don't get why people are trying to pretzel in Black Widow into a movie. It would be a lot easier to just make a different movie.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm pretty sure that was The Rock in the Tooth Fairy movie. He does like doing slightly goofy comedies every so often.

Right, it was The Rock. It was still awful.

[Rodin]

See.. this is what I am talking about. I don't get why people are trying to pretzel in Black Widow into a movie. It would be a lot easier to just make a different movie.

Other than Darth Ultron, I don't really see how anyone is trying to pretzel Black Widow into anything too complicated. She fits easily into any number of Super Spy or Heist movie archetypes, and it's pretty easy to add in the patented MCU comedy and superhero SciFi to either formula. If the concern is Black Widow being too serious a character, give her another hero (like Hawkeye or Banner) to be the straight woman to.

And that's just assuming they stick with the easy stuff a dope like me can think of.

[Darth Ultron]

See.. this is what I am talking about. I don't get why people are trying to pretzel in Black Widow into a movie. It would be a lot easier to just make a different movie.

It is easy to make a movie with a popular actress, a popular character...and a character that has a back story you can use already made.

Both the comics, and the MCU have all ready established the ballerina, spy assassin, then turning ''good''.



Other than Darth Ultron, I don't really see how anyone is trying to pretzel Black Widow into anything too complicated.

Yea, just me saying ''gee I hope they use some of that like 50 years of Marvel history to make a good story for the movie and don't just slap together a random movie and write 'Black Widow' on it.



If the concern is Black Widow being too serious a character, give her another hero (like Hawkeye or Banner) to be the straight woman to.

Well, I think Black Widow should be a much more serious movie. Yes jokes are great, and Marvel has shown they can do humor well....but you don't need to have it in every movie.

A Black Widow movie is a good way for Marvel to show some range. Can they make super hero movies: yes. Can they make comedies: yes. So, how about anything else?

And I think it will be a prequel, so you can't have the ''famous Avengers" in it for that reason. But also, you don't want to have a big star pal in a solo movie: they might over shadow the Black Widow. Even if you were to make a modern day random spy movie you don't want her companion to be like The Rock; because then it would be a Rock movie(oh with a black widow, whatever).

[The Glyphstone]

It is easy to make a movie with a popular actress, a popular character...and a character that has a back story you can use already made.

Both the comics, and the MCU have all ready established the ballerina, spy assassin, then turning ''good''

Yea, just me saying ''gee I hope they use some of that like 50 years of Marvel history to make a good story for the movie and don't just slap together a random movie and write 'Black Widow' on it.


But you're the only one insisting all of that needs to be recapped and shown on-screen. We're arguing instead to have it relegated to a few lines of dialogue or a 30-second flashback, saving the rest of the runtime for something original.





Well, I think Black Widow should be a much more serious movie. Yes jokes are great, and Marvel has shown they can do humor well....but you don't need to have it in every movie.

A Black Widow movie is a good way for Marvel to show some range. Can they make super hero movies: yes. Can they make comedies: yes. So, how about anything else?

And I think it will be a prequel, so you can't have the ''famous Avengers" in it for that reason. But also, you don't want to have a big star pal in a solo movie: they might over shadow the Black Widow. Even if you were to make a modern day random spy movie you don't want her companion to be like The Rock; because then it would be a Rock movie(oh with a black widow, whatever).

This is how I'd do it too. I brought it up briefly, but the time when Hawkeye was sent to kill her, but instead convinced her to join SHIELD? Do that story as a thriller with heavy overtones of a monster movie. Widow is in some European city...eh, let's say Prague because I was playing Deus Ex recently. She's trying to kill some important ambassador or wealthy businessperson, but at the same time is being hunted by another assassin. Keep the 'bad guy' in shadows, silhouettes, brief glimpses between attacks - not to preserve dramatic mystery, because everyone and their grandmother knows it's Hawkeye - but to stay with the genre theme.

If we need a moral sop, her target is also corrupt and involved with slave traffickers or something, so he can die at the end. But for most of the runtime, it's Widow trying to kill them while the mysterious counter-assassin is (as far as she knows) trying to kill her.

[Peelee]

And now you have me picturing Dolph Lundgren as a ballerina spy.:smallconfused: It's like Vin Diesel's Tooth Fairy movie, but somehow worse.


Right, it was The Rock. It was still awful.

You may have been confusing it with the Vin Diesel babysitter movie. Also, I now believe you habitually go see terrible movies.:smallwink:

[The Glyphstone]

You may have been confusing it with the Vin Diesel babysitter movie. Also, I now believe you habitually go see terrible movies.:smallwink:

No, I'm just a complete sucker for anything involving the Rock. That's probably why I watched the babysitter movie, because I thought it had him in it but it turned out to be Vin Diesel.

I have watched some pretty awful movies in my time though, just for the fun of saying 'I watched this'. Robot Jox is on that list, and it is not the worst of them.

[Peelee]

No, I'm just a complete sucker for anything involving the Rock.

OK, let's be fair here, he's really fun to watch. Who's not a sucker for anything involving him?

[The Glyphstone]

OK, let's be fair here, he's really fun to watch. Who's not a sucker for anything involving him?

He just seems to always enjoy what he's doing. Even in the really awful garbage, he's clearly having a blast no matter how dumb or cheesy the script might be; the only thing I've ever seen him do that came across as phoning it in was The Scorpion King, right at the start of his post-wrestling film career. Even in DOOM he is chewing the scenery like it's made out of bubblegum.

[Darth Ultron]

But you're the only one insisting all of that needs to be recapped and shown on-screen. We're arguing instead to have it relegated to a few lines of dialogue or a 30-second flashback, saving the rest of the runtime for something original.

It's more I'm saying they can't resist that. Sure they could take the script of Mission Impossible 10, cross out 'Ethan Hunt' and write 'Black Widow', have Scarlet pose and say a couple of lines...and do like 500 hours of CGI spam work...and, bam, an ''original" Black Widow movie.



If we need a moral sop, her target is also corrupt and involved with slave traffickers or something, so he can die at the end. But for most of the runtime, it's Widow trying to kill them while the mysterious counter-assassin is (as far as she knows) trying to kill her.

Spy vs Spy....that might be too much action. A good twist could have the 'target' be a good guy, that Black Widow is told is a bad guy, so she kills him....and that is the shock that turns her(even better if you toss in that also kills her parents and the bad guys are just like ''sacrifices have to be made, da".)

But, really, I think they will be stuck on ''why is she a spy" and they will feel that they ''must" give her a big, dramatic origin.

[RossN]

Well, I think Black Widow should be a much more serious movie. Yes jokes are great, and Marvel has shown they can do humor well....but you don't need to have it in every movie.

A Black Widow movie is a good way for Marvel to show some range. Can they make super hero movies: yes. Can they make comedies: yes. So, how about anything else?

And I think it will be a prequel, so you can't have the ''famous Avengers" in it for that reason. But also, you don't want to have a big star pal in a solo movie: they might over shadow the Black Widow. Even if you were to make a modern day random spy movie you don't want her companion to be like The Rock; because then it would be a Rock movie(oh with a black widow, whatever).

I don't think anyone has been arguing that a Black Widow flick should be an and out and out comedy. One of the huge strengths of the MCU has been their ability to weave humour and pathos together, often with tragedy and there is quite a spectrum between Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. As I've mentioned before Captain America is quite a serious character and very definitely not a Star Lord style doofus. Yet there are still a few chuckles and adorkable moments at his expense.

Ideally I would like to see Natasha given some foibles to keep her human and honestly I think it would deepen her character a little and give Scarlett Johansson more range. Unfortunately (IMO) she's been presented as such a 'straight' character it's hard to imagine that happening.

I mean even James Bond gets jabs at his expense from M, Monnypenny and Q.

[Legato Endless]

While I don't mind a prequel, I don't see a reason one couldn't do Natasha in the present. Getting a more focused examination on where she is now after all the chaos of joining shield and the events of the MCU where her past came to light, being a fugitive, surviving the population purge, unpacking all that implied baggage would be weightier than your usual spy turn. To me, part of what would make a Black Widow film interesting it's more a darker character piece than the average MCU entry.

She's also one of the best justified characters for excluding whoever you want from her movie. Why aren't the other Avengers here? The plot involves infiltration, subtlety and manipulation, you know, the things most of the rest of the team isn't exactly overflowing in.


OK, let's be fair here, he's really fun to watch. Who's not a sucker for anything involving him?

Well there is that hullabaloo about him playing John Henry...

[Rodin]

I don't think anyone has been arguing that a Black Widow flick should be an and out and out comedy. One of the huge strengths of the MCU has been their ability to weave humour and pathos together, often with tragedy and there is quite a spectrum between Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy 2. As I've mentioned before Captain America is quite a serious character and very definitely not a Star Lord style doofus. Yet there are still a few chuckles and adorkable moments at his expense.

Ideally I would like to see Natasha given some foibles to keep her human and honestly I think it would deepen her character a little and give Scarlett Johansson more range. Unfortunately (IMO) she's been presented as such a 'straight' character it's hard to imagine that happening.

I mean even James Bond gets jabs at his expense from M, Monnypenny and Q.

This is really why I want Hawkeye to be in it, and for it to be set in the modern day rather than pre-SHIELD. Both characters shine when playing off each other, and it provides for an opportunity for humor even if it's in the "graveyard humor" style of snarking at each other about how screwed they are this time. Hawkeye himself is a relatively serious character so it's not like things would derail into slapstick. Marvel has proven they can do small scale team-ups without the primary losing focus - Winter Soldier is the perfect example here, with Cap, Widow, and Falcon all working in tandem.

