Hasbro Toy Erases Black Widow From Her Own Scene

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Wonder Woman comes with a lot of problems of its own, the cross-pantheon, the Nu52 wanging the old continuities, and America's fascination with fucking romance B-plots in everything have salted that earth something fierce.

The other swelling force is that DC abhors the terms under which it owns the license.

1. The writer can go into that as much or as little as he or she pleases.

2. Movies are their own continuity. With W.W., you can actually pick whichever origin works best for the story.

3. Steve Trevor. Like so (No, I'm not actually suggesting that interpretation of the character. I just love that cold open).

4. Yeah, that's an issue.

Well, if you change the basics of the character, you're not writing Diana are you? You're writing someone else. That works for characters like Batman because so long as you keep the dead parents, snarky Butler, fascination with flying foxes, and Batman being the real man while Wayne is the mask, you've got a successful Batman movie.

Wonder Woman has the "Woman in Man's World" version, or the "Fight the Gods" version. You can do the first, but don't expect good financial returns based on modern society, or the second version but you need to bring the audience up to speed somewhat. She's a- Thinking of a good word here, I apologize as I fight my English skills. Flat? Character. She is trying to teach America to be more like the militaristic matriarchy she comes from, or she's snapping necks like she's paid to.

In all of her history, there are only a few good "runs" that you can choose from to put on the big screen, it is an awful lot of filler by an awful lot of hacks. DC didn't do themselves any favors in the past by just throwing writers on Themyscara to learn how to write.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. The writer can go into that as much or as little as he or she pleases.

2. Movies are their own continuity. With W.W., you can actually pick whichever origin works best for the story.

3. Steve Trevor. Like so (No, I'm not actually suggesting that interpretation of the character. I just love that cold open).

4. Yeah, that's an issue.

Well, if you change the basics of the character, you're not writing Diana are you? You're writing someone else. That works for characters like Batman because so long as you keep the dead parents, snarky Butler, fascination with flying foxes, and Batman being the real man while Wayne is the mask, you've got a successful Batman movie.

Wonder Woman has the "Woman in Man's World" version, or the "Fight the Gods" version. You can do the first, but don't expect good financial returns based on modern society, or the second version but you need to bring the audience up to speed somewhat. She's a- Thinking of a good word here, I apologize as I fight my English skills. Flat? Character. She is trying to teach America to be more like the militaristic matriarchy she comes from, or she's snapping necks like she's paid to.

In all of her history, there are only a few good "runs" that you can choose from to put on the big screen, it is an awful lot of filler by an awful lot of hacks. DC didn't do themselves any favors in the past by just throwing writers on Themyscara to learn how to write.

1. Why is it that whenever I say that people don't have to go into great detail regarding a character's past, it's taken as "Ignore this character's past"? This isn't the first time. Were the meanings of these words changed? Why was I not consulted? What I'm saying is that you can acknowledge it without getting overly bogged down in details. You're right about the poor treatment at the hands of hacks, though.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Except those movies DID get referenced as failures and such. As evidenced by the sharp decline in superhero movies in '97-'07. Movie companies didn't take any 'risks' with them and largely stayed away (with some, shitty, exceptions)
They probably did get referenced a good deal when superhero movies were making a big comeback. Daredevil and Batman and Robin (which wasn't actually a flop economically, just a bad movie) heralded a near-end in superhero film production for YEARS and those that did come around would be generally regarded as sucky cash-grabs (Catwoman, and Electra being relevant examples since they came out in that graveyard 'decade' or so for superhero films of '97-07). In fact, it took Marvel's Iron Man film to 'prove' superhero movies were viable again, and didn't necessarily have to suffer from the same 'shit-to-screen' formula of previous comic-book films.
Green Lantern stopped DC in their tracks with regards to their plans for their own line of multiple superhero films (hence why we see them now cramming everyone into Batman V Superman for cameo appearances). We don't have access to their communications, but I'd imagine that yes, they did refer to it when planning the marketing and production of future films (Dark Knight Rises was probably already close to done, but Man of Steel probably saw them refer to it).