Hawkeye is also ideal for the introducing of foibles - he's known her for years, and can rib her about some of it for the funny stuff and knows her well enough to talk about serious issues to deepen her character.

[Tvtyrant]

Plus BW has some very funny lines. The part in winter soldier where she makes out with Cap to hide then from hydra then teases him, the scene about the hammer in age of ultron, etc. She can be dead snarky when she feels like it.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The big plot that makes the most sense, and which would be fun to see, would be a Mission: Impossible style story where Nat goes out on a mission, things get compromised with SHIELD, and she has to go rogue. Unfortunately, Winter Soldier basically gobbled up 90% of that plot terrain and SHIELD isn't a thing.

My runner-up idea, which I'd love to see, would basically be a cannibalized version of Matt Fraction's Hawkeye run, but with Nat in the role of Hawkeye instead. She's on a mission for whatever organization is taking care of the world from the shadows now, and she gets slammed with a ton of injuries. She's laid up in a safehouse, and let's keep the setting as NYC. Clint shows up to give her a hard time but also to support her, and the superspy has to contend with being totally out of her element, working with normal people and getting involved in low-level stuff.

Might not sell, though, since it's mostly a character piece and not about the action, although since she's gradually recovering throughout the movie, you could give her a big action setpiece against the Big Bad who's been moving in on the neighborhood that she's come to call a home.

It's highly unlikely, and probably veers too far off-course from the canon to be considered, but I think it would be an interesting role-reversal to have Nat pushed into the role of the normie. It would also let them flesh out Hawkeye's less serious side.

[Rogar Demonblud]

This is how I'd do it too. I brought it up briefly, but the time when Hawkeye was sent to kill her, but instead convinced her to join SHIELD? Do that story as a thriller with heavy overtones of a monster movie. Widow is in some European city...eh, let's say Prague because I was playing Deus Ex recently. She's trying to kill some important ambassador or wealthy businessperson, but at the same time is being hunted by another assassin. Keep the 'bad guy' in shadows, silhouettes, brief glimpses between attacks - not to preserve dramatic mystery, because everyone and their grandmother knows it's Hawkeye - but to stay with the genre theme.

If we need a moral sop, her target is also corrupt and involved with slave traffickers or something, so he can die at the end. But for most of the runtime, it's Widow trying to kill them while the mysterious counter-assassin is (as far as she knows) trying to kill her.

For enhanced MCU continuity, the guy she's hunting is HYDRA. An analyst at SHIELD (Sitwell?) figures out who she's after, and they send Hawkeye after her because, as far as HYDRA is concerned, it's a win-win situation. Either Hawkeye gets rid of a rogue agent who won't play HYDRA's game, or Black Widow kills a loyal agent who won't play HYDRA's game. Bonus play if it keeps their asset alive, but if he's gotten sloppy enough to be found small loss if he dies.

[Darth Ultron]

The big plot that makes the most sense, and which would be fun to see, would be a Mission: Impossible style story where Nat goes out on a mission, things get compromised with SHIELD, and she has to go rogue. Unfortunately, Winter Soldier basically gobbled up 90% of that plot terrain and SHIELD isn't a thing.

I don't think they would want to set the movie after Infinity War part 2 though. After all Black Widow and others might not make it.

They could do it somewhere between Avengers and Infinity War, they do have years to fill.

And SHIELD did come back in ..Age of Ultron..and the Agents of SHIELD TV show.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't think they would want to set the movie after Infinity War part 2 though. After all Black Widow and others might not make it.

They could do it somewhere between Avengers and Infinity War, they do have years to fill.

And SHIELD did come back in ..Age of Ultron..and the Agents of SHIELD TV show.

I think that's why everyone here is discussing pre-IW2 plots, because we have no idea what or who might still be around after.

If we can speculate on possible post-IW plots, there's another option I could see happening - splice the Marvel stock formula into the romantic comedy genre by sending Natasha and Bruce on a vacation, ostensibly to see if they can actually make a relationship work. And how Hulk fits into said relationship, because by IW it's clear he has become a fully developed personality instead of just a rage-driven berserker. They end up in the middle of a plot by Stage 4 Villain/minions of such, comedy and action and HULK SMASH ensue.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If it's going to be a prequel there might be something to say for setting it in a transitional period.

The Incredible Hulk did not do the origin story, because it knew we all still remembered the important bits of it from that movie it's totally not a sequel to. I agree with the people here saying we've heard enough about Black Widows origins from the other movies that the same now applies to her. But where, when and how she went from evil to good is a different matter.

With this concept Black Widow is already a fun to watch superspy character, working for the highest bidder after the complete collapse of the evil organisation that trained her. She has a snarky Han Solo/Lara Croft/The Transporter vibe to her. She's not here out of the kindness of her heart, but it's not her goal in life to kick all puppies either. But when faces from her past resurface to steal some super well guarded artifact or maybe even capture and super-hypnotize her to steal it for them, cheesy as that may be, she finds herself bumping into an unlikely ally, either Hawkeye or someone else they can kill near the end of this movie (or not, but the point of a new character would be that you don't know). Now she must work together with the forces of good to save her own skin, but ones that's done, the ballet trainer themed villain had her face melted off and Widow wants to walk away from it all she grows a conscience and reluctantly chooses to turn that Millenium Falcon around ones more and help save the world as well. The movie ends with her walking off into the sunset alone, but we all know the seeds of her future have been planted.

I figure that would be a prequel that could be fun. It doesn't hold back on the action, just on the heroic intent behind it.

[Kyberwulf]

You know, it might be a better idea to wait until the dust... heh hehe too soon?... settles on Infinity War. I think there is some room for her character to change after that. Currently her characterization is to set for anything now. Anything before isn't all that interesting. IT wouldn't be that interesting. After Infinity War, I think her world would be sufficiently rocked.

She could fall back on old habits after all her current friends .. whatever. I can see working on something after that?

[Devonix]

I'd be shocked if she didn't make it through Infinity War. Hell I'd be shocked by any of the actual deaths sticking. Doesn't seem like the way they'd want to cap off this big marvel experiment. Having kids crying in the audience because you killed characters they like, Brought them back, and then killed them again.

We might get one death at most. And trust me it's not gonna be Black Widow.

[Rodin]

I'd be shocked if she didn't make it through Infinity War. Hell I'd be shocked by any of the actual deaths sticking. Doesn't seem like the way they'd want to cap off this big marvel experiment. Having kids crying in the audience because you killed characters they like, Brought them back, and then killed them again.

We might get one death at most. And trust me it's not gonna be Black Widow.

I dunno, a lot of the actors are out of contract after it. We know Chris Evans is going, and I'd be surprised if we don't get at least one or two others deciding to cap their Marvel career while the movies are at their height. Infinity War is likely to be the biggest conflict for some time as it will take them time to set up whatever comes next.

For example, if Tom Hiddleston decides he's done with Loki you can just say that the retcon only goes back to the snap and then he stays dead.

There are a few characters who we know have upcoming movies who are likely safe. Other than that, I don't think we can say.

[Devonix]

I dunno, a lot of the actors are out of contract after it. We know Chris Evans is going, and I'd be surprised if we don't get at least one or two others deciding to cap their Marvel career while the movies are at their height. Infinity War is likely to be the biggest conflict for some time as it will take them time to set up whatever comes next.

For example, if Tom Hiddleston decides he's done with Loki you can just say that the retcon only goes back to the snap and then he stays dead.

There are a few characters who we know have upcoming movies who are likely safe. Other than that, I don't think we can say.

I'd say it's more likely to get a character like Cap, riding off into t he sunset than it is for him to actually die. This is a Disney big budget movie with a huge child demographic. None of them want a case of kids crying in the isles like he's Optimus Prime.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd be shocked if she didn't make it through Infinity War. Hell I'd be shocked by any of the actual deaths sticking. Doesn't seem like the way they'd want to cap off this big marvel experiment. Having kids crying in the audience because you killed characters they like, Brought them back, and then killed them again.

We might get one death at most. And trust me it's not gonna be Black Widow.

Well, it does seem the Marvel Plan might be:

1.Introduce and use all the Big Name Classic Heroes
2.Kill them all off in dramatic ways and/or ''retire'' them
3.Introduce all the New, Young, Politically Correct and Diverse Heroes

And they will keep the character templates. So we get an Asian American Iron Lady, An African American Cap'in America, Girl Thor, Native American She Hulk and a Hispanic American Black Widow.

[Devonix]

Well, it does seem the Marvel Plan might be:

1.Introduce and use all the Big Name Classic Heroes
2.Kill them all off in dramatic ways and/or ''retire'' them
3.Introduce all the New, Young, Politically Correct and Diverse Heroes

And they will keep the character templates. So we get an Asian American Iron Lady, An African American Cap'in America, Girl Thor, Native American She Hulk and a Hispanic American Black Widow.

Where have you seen evidence of this?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'd love to see the MCU takes on the legacy characters, but that's not really the discussion at hand.

If BW isn't intended to survive, it would be really bizarre timing for them to do a BW movie. Like, what, do a prequel movie and segue back into her demise? It wouldn't contribute anything to the metaplot and the characterization would be wasted.

[The Glyphstone]

Where have you seen evidence of this?

I'm pretty sure that question could not be more rhetorical.

[Legato Endless]

Ignoring my skepticism that Marvel is following an agenda that bears anything beyond a superficial similarity to that plan, I'd be astonished if Phase 4 is made up of legacy heroes. Cap's mantle getting handed down seems plausible, anyone else would come off as derivative to a wider audience. There's a big enough pool of characters Marvel hasn't touched to plumb for material for the future without 'replacing' current icons.


I'd love to see the MCU takes on the legacy characters, but that's not really the discussion at hand.

If BW isn't intended to survive, it would be really bizarre timing for them to do a BW movie. Like, what, do a prequel movie and segue back into her demise? It wouldn't contribute anything to the metaplot and the characterization would be wasted.

I don't really see how the characterization would be 'wasted'. Character explorations are an end unto themselves to me, whether or not they pay off later. But yes, Marvel's model is based on introducing elements to propel the universe forward, not to backfill preexisting elements. Widow's not going to die if she's getting a standalone.

[Lethologica]

I'd be shocked if she didn't make it through Infinity War. Hell I'd be shocked by any of the actual deaths sticking. Doesn't seem like the way they'd want to cap off this big marvel experiment. Having kids crying in the audience because you killed characters they like, Brought them back, and then killed them again.

We might get one death at most. And trust me it's not gonna be Black Widow.
Well, none of those deaths are going to stick. They killed off the new generation in IW1 so the old generation could have a big hurrah bringing them back and passing the torch in IW2. That means the characters who are actually in danger are the ones who survived IW1. Tony's the most likely to kick it, followed by Cap.

I agree that there isn't a lot of impetus to kill off characters en masse, though. Most of the old generation still has too much hanging over them to kill them off without telling those stories. See: Banner, Bruce.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm forgetting--wasn't it already announced that the Black Widow movie is going to be a prequel? IW is not relevant.

[Psyren]

I think it's a bad idea. Not only is Black Widow not all that special/metahuman in her own right, she's also at her best as the straight man (natch) to all the weirdos she pals around with.

Now Domino, that's a solo-heroine I'd watch a feature-length movie of. You'd get as much crazy martial arts/gunplay/spy stuff as Black Widow, but with the added bonus that they can throw in absolutely ridiculous setpieces without breaking suspension of disbelief when she gets through them unscathed.

[Kitten Champion]

I'm forgetting--wasn't it already announced that the Black Widow movie is going to be a prequel? IW is not relevant.

That's a rumour at the moment. Supposedly it'll be set in the early 00's, pre-Iron Man 2. Though it may be a "rumour" in the sense that it's an intentional leak to create early buzz, since that happens quite a bit with Hollywood.

The only things which have been announced are the movie's existence itself, the director, the screen-writer, and a loose estimate on the the production timeline.


I think it's a bad idea. Not only is Black Widow not all that special/metahuman in her own right, she's also at her best as the straight man (natch) to all the weirdos she pals around with.

She's about as special as Batman or Tony Stark, and as for being a straight-man -- so is T'Challa. Didn't hurt Black Panther for him to be mostly quite serious.

[Rodin]

Ignoring my skepticism that Marvel is following an agenda that bears anything beyond a superficial similarity to that plan, I'd be astonished if Phase 4 is made up of legacy heroes. Cap's mantle getting handed down seems plausible, anyone else would come off as derivative to a wider audience. There's a big enough pool of characters Marvel hasn't touched to plumb for material for the future without 'replacing' current icons.


I was about to say they're more likely to stick with the more famous characters, until I remembered that they kicked off the MCU with Iron Man. So really, they can do whatever they want. Especially if by then Sony has finally caved and brought the Fantastic 4 and/or the X-Men back to the bargaining table.

[Darth Ultron]

Where have you seen evidence of this?

Well, it was basically the ''cool plan" they did in the Comics. They got rid of all the old classic characters and replaced them with new, younger, diverse characters.

And you do have the real world reasons of the actors contracts being up, and they don't ''want to" play the characters any more.

So like when Avengers 6: The Zodiac happens like Iron Person zips over and takes off the helmet...and it is actress Dede Dooling and everyone is like ''hey Iron Person".

They might even do it for Black Widow....oh....now there is a plot. Natasha goes back to Russia and relives her memories...so we get the flashbacks. Then she finds out about the New Widow program....and she goes on a rampage to stop it....and she saves a girl....who she then makes the New Black Widow!


There's a big enough pool of characters Marvel hasn't touched to plumb for material for the future without 'replacing' current icons.


I'm sure it will depend a LOT on who well both Captain Marvel and Black Widow do, as they are both ''unknowns" to non comic fans.

I'm sure Marvel worries that if they just make a movie about a random character like Moon Knight, Shang Chi, Nova, or Silver Sable, that it might not make money. And that is on top of the female super hero problem.

[HMS Invincible]

Well, it was basically the ''cool plan" they did in the Comics. They got rid of all the old classic characters and replaced them with new, younger, diverse characters.

And you do have the real world reasons of the actors contracts being up, and they don't ''want to" play the characters any more.

So like when Avengers 6: The Zodiac happens like Iron Person zips over and takes off the helmet...and it is actress Dede Dooling and everyone is like ''hey Iron Person".

They might even do it for Black Widow....oh....now there is a plot. Natasha goes back to Russia and relives her memories...so we get the flashbacks. Then she finds out about the New Widow program....and she goes on a rampage to stop it....and she saves a girl....who she then makes the New Black Widow!



I'm sure it will depend a LOT on who well both Captain Marvel and Black Widow do, as they are both ''unknowns" to non comic fans.

I'm sure Marvel worries that if they just make a movie about a random character like Moon Knight, Shang Chi, Nova, or Silver Sable, that it might not make money. And that is on top of the female super hero problem.
The only time they made diverse versions of marvel classic heroes in the MCU was Ant man and the Wasp. Unless you count war machine & iron man. They're sorta different takes on the same character (normal man in a fancy supersuit).

The less the movies take after the incestuous side of comics, the better. I was glad we didn't get a faithful adaptation of civil war. Or comic's notorious reputation for killing off, and returning heroes from the grave over and over again.

[Darth Ultron]

The only time they made diverse versions of marvel classic heroes in the MCU

Right, like I said it has not happened yet. It happens after Avengers Infinity War 2.


So I read Scarlet Johansan might be getting 15 million to be in the Black Widow movie, so for the first time she will get the same amount as most of the other Avengers actors.

[Psyren]

She's about as special as Batman or Tony Stark,

Nah, not really - she's not an inventor like they are. The few gadgets she uses are commissioned by her bosses/handlers.

About the best premise I can think of to sell her movie would be "distaff James Bond", which has been done.

[Rodin]

Nah, not really - she's not an inventor like they are. The few gadgets she uses are commissioned by her bosses/handlers.

About the best premise I can think of to sell her movie would be "distaff James Bond", which has been done.

...And now I want a No One Lives Forever movie. Damnit so much.

[RossN]

About the best premise I can think of to sell her movie would be "distaff James Bond", which has been done.

Honestly I'm not sure it has. I'm struggling to think of a distaff equivalent of the Bond Girl for instance, which for better or worse is a huge part of the Bond films.

Can you imagine a solo film Black Widow having a love interest who doesn't turn out to be secretly evil or gets tragically killed?

[Rakaydos]

Honestly I'm not sure it has. I'm struggling to think of a distaff equivalent of the Bond Girl for instance, which for better or worse is a huge part of the Bond films.

Can you imagine a solo film Black Widow having a love interest who doesn't turn out to be secretly evil or gets tragically killed?

Hypothetical- IW2 has Thanos Realitystone the hulk out of Bruce, and stays that way after the end of the movie.

Bruce then becomes Natasha's technical support.

[Darth Ultron]

Can you imagine a solo film Black Widow having a love interest who doesn't turn out to be secretly evil or gets tragically killed?

Well, maybe....there is the sweet spot for a ''anti hero" swashbuckling jokey character. For example, they could toss in Paladin.

Like she falls for him as a normal guy...and is all shocked when he is the Paladin....they 'team up' to beat the bag guys...and he steals all the bad guys money and slips away with a kiss and a ''see you later doll'.

[The Glyphstone]

Hypothetical- IW2 has Thanos Realitystone the hulk out of Bruce, and stays that way after the end of the movie.

Bruce then becomes Natasha's technical support.

I'd hate to see that happen. The way MCU has shown us the character growth of Hulk as a personality in his own right, entirely separate from Bruce but the two of them sharing a body, is great. Their relationship needs more time to get fleshed out before they do anything odd like silencing Hulk or splitting them into two bodies.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I was about to say they're more likely to stick with the more famous characters, until I remembered that they kicked off the MCU with Iron Man. So really, they can do whatever they want. Especially if by then Sony has finally caved and brought the Fantastic 4 and/or the X-Men back to the bargaining table.

How could Sony do that? Those properties are with Fox, at least until the buyout is finalized.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly I'm not sure it has. I'm struggling to think of a distaff equivalent of the Bond Girl for instance, which for better or worse is a huge part of the Bond films.

Atomic Blonde has ya covered.

[Friv]

Atomic Blonde has ya covered.

Spoilers for Atomic Blonde:

The big difference is, in Atomic Blonde (and indeed nearly every "Bond" movie with a female lead), you get the first Bond girl, the one who gets murdered, but you don't get the plucky second one who survives to the end and makes out with the hero.

There's no actual reason you can't have the plucky sidekick survive, though.

[Magic_Hat]

Why does she pointlessly have a different hair style in each movie and why is she blonde in infinity war?

[Androgeus]

Why does she pointlessly have a different hair style in each movie and why is she blonde in infinity war?

Why does the person who routinely works undercover keep changing her hair colour.

[Darth Ultron]

Why does she pointlessly have a different hair style in each movie and why is she blonde in infinity war?

She is a female....many of them tend to do that....some a lot.