Who starred in the film is rather irrelevant (though one might note that Marvel didn't go back to Affleck for any roles, and he played center-stage in the shitty 'Daredevil' film). This email isn't evidence of some vast, anti-woman conspiracy. Hell, if anything it's evidence of Marvel wanting to make sure their female-headlined superhero movie doesn't suffer from the same shittiness previous ones have, either due to their bad writing, acting or marketing.

They pulled back from making superhero movies, but what I'm saying is that they didn't point out the gender of the characters as being an issue.

Okay, let me be perfectly clear: I am not saying that there is a vast anti-woman conspiracy. I have never stated such. I have never even implied as much. I have actually specifically stated that I do not think that there is such a thing. The problems have to do with unspoken assumptions and cultural biases that inform our opinions, perceptions, and decisions, not any ridiculous conscious plans.

The thing is, though, that the gender of the character IS an issue. It's going to affect the marketing, they have to plan around it, it's not something that goes over peoples heads. Particularly in regards to comic book films where there's going to be preconceptions of the character based on different continuities/timelines/eras (this applies moreso, particularly in regards to gender, with certain superheroes. Most specifically Captain Marvel, see below).
Hell, as an easy demonstration, I was under the impression Captain Marvel was a man. Even as somewhat of an (outdated) comic-book nerd, I just never went down that particular storylin and what little I saw of it 'in the background' as it were was of Captain Marvel being male (and maybe alien, I'm basing this off of decade+ old memories of reading comics). I was actually somewhat surprised when I read the movie was going to have a female lead because I had no experience with 'Carol Danvers' who plays the current/movie Captain Marvel or the universe that's associated with.

That's an issue the company has to adjust for, alongside of being careful in how the movie is marketed and produced and referenced (because they'll have a large gender anvil hanging over their heads that WILL drop if they're perceived to be oversexualizing or exploiting a female lead). Which is actually a rather more recent issue that 'Supergirl' likely didn't have to contend with at all and that didn't produce nearly as loud/effective of an outcry with previous films (I mean, Catwoman was essentially just a really shitty excuse to wrap Halle Berry in a leather suit). So referring to those both in terms of their box office results and their production 'style' isn't necessarily even objectionable on the grounds of it being unfair towards women. We don't have enough information based off that single email, and it very well could be the result of a conversation that's actually more beneficial to a female-led superhero movie than indicative of an unfair attitude towards them. *shrug*

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Well, if you change the basics of the character, you're not writing Diana are you? You're writing someone else. That works for characters like Batman because so long as you keep the dead parents, snarky Butler, fascination with flying foxes, and Batman being the real man while Wayne is the mask, you've got a successful Batman movie.

Wonder Woman has the "Woman in Man's World" version, or the "Fight the Gods" version. You can do the first, but don't expect good financial returns based on modern society, or the second version but you need to bring the audience up to speed somewhat. She's a- Thinking of a good word here, I apologize as I fight my English skills. Flat? Character. She is trying to teach America to be more like the militaristic matriarchy she comes from, or she's snapping necks like she's paid to.

In all of her history, there are only a few good "runs" that you can choose from to put on the big screen, it is an awful lot of filler by an awful lot of hacks. DC didn't do themselves any favors in the past by just throwing writers on Themyscara to learn how to write.

1. Why is it that whenever I say that people don't have to go into great detail regarding a character's past, it's taken as "Ignore this character's past"? This isn't the first time. Were the meanings of these words changed? Why was I not consulted? What I'm saying is that you can acknowledge it without getting overly bogged down in details. You're right about the poor treatment at the hands of hacks, though.