Also after Civil War she is ''in hiding", so she changes her appearance a lot.

Technically, any time you see her she is ''in disguise'' as she does not have a set appearance.

[Magic_Hat]

Why does the person who routinely works undercover keep changing her hair colour.

She changed her hair color once. I'm not sure if the word "routinely" qualifies.


She is a female....many of them tend to do that....some a lot.

Also after Civil War she is ''in hiding", so she changes her appearance a lot.

Technically, any time you see her she is ''in disguise'' as she does not have a set appearance.

Why doesn't she ever get plastic surgery then? Why isn't she smart enough to know it's still very possible to recognize another human even if they change their hair style slightly. Is everyone in the MCU that dumb? They can't recognize the same person with slightly different hair? Why doesn't she just shave all her hair off then?

I don't know. Just constantly having her change her hair just seems like some sort of marketing technique to sell toys and merch...like that one Simpsons episode when Malibu Stacy got a new hat.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't know. Just constantly having her change her hair just seems like some sort of marketing technique to sell toys and merch...like that one Simpsons episode when Malibu Stacy got a new hat.

Wasn't a lot of people's issue that Black Widow was conspicuously missing from toy sets of the last Avengers movie? Makes this comment a bit ironic.

[Velaryon]

Why doesn't she ever get plastic surgery then? Why isn't she smart enough to know it's still very possible to recognize another human even if they change their hair style slightly. Is everyone in the MCU that dumb? They can't recognize the same person with slightly different hair? Why doesn't she just shave all her hair off then?

I don't know. Just constantly having her change her hair just seems like some sort of marketing technique to sell toys and merch...like that one Simpsons episode when Malibu Stacy got a new hat.

What do you want them to do, recast the character every movie?


Wasn't a lot of people's issue that Black Widow was conspicuously missing from toy sets of the last Avengers movie? Makes this comment a bit ironic.

Also, this is definitely what I remember hearing at the time.

[Legato Endless]

She changed her hair color once. I'm not sure if the word "routinely" qualifies.

https://i.redd.it/6gu156nikxbz.jpg

She changed her hair to blonde once. But the color has varied from film to film, even if only in a we prefer this dye/wig to the last film.

[Magic_Hat]

Wasn't a lot of people's issue that Black Widow was conspicuously missing from toy sets of the last Avengers movie? Makes this comment a bit ironic.

:smallconfused:Not for me because I never complained about toy sets. I actually think 9 times out of 10 mechanizing is dumb and cheapens the brand. Also making a decision that affects the movie to sell toys is why we got ewoks, more Boba Fett, and Cars 2.:smallannoyed:


What do you want them to do, recast the character every movie?

Maybe. Disney has like a million billion dollars. They can afford it. It's just this an all or nothing kind of thing - slightly changing your hair isn't enough to fool people. Why do it at all or if you're going to do it go all in and completely change your appearance.

Actually now that I think about it if these films where animated recasting wouldn't be an issue, just redesign the character. Oh wait this is Disney that as of late seems to be on a crusade to end animation with its live action remakes.

edit:

https://i.redd.it/6gu156nikxbz.jpg

She changed her hair to blonde once. But the color has varied from film to film, even if only in a we prefer this dye/wig to the last film.

So changing your hair color from red to a different shade of red to an even more slightly different shade of red? And here I am thinking Clark Kent's glasses barely change his appearance.

[Darth Ultron]

Why doesn't she ever get plastic surgery then? Why isn't she smart enough to know it's still very possible to recognize another human even if they change their hair style slightly. Is everyone in the MCU that dumb? They can't recognize the same person with slightly different hair? Why doesn't she just shave all her hair off then?


Well, this is Fiction vs Reality. As the Actress is Scarlett Johansson is will always look like Scarlett Johansson. ''Plastic surgery" would mean she would be played by a different actress. Or if she used the SHIELD chameleon cloak, same thing.




She changed her hair to blonde once. But the color has varied from film to film, even if only in a we prefer this dye/wig to the last film.

Again, I'd point out that some women change their hair...a LOT. And we are talking over several years.

[Frozen_Feet]

Why does she pointlessly have a different hair style in each movie and why is she blonde in infinity war?

I dunno, maybe for the same reason all my other girl friends pointlessly dye their hair every other month or so? :smalltongue:

[Lethologica]

Yeah, and why does Captain America have a pointless beard now? Does being undercover preclude having a razor? Jeez, it's like they just want to sell Captain America toys or something.

Someone's gonna argue that BW's hair color change is uniquely pointless or that Cap's beard is uniquely authentic ("Beards are the passive outcome! Widow had to actively change her hair!"), and they're gonna be missing the point. The beard and the blonde are instantly recognizable surface characteristics that cue viewers to recall the characters' change in circumstances. Both can be analyzed to death, but it's pointless to do so.

[The Patterner]

Again, I'd point out that some women change their hair...a LOT. And we are talking over several years.


Yeah, and why does Captain America have a pointless beard now? Does being undercover preclude having a razor? Jeez, it's like they just want to sell Captain America toys or something.

Someone's gonna argue that BW's hair color change is uniquely pointless or that Cap's beard is uniquely authentic ("Beards are the passive outcome! Widow had to actively change her hair!"), and they're gonna be missing the point. The beard and the blonde are instantly recognizable surface characteristics that cue viewers to recall the characters' change in circumstances. Both can be analyzed to death, but it's pointless to do so.

This is one of those times I wish you could 'like' comments on this page.

[Kitten Champion]

Yeah, and why does Captain America have a pointless beard now? Does being undercover preclude having a razor? Jeez, it's like they just want to sell Captain America toys or something.

Someone's gonna argue that BW's hair color change is uniquely pointless or that Cap's beard is uniquely authentic ("Beards are the passive outcome! Widow had to actively change her hair!"), and they're gonna be missing the point. The beard and the blonde are instantly recognizable surface characteristics that cue viewers to recall the characters' change in circumstances. Both can be analyzed to death, but it's pointless to do so.

I mean, you can say that, but when we learn she's been replaced by a Skrull at some point we'll feel like fools for not seeing the signs.

[Knaight]

Someone's gonna argue that BW's hair color change is uniquely pointless or that Cap's beard is uniquely authentic ("Beards are the passive outcome! Widow had to actively change her hair!"), and they're gonna be missing the point. The beard and the blonde are instantly recognizable surface characteristics that cue viewers to recall the characters' change in circumstances. Both can be analyzed to death, but it's pointless to do so.

There's probably more analysis to be done though. Take the beard - Cap goes from a very clean shaven look to a rougher bearded look at roughly the same time he becomes deeply disillusioned with much of his team, branded a criminal by his government, and just generally isolated. It's not just an arbitrary change in look, but a specific one that mirrors specific changes in circumstances.

Black widow going blond? That was in the movie where the team gets back together to at least some extent, where the antagonist moves from internal to external in her personal part of the narrative, and where there's a pretty conventional good guys vs. bad guys narrative against a genocidal monster. Or, for a totally different example Thor's haircut was a very direct, very literal removal of his hair against his wants. At the same time, in the same movie what do we see happen with his past? Basically exactly that, where it's stripped away. He then doesn't regrow his hair, and also willfully rejects his past with the destruction of Asgard.

None of this is particularly complex or sophisticated analysis, of course - my point is mostly just that the changes aren't arbitrary, but do involve some small measure of basic visual symbolism.

[HMS Invincible]

Chris Evans likes beards, hence the beard. Do you need a citation?

[Malphegor]

I've always felt that BW and Hawkeye were a case of Nick Fury setting up things for a team and then 'oh **** actually seriously superpowered people, man have you two been a waste of time, I guess you infiltrate now, ****'.

He was expecting the Avengers tv show with spies, only fighting notNazis, but got Marvel's Avengers-level people.

(this theory may no longer apply given that we now know that he probably knew Captain Marvel and other shenanigans involving pre-Avengers times)



visual symbolism.


There's... actually some VERY interesting points with that. For a lot of the movies leading up to Infinity War, a lot of characters have had core aspects of their personality and character dissected and often destroyed. Bruce Banner's lost the Hulk now. Thor's lost Asgard. Etc.

It's all about losing that which superficially was who they were, and finding the real them, because after all, the real hero was inside them all along.

Maybe. Given me something to think about for future films I see.

[TeChameleon]

Black Widow's minor hair changes also serve more of a purpose than one might think- as far as I understand it, as humans, a lot of our initial recognition of people is based on body language and silhouette/outline, then colours. If you're scanning a crowd, looking for someone you've only seen as a photograph, you're a lot less likely to pick them out if they've changed their hair, especially if they've done so in a way that alters the 'look' of their face or alters their outline.

Also, plastic surgery takes time to do and heal, resources, extra people, and has a limited number of times you can do it before you end up looking like late-in-life Michael Jackson. Or possibly your face just falls off. Altering your hair and other bits of personal style makes more sense, especially if you've had to go underground.

[Legato Endless]

Well, this is Fiction vs Reality. As the Actress is Scarlett Johansson is will always look like Scarlett Johansson. ''Plastic surgery" would mean she would be played by a different actress. Or if she used the SHIELD chameleon cloak, same thing.

Yeah, suspension of disbelief has to demand something of an audience here to allow the employ of the same performer when it comes to appearance recognition. Most productions of Twelfth Night don't employ related actors, let alone identical twins, and even most fraternal twins aren't so visually interchangeable as to pull off the conceit of the play in real life. I saw one of the dozens of adaptions of The Count of Monte Cristo last week, and as in every other version I've seen, the principle actor was not visually changed enough by his harsh years to lend any credence to the idea he'd fool his loved one upon his return under a new identity. It's just something you either accept or stories which employ any of the array of tropes surrounding this area just don't work.


Again, I'd point out that some women change their hair...a LOT. And we are talking over several years.

True, the fact that you can tell what movie Widow's in merely by seeing her hair is amusing nevertheless.

[Darth Ultron]

Yeah, suspension of disbelief has to demand something of an audience here to allow the employ of the same performer when it comes to appearance recognition.

It is why for example in movies they will always have odd face lights on space suits, night lights in cars at night(often on the floor?!) and most of all....why they will always take off masks, disguises and such like seconds after they sneak into some place.

After all, Black Widow does have a Chameleon Cloak...that she never uses.

[Lethologica]

There's probably more analysis to be done though. Take the beard - Cap goes from a very clean shaven look to a rougher bearded look at roughly the same time he becomes deeply disillusioned with much of his team, branded a criminal by his government, and just generally isolated. It's not just an arbitrary change in look, but a specific one that mirrors specific changes in circumstances.

Black widow going blond? That was in the movie where the team gets back together to at least some extent, where the antagonist moves from internal to external in her personal part of the narrative, and where there's a pretty conventional good guys vs. bad guys narrative against a genocidal monster. Or, for a totally different example Thor's haircut was a very direct, very literal removal of his hair against his wants. At the same time, in the same movie what do we see happen with his past? Basically exactly that, where it's stripped away. He then doesn't regrow his hair, and also willfully rejects his past with the destruction of Asgard.

None of this is particularly complex or sophisticated analysis, of course - my point is mostly just that the changes aren't arbitrary, but do involve some small measure of basic visual symbolism.
Sorry, I was objecting to analysis in the sense of Watsonian justifications/objections along the lines of the arguments up to that point. Analysis of the visual changes as film elements is welcome at any level of depth.

[Tyndmyr]

Why doesn't she ever get plastic surgery then? Why isn't she smart enough to know it's still very possible to recognize another human even if they change their hair style slightly. Is everyone in the MCU that dumb? They can't recognize the same person with slightly different hair? Why doesn't she just shave all her hair off then?

I don't know. Just constantly having her change her hair just seems like some sort of marketing technique to sell toys and merch...like that one Simpsons episode when Malibu Stacy got a new hat.

Plastic surgery has a lot of risks and downtime in comparison to changing hair color. A spy changing hair color, clothing, etc is pretty normal. A spy getting plastic surgery would be fairly unusual. A "big job" kind of thing. For the most part, Black Widow doesn't need to do that, as she's low profile enough prior to the Avengers that she wouldn't usually need it, and anyways, she tends to make corpses out of people that might recognize her later, so...risk of recognition is likely low.

Getting plastic surgery while on the run is probably a lot dodgier than when you have shield tech around.

[Tvtyrant]

Widow also has magic disguise technology that lets her appear as anyone (see Winter Soldier) so I assume she walks around in disguise a lot of the time.

Like when she betrayed the Sokovia Accords and then took off into the hinterlands.

[sengmeng]

To me, she and Hawkeye are the normies that we have to see how super the rest are, and to occasionally remind them that a clever tactician with great situational awareness can overcome their advantages. In short, they keep the team in check with reality. That isn't to say they're awesome, but every time they do anything, it's a little cool.

[TeChameleon]

Eh, I don't know- Hawkeye and Black Widow bring things to the table that the others don't. Of the original team, they were the only ones with the slightest stealth capability- while Cap could do it, Winter Soldier made it clear that he's got pretty much zero training in it. Hawkeye is the only team member with ranged capability that has any real precision, too, with Widow as a close second- Repulsor blasts, Mjolnir, and Cap's Mighty Shield aren't exactly subtle. Great for knocking down a building, less so for tagging an individual target in a crowd. While any of them could do it (probably), it's not really their strong point and there's a chance of collateral damage.

They might not be as 'super' as their fellow Avengers, but they still bring necessary skills to the party, and make the whole more fun to watch.

[Legato Endless]

Eh, I don't know- Hawkeye and Black Widow bring things to the table that the others don't. Of the original team, they were the only ones with the slightest stealth capability- while Cap could do it, Winter Soldier made it clear that he's got pretty much zero training in it. Hawkeye is the only team member with ranged capability that has any real precision, too, with Widow as a close second- Repulsor blasts, Mjolnir, and Cap's Mighty Shield aren't exactly subtle. Great for knocking down a building, less so for tagging an individual target in a crowd. While any of them could do it (probably), it's not really their strong point and there's a chance of collateral damage.

Not really in Tony's case when he's in armor. While he doesn't have Hawkeye's spatial awareness, he's absolutely much better at ranged combat in any form compared to Widow. In Ironman Tony's already accurate enough to repulse blast individual targets in a group around (which he can do non lethally because the power is adjustable), then snipe 5 hostage takers without hitting any of the civilians. In Avengers 2 he's able to quite casually disarm a dozen-ish hydra agents in an instant, and his HUD relies him tactical knowledge to adjust with variables on the fly. Range, multidirectional attacks, a variety of non lethal implements (nets, restraints, electrical shocks, etc.), Widow never demonstrates anything remotely resembling Tony here. Tony isn't Warmachine, we do see him carry much more tactical weaponry. It's not all heavy artillery.

Widow's real asset to the team is infiltration and manipulation (and stealth as you mentioned). Figuring out Loki's plan in Avengers, replacing one of the World Council in Winter Solider, etc.

[Velaryon]

:smallconfused:Not for me because I never complained about toy sets. I actually think 9 times out of 10 mechanizing is dumb and cheapens the brand. Also making a decision that affects the movie to sell toys is why we got ewoks, more Boba Fett, and Cars 2.:smallannoyed:

Merchandising has a much higher potential for making money (especially long term) than the movie alone. This has been the standard in movie franchises for 40+ years at least. You don't have to like it, but expecting them not to seize on merchandising opportunities is incredibly unrealistic. Cheapens the brand? It's the whole point of the brand, from their perspective.



Maybe. Disney has like a million billion dollars. They can afford it. It's just this an all or nothing kind of thing - slightly changing your hair isn't enough to fool people. Why do it at all or if you're going to do it go all in and completely change your appearance.

So, throw away a marketable star every new film for a marginal boost in verisimilitude? I'm genuinely not trying to sound condescending here, but are you familiar with Hollywood at all?

[Tyndmyr]

Toy market ain't what it used to be. Toys'r'Us was sort of an example of that. Star Wars merchandising has kinda fallen off a cliff too.

Sure, there's gonna be a new pop figure lineup after every movie, but new hair color isn't that critical for that. Can literally just be different weapons, pose, etc. There isn't that strong of a motivation to have the cart drive the horse.

[Peelee]

So, throw away a marketable star every new film for a marginal boost in verisimilitude? I'm genuinely not trying to sound condescending here, but are you familiar with Hollywood at all?

Devil's advocate: does Hollywood have a shortage of marketable stars all of a sudden?

[Darth Ultron]

Toy market ain't what it used to be. Toys'r'Us was sort of an example of that. Star Wars merchandising has kinda fallen off a cliff too.


It is not just Toys for Kidz, it's merchandise.


Devil's advocate: does Hollywood have a shortage of marketable stars all of a sudden?

Yes. Though by ''sudden" it has been over the last decade or so.

[Rodin]

Devil's advocate: does Hollywood have a shortage of marketable stars all of a sudden?

I'd say it's less a question of them existing than how much money they believe they can make. And how much a contract for multiple movies secures an actor to you.

If they believe they can get $50 million dollars per movie by hiring Scarlett Johansson. and get a deal on her fees by signing her for multiple movies...then compare that to earning $40 million for Halle Berry followed by another $40 million for Angelina Jolie, with each actress not having a multiple movie contract to bring the price down...

It's all about the money. If they thought re-casting Black Widow as a 3-legged Golden Retriever would make them more money, they'd do that in a heartbeat.

[Peelee]

Yes. Though by ''sudden" it has been over the last decade or so.
Actually, the correct answer is no.

I'd say it's less a question of them existing than how much money they believe they can make. And how much a contract for multiple movies secures an actor to you.

If they believe they can get $50 million dollars per movie by hiring Scarlett Johansson. and get a deal on her fees by signing her for multiple movies...then compare that to earning $40 million for Halle Berry followed by another $40 million for Angelina Jolie, with each actress not having a multiple movie contract to bring the price down...

It's all about the money. If they thought re-casting Black Widow as a 3-legged Golden Retriever would make them more money, they'd do that in a heartbeat.

Indeed, but wouldn't a multi-movie contract get the actor more money as well? If they could potentially save costs on the actor by a greater margin than it would take off the revenue, then as you say, it's all about the money.

[Rodin]

Indeed, but wouldn't a multi-movie contract get the actor more money as well? If they could potentially save costs on the actor by a greater margin than it would take off the revenue, then as you say, it's all about the money.

This being argued for the sake of argument on both sides and neither of us being big shot Hollywood execs, I think I would say that it works the way it does because money, and when recasting does happen its also money. :smallamused:

An example of the opposite case occurring being Holly from Red Dwarf - he was first recast from Norman Lovett due to a salary dispute, and it was easier to recast him than to pay the increase. In season 6, Holly got cut entirely to save money, and the lines were given to Kryten and Cat instead.

Overall, I just wouldn't say there's a hard and fast rule you can follow.

[Lethologica]

The one thing above all else that has made the MCU successful is consistent vision, characterization, and tone. Switching actors every movie is not primarily a budgetary concern, it's primarily a massive risk to the films' quality, which has ramifications beyond Widow herself since she's usually a supporting character.