Because it is the characters past that makes the character's present, in comics and in manga. Focusing on their present works for a one-off, but if you're looking to build a brand you have to recognize the existence of the brand's parameters. The tiara and star-spangled-swimsuit come with a lot of attachments, and discarding them isn't a good way to make <<anyone>> happy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

They pulled back from making superhero movies, but what I'm saying is that they didn't point out the gender of the characters as being an issue.

Okay, let me be perfectly clear: I am not saying that there is a vast anti-woman conspiracy. I have never stated such. I have never even implied as much. I have actually specifically stated that I do not think that there is such a thing. The problems have to do with unspoken assumptions and cultural biases that inform our opinions, perceptions, and decisions, not any ridiculous conscious plans.

The thing is, though, that the gender of the character IS an issue. It's going to affect the marketing, they have to plan around it, it's not something that goes over peoples heads. Particularly in regards to comic book films where there's going to be preconceptions of the character based on different continuities/timelines/eras (this applies moreso, particularly in regards to gender, with certain superheroes. Most specifically Captain Marvel, see below).
Hell, as an easy demonstration, I was under the impression Captain Marvel was a man. Even as somewhat of an (outdated) comic-book nerd, I just never went down that particular storylin and what little I saw of it 'in the background' as it were was of Captain Marvel being male (and maybe alien, I'm basing this off of decade+ old memories of reading comics). I was actually somewhat surprised when I read the movie was going to have a female lead because I had no experience with 'Carol Danvers' who plays the current/movie Captain Marvel or the universe that's associated with.

That's an issue the company has to adjust for, alongside of being careful in how the movie is marketed and produced and referenced (because they'll have a large gender anvil hanging over their heads that WILL drop if they're perceived to be oversexualizing or exploiting a female lead). Which is actually a rather more recent issue that 'Supergirl' likely didn't have to contend with at all and that didn't produce nearly as loud/effective of an outcry with previous films (I mean, Catwoman was essentially just a really shitty excuse to wrap Halle Berry in a leather suit). So referring to those both in terms of their box office results and their production 'style' isn't necessarily even objectionable on the grounds of it being unfair towards women. We don't have enough information based off that single email, and it very well could be the result of a conversation that's actually more beneficial to a female-led superhero movie than indicative of an unfair attitude towards them. *shrug*

I think that you raise some excellent points, but it seems odd to me that they would focus on the gender of the characters, and not realize that these were, by and large, incredibly bad movies to begin with. Your description of Catwoman was on the mark. However, Elektra was also an ungodly mess, with a story that was utterly baffling in the places where it wasn't unbearably dull, and Supergirl is infamous for its low-budget special effects and overall sloppy production.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

1. Why is it that whenever I say that people don't have to go into great detail regarding a character's past, it's taken as "Ignore this character's past"? This isn't the first time. Were the meanings of these words changed? Why was I not consulted? What I'm saying is that you can acknowledge it without getting overly bogged down in details. You're right about the poor treatment at the hands of hacks, though.

Because it is the characters past that makes the character's present, in comics and in manga. Focusing on their present works for a one-off, but if you're looking to build a brand you have to recognize the existence of the brand's parameters. The tiara and star-spangled-swimsuit come with a lot of attachments, and discarding them isn't a good way to make <<anyone>> happy.

You can cover an origin story in fifteen minutes without getting bogged down in unnecessary details, like in the first Superman movie. After that, they only referred back to it when it would serve the purposes of the story (The Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's warning about meddling with the past). It was excellent use of economy in storytelling.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Because it is the characters past that makes the character's present, in comics and in manga. Focusing on their present works for a one-off, but if you're looking to build a brand you have to recognize the existence of the brand's parameters. The tiara and star-spangled-swimsuit come with a lot of attachments, and discarding them isn't a good way to make <<anyone>> happy.

You can cover an origin story in fifteen minutes without getting bogged down in unnecessary details, like in the first Superman movie. After that, they only referred back to it when it would serve the purposes of the story (The Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's warning about meddling with the past). It was excellent use of economy in storytelling.