Also, didn't someone establish that Widow has access to perfect disguise technology already? Why would Marvel do this when they can have their cake and eat it too?

[Knaight]

So, throw away a marketable star every new film for a marginal boost in verisimilitude? I'm genuinely not trying to sound condescending here, but are you familiar with Hollywood at all?

Are you? Characters being dead doesn't prevent toy markets from making their action figures. Obi Wan figures were in continuous production for decades after the original trilogy, and he's alive for about 1/6 of it.

[Lethologica]

Are you? Characters being dead doesn't prevent toy markets from making their action figures. Obi Wan figures were in continuous production for decades after the original trilogy, and he's alive for about 1/6 of it.
That's...not what Velaryon was talking about? Am I missing something?

[Rogar Demonblud]

No. That conversation was entirely about completely recasting Black Widow every movie because she keeps having plastic surgery to change her appearance.

[Mordar]

No, I'm just a complete sucker for anything involving the Rock. That's probably why I watched the babysitter movie, because I thought it had him in it but it turned out to be Vin Diesel.

I have watched some pretty awful movies in my time though, just for the fun of saying 'I watched this'. Robot Jox is on that list, and it is not the worst of them.

Hey, that's my referent..."At least it wasn't as bad as Robot Jox", must be used in conjunction with a review of a movie for which you purchased a theater ticket and watched every minute thereof.

- M

[Knaight]

Hey, that's my referent..."At least it wasn't as bad as Robot Jox", must be used in conjunction with a review of a movie for which you purchased a theater ticket and watched every minute thereof.

- M

Could be worse. My standard is Kangaroo Jack, which successfully disguised itself as a kids movie in the marketing, and which I thus saw as a kid.

[Peelee]

Could be worse. My standard is Kangaroo Jack, which successfully disguised itself as a kids movie in the marketing, and which I thus saw as a kid.

Thanks for making me feel old.

I actually saw Kangaroo Jack on TV at one point, I think. I was flat-out amazed at how they took a five minute dream sequence and marketed the movie as being that for the whole movie. I'm not sure how they expected that to turn out.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I wouldn't say Robot Jox is that bad a movie even. It's super boring, but that's all down to the singular flaw of the pacing being way too low during the robot scenes. They're trying to bring across the feel of a huge machine, and it bores the audience to death. If you had a cut that speeds up all the robot scenes by 50% or so it would be pretty watchable. (I think. I saw it ones.) If you take a real stinker of a movie and you fix the worst aspect of it you'll usually still have a terrible movie, because they did almost everything wrong.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

<looks up at thread>

What if... they recast Black Widow with The Rock?

[Peelee]

<looks up at thread>

What if... they recast Black Widow with The Rock?

Well then I'd go see it, wouldn't I?

[Velaryon]

Toy market ain't what it used to be. Toys'r'Us was sort of an example of that. Star Wars merchandising has kinda fallen off a cliff too.

Sure, there's gonna be a new pop figure lineup after every movie, but new hair color isn't that critical for that. Can literally just be different weapons, pose, etc. There isn't that strong of a motivation to have the cart drive the horse.

Everything I can find suggests that the demise of Toys R Us reflects poor management on their part, rather than a decrease in overall demand for toys. According to this report (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/toys-sold-an-estimated-45b-on-amazon-in-the-us-in-2017-new-report-300595608.html), Amazon pulled in $4.5 billion on toys last year, an increase of 12% over 2016.

Besides which, as Darth Ultron pointed out, merchandising is a whole lot bigger than just toys. T-shirts, lunchboxes, Halloween costumes, breakfast cereals, school supplies... you name it, they slap the likenesses of RDJ, the Chrises, and ScarJo on it to make truckloads of money.



Devil's advocate: does Hollywood have a shortage of marketable stars all of a sudden?

Devil's advocate to your devil's advocate: How many actresses of appropriate age, action movie experience, and star power that they could realistically get can you name? Black Widow has appeared in six films so far (weirdly, it feels like more to me). So if they had been following this idea of recasting the actress every film all along, we would need ScarJo plus five more actresses, not counting any as-yet-unreleased films such as Infinity War part 2 or Black Widow's own solo film.

So who have you got in mind? Angelina Jolie is too old. Halle Berry is the wrong ethnicity and hasn't been relevant in many years anyway. Jennifer Lawrence would work, but she's already strongly associated with the X-Men films. Maybe Emilia Clarke if you can get her.

All questions of cost aside, recasting the character all the time would entail lots of time spent auditioning new people and paying additional casting directors. Plus they'd end up with inconsistent character portrayals and run the risk of someone who lacks on-screen chemistry with the other actors. And who honestly things that the famously risk-averse Hollywood would go to all this additional trouble for... what, exactly? What do they even gain from this?



The one thing above all else that has made the MCU successful is consistent vision, characterization, and tone. Switching actors every movie is not primarily a budgetary concern, it's primarily a massive risk to the films' quality, which has ramifications beyond Widow herself since she's usually a supporting character.

This, so much this.



Are you? Characters being dead doesn't prevent toy markets from making their action figures. Obi Wan figures were in continuous production for decades after the original trilogy, and he's alive for about 1/6 of it.

Who said anything about characters being dead? If Obi-Wan had been portrayed by Christopher Lee in ESB and Laurence Olivier in RotJ I might see where you're coming from with this comparison, but otherwise I don't see how it compares.

[Mordar]

<looks up at thread>

What if... they recast Black Widow with The Rock?


Well then I'd go see it, wouldn't I?

It depends. Do they cast the Rock as a good guy or a bad guy? Does he have to develop a crappy Russian accent?

Nah, who am I kidding? It doesn't depend. Of course it would be better and of course I would go.

- M

[Tyndmyr]

Everything I can find suggests that the demise of Toys R Us reflects poor management on their part, rather than a decrease in overall demand for toys. According to this report (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/toys-sold-an-estimated-45b-on-amazon-in-the-us-in-2017-new-report-300595608.html), Amazon pulled in $4.5 billion on toys last year, an increase of 12% over 2016.

Considering that their sales increased about 27 percent on average over the same time period, that would indeed portray toys as performing poorly.


Besides which, as Darth Ultron pointed out, merchandising is a whole lot bigger than just toys. T-shirts, lunchboxes, Halloween costumes, breakfast cereals, school supplies... you name it, they slap the likenesses of RDJ, the Chrises, and ScarJo on it to make truckloads of money.

A lot of halloween stuff ends up in the toy category. Stuff like t-shirts do not require a different hairstyle, actress, etc. You can sell a cap-logo branded shirt regardless of if he had a beard on in the last film or not. That's true of pretty much everything outside the toy industry.

New, spikey black and metal BB-8 model? Probably a new model for toys, but not really going to affect the sales of Star Wars branded shirts.

I know of a lot of people that have MCU-themed shirts. Nearly everyone I know, in fact. I'm fairly certain that exactly zero of them bought those shirts as a result of ScarJo changing hairstyles.

[Mordar]

Everything I can find suggests that the demise of Toys R Us reflects poor management on their part, rather than a decrease in overall demand for toys. According to this report (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/toys-sold-an-estimated-45b-on-amazon-in-the-us-in-2017-new-report-300595608.html), Amazon pulled in $4.5 billion on toys last year, an increase of 12% over 2016.


Considering that their sales increased about 27 percent on average over the same time period, that would indeed portray toys as performing poorly.

Toys R Us is a object lesson in leveraged buy-outs. The debt structure and profit taking meant that regardless of the industry there was no chance the company would survive. Several sources indicate toy sales have remained stead or increased year-by-year for the past decade. Wal Mart and Target picked up some of Toys R Us share, Amazon got some...it didn't go away.

And remember, toys will have a lower increase on Amazon as they remain a higher physical store purchase than most of Amazon's bigger market share items.

- M

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well of course. Many toy purchases are the result of children screaming they want it nownownownownownownow and parents caving to shut them up.

[Velaryon]

Considering that their sales increased about 27 percent on average over the same time period, that would indeed portray toys as performing poorly.

Increased sales are increased sales. The fact that other categories increased more is irrelevant.



I know of a lot of people that have MCU-themed shirts. Nearly everyone I know, in fact. I'm fairly certain that exactly zero of them bought those shirts as a result of ScarJo changing hairstyles.

Yeah, probably not. I never made the claim that her hairstyles drove sales, though I think someone else at least hinted at it earlier. The points that I have been arguing are:
1. expecting Hollywood not to exploit opportunities for merchandising is fundamentally misunderstanding how and why they make these blockbusters in the first place, and is incredibly unrealistic.
2. Merchandising is more than toy sales.
3. The idea of recasting a character in an ongoing franchise after every single movie is patently ridiculous.

All of that said, do we even know whether they have released Black Widow toys with different hairstyles? I don't pay attention to toy lines or collectibles, but last I heard people were outraged about them not even making Black Widow toys at all.

[Tyndmyr]

Toys R Us is a object lesson in leveraged buy-outs. The debt structure and profit taking meant that regardless of the industry there was no chance the company would survive. Several sources indicate toy sales have remained stead or increased year-by-year for the past decade. Wal Mart and Target picked up some of Toys R Us share, Amazon got some...it didn't go away.

The debt was intended to give Toys R Us sufficient capital to climb out of their not-great position. It didn't work out, but such is life. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In addition, Toys R Us wouldn't have been in a position to get bought out if it wasn't in a tough spot to begin with.

Sure, I agree that many toys are purchased in store, not online, but one has to look at how the toy market is changing. Incidental purchases at Walmart still exist, certainly. But by and large, folks are going to walmart for other stuff, and perhaps picking up a toy on the way. The collector market is fading. Nobody cares about collecting the complete line of whatever. Yeah, they may buy the kid something Avengers, because it's a brand they recognize. However, it is unlikely that they will refuse to buy a specific model because Black Widow has/has not changed her hairstyle. That's the kind of thing collectors might care about, but the typical walmart shopper does not.


Increased sales are increased sales. The fact that other categories increased more is irrelevant.

Amazon /= the entire market. Basically, your source showed that Amazon is growing. But toys are growing less for Amazon than any other category. This is good news for Amazon, but it does pretty much nothing to support that Black Widow's hairstyle is relevant to merchandising.



3. The idea of recasting a character in an ongoing franchise after every single movie is patently ridiculous.

I agree that this is true. It would damage the franchise's perceived quality, and one could expect lower ticket sales.


All of that said, do we even know whether they have released Black Widow toys with different hairstyles? I don't pay attention to toy lines or collectibles, but last I heard people were outraged about them not even making Black Widow toys at all.

There have been at least a couple from the Pop line, which usually does the entire main cast in bobbleheads for most mainstream films. I remember ceasing to order the full line of 'em after Age of Ultron, due to some characters simply not selling. Black Widow was definitely one of these. And of course, they've made a new version for Infinity War. Other versions may exist, but I'm too lazy to go digging.

The difference between hot pops and not isn't strictly a gender based one. It would seem so, in some cases, but exceptions exist. I've sold a pile of Shuri's, for instance. I'm not certain what makes one character popular to collect, but another not, but I've never heard hairstyle mentioned as a reason for purchasing/not purchasing.

[Mordar]

The debt was intended to give Toys R Us sufficient capital to climb out of their not-great position. It didn't work out, but such is life. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In addition, Toys R Us wouldn't have been in a position to get bought out if it wasn't in a tough spot to begin with.

Sure, I agree that many toys are purchased in store, not online, but one has to look at how the toy market is changing. Incidental purchases at Walmart still exist, certainly. But by and large, folks are going to walmart for other stuff, and perhaps picking up a toy on the way. The collector market is fading. Nobody cares about collecting the complete line of whatever. Yeah, they may buy the kid something Avengers, because it's a brand they recognize. However, it is unlikely that they will refuse to buy a specific model because Black Widow has/has not changed her hairstyle. That's the kind of thing collectors might care about, but the typical walmart shopper does not.

The debt was not generated by Toys R Us to support operations. It was generated by Bain, KKR and Vornado to buy the company, and then was saddled on the company. The debt was what allowed Bain et al to buy Toys R Us...they purchased it with money they didn't have, promising to repay loans when they had control of the company. In fact, $5.3B of the $6.6B purchase price was "paid" by applying debt to the company, which then had to pay $400M per year on debt service. That is on top of all of the normal operating costs...just so the new owners could afford to buy it. The company also paid out about $200M in "advisory fees" to the firms that purchased it (profit-taking?).

Basically it is like you buying a hot dog stand for $10,000, paying $2,000 yourself and then saying the stand itself (not you) will owe the other $8,000. Let's say the stand generates $1,000 a month in revenue and has $500 a month in expenses, for a net revenue excess of $500/month.

So now your hot dog stand has to pay $400 bucks a month to service the debt you incurred and passed to it...on top of having to pay its rent, buy the inventory and staff the stand. That's an anchor that it will have to drag, so now your expenses are $900 a month, leaving you with a revenue excess of only $100. Then you decide you want $50 a month for your "advisory" services. And then a Wienerschnitzel opens up a couple blocks away and your revenue goes down to $925 a month. And now you're losing money.

Yes, Toys R Us was lagging behind some retailers (Target and Walmart) in modernization, and was slow to respond to the e-commerce environment (and did so poorly). That might be because only $250M was being dedicated to capital...compared to the $400M that had to be paid to keep the debt-holders at bay. So, yes...it is correct to say Toys R Us failed because they did not modernize and keep up with the Joneses, and lost progressive market share. However, the primary reason they didn't modernize and expand was because the debt load was too high...they just didn't have the resources available. And the debt load was too high because it was a leveraged buy-out instead of a straight sale.

But don't worry, Bain, KKR and Vornado will be just fine...they'll get to show a $1.3B loss on the tax books, show $200M advisory income on the revenue books and be shielded from having to actually bare the weight of the loss because they were insulated.

I don't know, but would expect that the collector shoppers are a very small part of toy sales, and while they might be much more internet friendly, the tons and tons of grandmas and grandpas, godparents, aunts and uncles and so forth that are buying presents for little Johnny and Sally are doing so while picking up groceries or light bulbs. So are the parents of 2nd graders on their way to birthday parties. Based on the most recent charting I could quickly find, Amazon has less than 9% of the US market share on toy sales...even though they have 55% of the online share. Target and Walmart crush them with more than triple Amazon's total share. The dynamics for collectibles is probably a lot different...I can't speak to that at all...but Amazon is a big fish in the smaller pond of online sales...but are nothing compared to the sharks in the ocean of total toy sales.1

- M

1 - Now, that doesn't speak to profit, of course...Amazon's model provides much better profit rate than Target or Walmart...but absolute excess revenue will still be on the sharks' side.

[Tyndmyr]

This is getting slightly off topic, but I'll answer this one, since the misinformation around this scenario pops up a lot.


The debt was not generated by Toys R Us to support operations. It was generated by Bain, KKR and Vornado to buy the company, and then was saddled on the company. The debt was what allowed Bain et al to buy Toys R Us...they purchased it with money they didn't have, promising to repay loans when they had control of the company. In fact, $5.3B of the $6.6B purchase price was "paid" by applying debt to the company, which then had to pay $400M per year on debt service. That is on top of all of the normal operating costs...just so the new owners could afford to buy it. The company also paid out about $200M in "advisory fees" to the firms that purchased it (profit-taking?).

Basically it is like you buying a hot dog stand for $10,000, paying $2,000 yourself and then saying the stand itself (not you) will owe the other $8,000. Let's say the stand generates $1,000 a month in revenue and has $500 a month in expenses, for a net revenue excess of $500/month.

So now your hot dog stand has to pay $400 bucks a month to service the debt you incurred and passed to it...on top of having to pay its rent, buy the inventory and staff the stand. That's an anchor that it will have to drag, so now your expenses are $900 a month, leaving you with a revenue excess of only $100. Then you decide you want $50 a month for your "advisory" services. And then a Wienerschnitzel opens up a couple blocks away and your revenue goes down to $925 a month. And now you're losing money.

Of course debt is an anchor, but the strategy you describe is not the goal, and would not be profitable for the buyers. Instead, it's a highly simplistic model that's been shopped around to excuse Toys'r'Us's failings.

Yeah, the buyout was leveraged, but that's still a 1.32 bil down payment. They took about 200 mil out in advisory services. That's a pretty big net loss.

So, this isn't a case of "profitable business strategem throws successful store under the bus". Just "they tried to save it so they could make money off it, but couldn't".


Yes, Toys R Us was lagging behind some retailers (Target and Walmart) in modernization, and was slow to respond to the e-commerce environment (and did so poorly). That might be because only $250M was being dedicated to capital...compared to the $400M that had to be paid to keep the debt-holders at bay.

It was doing badly before it got bought out. When it had 2.2 billion dollars in capital. Causality being what it is, the buyers can't have caused the problem. It got sold because it already had problems. The buyers were simply mistaken about being able to fix them.

In all but three years, even if you take off the interest payments, Toys R Us would still have lost money. And they'd have lost money overall over the period. The debt didn't sink them. It didn't help, but they'd have died without it.


But don't worry, Bain, KKR and Vornado will be just fine...they'll get to show a $1.3B loss on the tax books, show $200M advisory income on the revenue books and be shielded from having to actually bare the weight of the loss because they were insulated.

That's still a $1.1 bil loss. That is what bearing the weight of a loss looks like.


I don't know, but would expect that the collector shoppers are a very small part of toy sales, and while they might be much more internet friendly, the tons and tons of grandmas and grandpas, godparents, aunts and uncles and so forth that are buying presents for little Johnny and Sally are doing so while picking up groceries or light bulbs.

It used to be a much larger part. Products such as baseball cards existed as a result of such a market, and are ceasing to exist today. Yeah, they're still made, but the customer base is getting way smaller, and graying. They're the kind of customer that cares about small differences in products, such as if a character changed hairstyle before making another version.

Grandma and grandpa are unlikely to care, or even notice. So, that makes "merchandising" a particularly poor explanation for why hair colors and other minor changes are made. The actual reasoning is far more likely to be movie and character driven.

[Mordar]

Of course debt is an anchor, but the strategy you describe is not the goal, and would not be profitable for the buyers. Instead, it's a highly simplistic model that's been shopped around to excuse Toys'r'Us's failings.

Yeah, the buyout was leveraged, but that's still a 1.32 bil down payment. They took about 200 mil out in advisory services. That's a pretty big net loss.

So, this isn't a case of "profitable business strategem throws successful store under the bus". Just "they tried to save it so they could make money off it, but couldn't".

You're right re: off-topic...so last thing I really want to say is this - I don't disagree on the weakness of Toys R Us prior to 2005. There's a reason it was available for the leveraged buyout, and it was already lagging on modernization, especially e-commerce. But it did have a solid market share, so it is hard to tell what could have been done if, for instance, the Cerebus deal would have gone through. The buyers were only willing to risk $1.3B of their "own" money on the deal (actually slightly more, as I think one of the three already had a stake), and the decisions they made after the purchase didn't really seem to help them much.