Done with the help of a phenomenal actor, a fantastic writing team, and a production studio that wanted to make an art film. Superman's success is largely a product of many factors that need to be found for a solid female hero.

Wonder Woman is <<not>> a solid female hero. She's iconic for all the wrong reasons. Black Widow is a similar issue, she's not a solid female hero, she's at best an anti-hero and isn't a "super"hero, she's best used in a spy film or a cold-war thriller.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The thing is, though, that the gender of the character IS an issue. It's going to affect the marketing, they have to plan around it, it's not something that goes over peoples heads. Particularly in regards to comic book films where there's going to be preconceptions of the character based on different continuities/timelines/eras (this applies moreso, particularly in regards to gender, with certain superheroes. Most specifically Captain Marvel, see below).
Hell, as an easy demonstration, I was under the impression Captain Marvel was a man. Even as somewhat of an (outdated) comic-book nerd, I just never went down that particular storylin and what little I saw of it 'in the background' as it were was of Captain Marvel being male (and maybe alien, I'm basing this off of decade+ old memories of reading comics). I was actually somewhat surprised when I read the movie was going to have a female lead because I had no experience with 'Carol Danvers' who plays the current/movie Captain Marvel or the universe that's associated with.

That's an issue the company has to adjust for, alongside of being careful in how the movie is marketed and produced and referenced (because they'll have a large gender anvil hanging over their heads that WILL drop if they're perceived to be oversexualizing or exploiting a female lead). Which is actually a rather more recent issue that 'Supergirl' likely didn't have to contend with at all and that didn't produce nearly as loud/effective of an outcry with previous films (I mean, Catwoman was essentially just a really shitty excuse to wrap Halle Berry in a leather suit). So referring to those both in terms of their box office results and their production 'style' isn't necessarily even objectionable on the grounds of it being unfair towards women. We don't have enough information based off that single email, and it very well could be the result of a conversation that's actually more beneficial to a female-led superhero movie than indicative of an unfair attitude towards them. *shrug*

I think that you raise some excellent points, but it seems odd to me that they would focus on the gender of the characters, and not realize that these were, by and large, incredibly bad movies to begin with. Your description of Catwoman was on the mark. However, Elektra was also an ungodly mess, with a story that was utterly baffling in the places where it wasn't unbearably dull, and Supergirl is infamous for its low-budget special effects and overall sloppy production.

I will admit, that could be odd.
It's very dependent on what the preceding and following emails contained, which we don't seem to have. Hopefully they're just referring to them (as well as other crappy superhero movies like 'Daredevil') as what not to do in terms of writing, special effects, budget, and all the rest (in addition to how/what to avoid in advertising and such that would be objected to by modern audiences) because so long as they avoid copying anything from those films then they should see at least some moderate degrees of success (I watched Elektra as well. All I remember is stopping it about halfway through or so because I just did not care).

Supposedly the writer for Guardians of the Galaxy is who they pegged to write their Captain Marvel film, so that's a spot of hope in that regard at least.
...
Anyhow, the toy thing is odd. It is Captain America's bike, but that was Black Widow's 'scene' from the movie. It's odd and a bit objectionable to market around that while ignoring Widow's role.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You can cover an origin story in fifteen minutes without getting bogged down in unnecessary details, like in the first Superman movie. After that, they only referred back to it when it would serve the purposes of the story (The Fortress of Solitude, Jor-El's warning about meddling with the past). It was excellent use of economy in storytelling.

Done with the help of a phenomenal actor, a fantastic writing team, and a production studio that wanted to make an art film. Superman's success is largely a product of many factors that need to be found for a solid female hero.

Wonder Woman is <<not>> a solid female hero. She's iconic for all the wrong reasons. Black Widow is a similar issue, she's not a solid female hero, she's at best an anti-hero and isn't a "super"hero, she's best used in a spy film or a cold-war thriller.

In twenty minutes, you can cover Steve Trevor crashing on a mysterious island, the Amazons learning about a threat that threatens them as well as the rest of the world, and a contest that Diana wins, causing her to be named the Amazons' representative to the outside world. You can combine the ambassador of peace/trained warrior thing, since it's always more interesting when there's a bit of a perceived conflict within a character.

[Charellia]

I think that you raise some excellent points, but it seems odd to me that they would focus on the gender of the characters, and not realize that these were, by and large, incredibly bad movies to begin with. Your description of Catwoman was on the mark. However, Elektra was also an ungodly mess, with a story that was utterly baffling in the places where it wasn't unbearably dull, and Supergirl is infamous for its low-budget special effects and overall sloppy production.

I will admit, that could be odd.
It's very dependent on what the preceding and following emails contained, which we don't seem to have. Hopefully they're just referring to them (as well as other crappy superhero movies like 'Daredevil') as what not to do in terms of writing, special effects, budget, and all the rest (in addition to how/what to avoid in advertising and such that would be objected to by modern audiences) because so long as they avoid copying anything from those films then they should see at least some moderate degrees of success (I watched Elektra as well. All I remember is stopping it about halfway through or so because I just did not care).

Supposedly the writer for Guardians of the Galaxy is who they pegged to write their Captain Marvel film, so that's a spot of hope in that regard at least.
...
Anyhow, the toy thing is odd. It is Captain America's bike, but that was Black Widow's 'scene' from the movie. It's odd and a bit objectionable to market around that while ignoring Widow's role.

Black Widow isn't nearly as recognizable as Captain America. Movie merchandise needs to feature characters that people will immediately recognize and want to buy. The events of the movie are totally irrelevant to the toys except so far as they can be used to sell more of them.

[Lord Tothe]

Possibilities:

1. they wanted an action toy set centered around Captain America.
2. the toy production line was working with outdated script info indicating that Cap would be shown on the bike in the first place when the molds and other tooling were created long ago.
3. They wanted to ignore Black Widow.

I suspect the first 2 are the more likely.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Done with the help of a phenomenal actor, a fantastic writing team, and a production studio that wanted to make an art film. Superman's success is largely a product of many factors that need to be found for a solid female hero.

Wonder Woman is <<not>> a solid female hero. She's iconic for all the wrong reasons. Black Widow is a similar issue, she's not a solid female hero, she's at best an anti-hero and isn't a "super"hero, she's best used in a spy film or a cold-war thriller.

In twenty minutes, you can cover Steve Trevor crashing on a mysterious island, the Amazons learning about a threat that threatens them as well as the rest of the world, and a contest that Diana wins, causing her to be named the Amazons' representative to the outside world. You can combine the ambassador of peace/trained warrior thing, since it's always more interesting when there's a bit of a perceived conflict within a character.

Which would discard the "Born of Clay" and "Daughter of the Gods" parts, which conflict heavily with American sensibilities. Also, Steve Trevor is old continuity, the Nu52 bullshit aced him.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I will admit, that could be odd.
It's very dependent on what the preceding and following emails contained, which we don't seem to have. Hopefully they're just referring to them (as well as other crappy superhero movies like 'Daredevil') as what not to do in terms of writing, special effects, budget, and all the rest (in addition to how/what to avoid in advertising and such that would be objected to by modern audiences) because so long as they avoid copying anything from those films then they should see at least some moderate degrees of success (I watched Elektra as well. All I remember is stopping it about halfway through or so because I just did not care).

Supposedly the writer for Guardians of the Galaxy is who they pegged to write their Captain Marvel film, so that's a spot of hope in that regard at least.
...
Anyhow, the toy thing is odd. It is Captain America's bike, but that was Black Widow's 'scene' from the movie. It's odd and a bit objectionable to market around that while ignoring Widow's role.

Black Widow isn't nearly as recognizable as Captain America. Movie merchandise needs to feature characters that people will immediately recognize and want to buy. The events of the movie are totally irrelevant to the toys except so far as they can be used to sell more of them.