I'd put it more in the "Thought they could get the business at a steal and turn a profit in the intermediate term, but weren't willing to take a bath" than "they tried to save it".

We'll see what their final hit is after liquidation...and I do wonder at the identities of all of the debt holders...but Bain, for instance, might have been in it for perhaps 0.50% of their holdings, so for a lark even a total loss wouldn't have been too much of a hit. So yup, huge numbers for us mortals, but not a big risk for the three venture firms. Opportunity cost is probably the bigger issue.

- M

[Friv]

In terms of how profitable Toys R Us would have been without the buyout, I will say only one thing. It is not proof, but I find it compelling personally.

The Canadian branch of Toys R Us was not part of the buyout. The Canadian branch of Toys R Us did not go bankrupt, and has been posting modest profits every year.

[Kyberwulf]

I still don't get this hype of Black Widow.

It's been a couple weeks, and I have read everything on this thread. Nothing stated really seem to help me understand what makes her so special. I mean it has been pointed out that she isn't anything different then all the other super spies. Which, despite people seeming to think that is an argument for their side, doesn't help as much as people think it does. If she isn't special and doesn't stand out, why bother making a movie for her. I mean make another boring Bond movie, another boring Bourne movie. I don't see why you would want to make a crappy movie that has one of your heroes in it, just to have one of your favorite movies in it. Also, it doesn't seen to me, that just having a movie with a character in it JUST because you like the way the actor looks, is very PC. I mean that is one of my main problems, Scarlett isn't very active in the role, doesn't have much to emote. Nothing special, anyway.(Also, I didn't mean active as she does physical things, I meant emotionally she doesn't have much to do.)

She does WAY less then Hawkeye, and I don't see many people clamoring for a HAWKEYE movie.

Okay, Let me explain it as best I can.

I like Black Widow. I think she is a cool character. I like Scarlett Johassan. I think she can be talented and is really hot. However, nothing about Black Widow screams she needs anything more screentime. Her character, however cool she is, is just a plain old superspy. As other people have said, I have seen her character done well, then slide into satire in other characters (Jason Bourne comes to mind, first movie.. AWESOME then it just gets boring. Same with Bond, the fist movie you see of his, AWESOME then the more you watch, the more he becomes a satire of himself.), I don't want this for her.

I want her to be an impact when I see her. I definitely don't want he to be come a caricature of herself.

[Rodin]

She does WAY less then Hawkeye, and I don't see many people clamoring for a HAWKEYE movie.


Just want to address this in particular - a lot of the posts about a Black Widow in this very thread have called for Hawkeye to be involved in some fashion. The general idea being that Hawkeye and Black Widow both don't have quite enough to them to justify a solo movie, but given how well they play off each other in the first Avengers movie there's a good argument for making them dual protagonists like Ant-man and the Wasp. There's also entire memes about Hawkeye's lack of involvement in the series, with posters that have Jeremy Renner's face photoshopped in to make up for Hawkeye not getting the attention he deserves.

I'll also note that the thing about doing less than Hawkeye is just plain wrong. Let's look at the two characters involvement in the MCU, shall we?

Hawkeye: He's part of the plot of Thor, but doesn't really do much - he watches Thor reclaim Mjollnir but does nothing about it, then gets a few lines of dialogue later in the movie. He's a big part of Avengers, obviously, then goes away until Age of Ultron where he again prominently features. He then shows up briefly for Civil War, breaking out Scarlet Witch and bringing Antman to the fight and then having a bit of involvement in the airport clash. He's not really involved in the plot other than being somebody on team Cap. And that's the last we see of him.

Black Widow: Decent sized part in Iron Man 2 - she spends a lot of the movie undercover working for Stark, then breaks into Hammer Industries to take control of War Machine's suit. She then has a big roles in Avengers, obviously. She then returns for Winter Soldier, where she's part of Cap's ensemble team and is one of the three main protagonists for that film. She prominently features again for Age of Ultron, then returns in Civil War. It should be noted that her part in Civil War is significantly larger than Hawkeye's - she is present right from the start and is the main person Cap talks to for the first half of the movie. She also has a bigger role in the airport fight, being the one to stop Black Panther from stopping the jet. She's then fully involved in Infinity War, rescuing Vision when he's first attacked and joining in on the big fight at the end. Hawkeye is noticeably absent.

So, to sum up:

Hawkeye - 1 cameo, 2 ensemble main films and a supporting role in a third.

Black Widow - 2 supporting roles, and 4 ensemble main films.

Is it any wonder people are mystified that she hasn't had a film to herself? She easily beats Hulk and Hawkeye for prominence in the plots, and so when she didn't get a movie to herself and Ant-Man of all people got two films to his name people started to wonder what was going on. Especially since Iron Man got three films, Captain America got three films, Thor got three films...

So, yeah. People want a movie for her as one of the original Avengers. I want a Hawkeye movie as well, and a good Hulk movie. Hulk did get a big part of Thor: Ragnarok to himself, but it was still Thor's movie.,

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think a lot of people also feel that Hawkeye has been consistently underplayed for so long that it's too late to salvage the character.

As to why people want a superspy movie... because it's cool? I feel like there's plenty of people who still have fun with Bond and Bourne films, and the new Mission Impossible (which is practically a comic book film itself) has been received very well.

[Tyndmyr]

I still don't get this hype of Black Widow.

...
She does WAY less then Hawkeye, and I don't see many people clamoring for a HAWKEYE movie.

I would love a Hawkeye movie. I realize I'm probably alone in this, though. I enjoy both badass normals and superpowered rampages like Thor:Ragnarok. The contrast makes both characters more interesting. If everyone's at the same level of badassery, it gets a bit samey. As indeed, you've noted about the Bond films.

Seeing Thor stand out from the normals, and seeing people like Black Widow brave fights with people who far outclass her deepens both characters.

I think Black Widow's best films were in the Avengers and Cap 2. In both, she got enough time to actually play off of other characters and reveal some characterization. Other films, sure, she didn't do as much, but those two show some potential. Sure, it'll be a superspy movie, but that movie will be set in a world of literal gods and monsters. That sets it apart from another Bond flick.

[Tvtyrant]

One of the things that makes her stand out from Hawkeye (who I also want a film for) is that in her best roles you aren't certain who she works for and what side she is actually on.

IMII she works for Shield while pretending to work for Stark.

Avengers she is Shield's inside player compared to the ragtag 5 man band.

Winter Soldier she betrays Cap in the beginning and even he isn't sure what side she is on until the end when she sides with him against Shield and Fury.

Civil War she is on the fence and eventually sides with Cap (honestly they ship better then most of the cast.)

The movies where she has a clear side are the ones where she seems out of place or pointless, Age of Ultron and Infinity War.

By her own admission (in Winter Soldier and Civil War) she had a broken moral compass and doesn't trust herself. Instead she puts faith in individuals more morally centered than her, but inevitably ends up switching between people or instiutions to follow.

I think a good Widow movie needs to have a choice between equivalent moral alternatives, with her rejecting following others and choosing her own compass for it to be meaningful.

[Velaryon]

Amazon /= the entire market. Basically, your source showed that Amazon is growing. But toys are growing less for Amazon than any other category. This is good news for Amazon, but it does pretty much nothing to support that Black Widow's hairstyle is relevant to merchandising.

Good thing I never made this argument about Black Widow's hairstyle that you keep referencing, then.

Since the topic has moved on from this particular sidetrack and it was borderline off-topic in the first place, I'll drop it as well.



I still don't get this hype of Black Widow.

It's been a couple weeks, and I have read everything on this thread. Nothing stated really seem to help me understand what makes her so special. I mean it has been pointed out that she isn't anything different then all the other super spies. Which, despite people seeming to think that is an argument for their side, doesn't help as much as people think it does. If she isn't special and doesn't stand out, why bother making a movie for her. I mean make another boring Bond movie, another boring Bourne movie. I don't see why you would want to make a crappy movie that has one of your heroes in it, just to have one of your favorite movies in it. Also, it doesn't seen to me, that just having a movie with a character in it JUST because you like the way the actor looks, is very PC. I mean that is one of my main problems, Scarlett isn't very active in the role, doesn't have much to emote. Nothing special, anyway.(Also, I didn't mean active as she does physical things, I meant emotionally she doesn't have much to do.)

I think you're overthinking this. A Black Widow solo (more or less) film would be an MCU film first and a superspy film second. So how similar in structure it may or may not be to James Bond, Mission Impossible, etc. is less important than what it could add to the MCU as a whole.

My knowledge of Marvel lore isn't particularly strong so I am not going to try and suggest specific antagonists, but a film focused on her would be a great opportunity to use a villain who works via indirect means, whether that be something political, stealthy, involving mind control, or basically anything that doesn't necessarily end with punching out or blasting the bad guy. Naturally since it's an action movie, you still need fight scenes so a secondary antagonist is probably warranted as well.

Alternatively, since Marvel seems to be gearing up for a lot of cosmic stuff in upcoming films, a Black Widow film might be a good opportunity to explore how Earth reacts to the changes wrought by the cosmic stuff. Black Widow could well be the one that moves the meta-plot along between franchise films, similar to how the Captain America sequels did for earlier phases.

From a corporate perspective, the only important question is "would this film make enough money to justify making it instead of something else?" Given that Black Widow is a well-established character that more people seem to like than dislike, who has pre-existing ties to many of the other films, and that ScarJo will be one of the longest-tenured veterans left if Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth all exit after Infinity War part 2, it seems to me like they have good reason to put some faith in her.