Black Widow has been in several Marvel films. She's plenty recognizable. The reason that she's not even more recognizable is that they've actually kept her face off of much of the merchandise, like this t-shirt, or this one, or this one. They also left her face off of the package of the toy itself while including the other Avengers. It seems bizarre to remove the image of a character from much of the merchandise associated with a property, then to shrug and claim that she's not as recognizable. Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Black Widow isn't nearly as recognizable as Captain America. Movie merchandise needs to feature characters that people will immediately recognize and want to buy. The events of the movie are totally irrelevant to the toys except so far as they can be used to sell more of them.

Black Widow has been in several Marvel films. She's plenty recognizable. The reason that she's not even more recognizable is that they've actually kept her face off of much of the merchandise, like this t-shirt, or this one, or this one. They also left her face off of the package of the toy itself while including the other Avengers. It seems bizarre to remove the image of a character from much of the merchandise associated with a property, then to shrug and claim that she's not as recognizable. Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Does the target demographic want a female face on their shirts?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Black Widow has been in several Marvel films. She's plenty recognizable. The reason that she's not even more recognizable is that they've actually kept her face off of much of the merchandise, like this t-shirt, or this one, or this one. They also left her face off of the package of the toy itself while including the other Avengers. It seems bizarre to remove the image of a character from much of the merchandise associated with a property, then to shrug and claim that she's not as recognizable. Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Does the target demographic want a female face on their shirts?

Would they buy fewer shirts if her face was on them? We'll never know so long as they keep making these decisions. Thing is, I did see a couple with her face included, but only a couple, and not on the racks in any store I've been in recently.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

Does the target demographic want a female face on their shirts?

Would they buy fewer shirts if her face was on them? We'll never know so long as they keep making these decisions. Thing is, I did see a couple with her face included, but only a couple, and not on the racks in any store I've been in recently.

We actually do know, because they do market studies for this stuff. I'm loathe to mention it but my first job when I was building my PMP credentials was at a Japanese toy production company. They'd market test everything down to the most profitable amount, and then build and ship. I learned a lot about how much of societies problems are societies own fault. They buy what they buy, and the companies would market "My Little Cumdumpster" if they could make a buck doing so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Would they buy fewer shirts if her face was on them? We'll never know so long as they keep making these decisions. Thing is, I did see a couple with her face included, but only a couple, and not on the racks in any store I've been in recently.

We actually do know, because they do market studies for this stuff. I'm loathe to mention it but my first job when I was building my PMP credentials was at a Japanese toy production company. They'd market test everything down to the most profitable amount, and then build and ship. I learned a lot about how much of societies problems are societies own fault. They buy what they buy, and the companies would market "My Little Cumdumpster" if they could make a buck doing so.

If they don't push the character, then there will be no demand. They are able to create demand. That's what marketing is (I've also worked in the field for a blessedly short period of time, likely not as long as you did, and am just as loath as you to admit it). They're not even trying to crack the women's markets despite the fact that 41% of the people who went to see the film were women. There's a market for strong female characters. Hell, there's a known market for strong female characters written and directed by Joss Whedon. They could market the hell out of the character if they weren't crippled by hidebound thinking and cliched stereotypes.

[Charellia]

Black Widow isn't nearly as recognizable as Captain America. Movie merchandise needs to feature characters that people will immediately recognize and want to buy. The events of the movie are totally irrelevant to the toys except so far as they can be used to sell more of them.

Black Widow has been in several Marvel films. She's plenty recognizable. The reason that she's not even more recognizable is that they've actually kept her face off of much of the merchandise, like this t-shirt, or this one, or this one. They also left her face off of the package of the toy itself while including the other Avengers. It seems bizarre to remove the image of a character from much of the merchandise associated with a property, then to shrug and claim that she's not as recognizable. Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

When I said she wasn't recognizable, I meant that she doesn't stand out next to the other heroes in their ostentatious costumes. The same is true of Hawkeye. But since Hawkeye is on two of the t-shirts (and he is even less recognizable), I guess that can't be why Black Widow is left out.

I thought that the toy was just sensible marketing, but it looks like there may be some real sexism in Avengers merchandise after all.

[Tekania]

They pulled back from making superhero movies, but what I'm saying is that they didn't point out the gender of the characters as being an issue.

Okay, let me be perfectly clear: I am not saying that there is a vast anti-woman conspiracy. I have never stated such. I have never even implied as much. I have actually specifically stated that I do not think that there is such a thing. The problems have to do with unspoken assumptions and cultural biases that inform our opinions, perceptions, and decisions, not any ridiculous conscious plans.

The thing is, though, that the gender of the character IS an issue. It's going to affect the marketing, they have to plan around it, it's not something that goes over peoples heads. Particularly in regards to comic book films where there's going to be preconceptions of the character based on different continuities/timelines/eras (this applies moreso, particularly in regards to gender, with certain superheroes. Most specifically Captain Marvel, see below).
Hell, as an easy demonstration, I was under the impression Captain Marvel was a man. Even as somewhat of an (outdated) comic-book nerd, I just never went down that particular storylin and what little I saw of it 'in the background' as it were was of Captain Marvel being male (and maybe alien, I'm basing this off of decade+ old memories of reading comics). I was actually somewhat surprised when I read the movie was going to have a female lead because I had no experience with 'Carol Danvers' who plays the current/movie Captain Marvel or the universe that's associated with.

That's an issue the company has to adjust for, alongside of being careful in how the movie is marketed and produced and referenced (because they'll have a large gender anvil hanging over their heads that WILL drop if they're perceived to be oversexualizing or exploiting a female lead). Which is actually a rather more recent issue that 'Supergirl' likely didn't have to contend with at all and that didn't produce nearly as loud/effective of an outcry with previous films (I mean, Catwoman was essentially just a really shitty excuse to wrap Halle Berry in a leather suit). So referring to those both in terms of their box office results and their production 'style' isn't necessarily even objectionable on the grounds of it being unfair towards women. We don't have enough information based off that single email, and it very well could be the result of a conversation that's actually more beneficial to a female-led superhero movie than indicative of an unfair attitude towards them. *shrug*

The thing is, I can actually see a point with the OP, I realize there is a marketing thing here and they are doing it based upon their marketing perceptions. And I honestly think their perceptions are erred and that the OP does in fact have an underlying point. Transformers (my collector hobby) is a largely traditional male toyline too... yet over the last couple of years IDW/Hasbro has run campaigns to poll fans on characters and based upon those polls have created characters based upon fan ideas (those fans effectively being the market) and each time they have done this to date the result has been a female character.... last year we got Wind Blade.... this year we're getting a 6-bot all female combiner team. I think Marvel should do this as well with Hasbro.... there is a large fan market, and if they polled it I think they would find a disconnect between what they think will sell well and what fans may actually want.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

We actually do know, because they do market studies for this stuff. I'm loathe to mention it but my first job when I was building my PMP credentials was at a Japanese toy production company. They'd market test everything down to the most profitable amount, and then build and ship. I learned a lot about how much of societies problems are societies own fault. They buy what they buy, and the companies would market "My Little Cumdumpster" if they could make a buck doing so.

If they don't push the character, then there will be no demand. They are able to create demand. That's what marketing is (I've also worked in the field for a blessedly short period of time, likely not as long as you did, and am just as loath as you to admit it). They're not even trying to crack the women's markets despite the fact that 41% of the people who went to see the film were women. There's a market for strong female characters. Hell, there's a known market for strong female characters written and directed by Joss Whedon. They could market the hell out of the character if they weren't crippled by hidebound thinking and cliched stereotypes.

If they do push the character they are going to take away from spending on a known quantity though. $20 for Black Widow is $20 less for Rainbow Brite, or whatever toy Hasbro is marketing to young women. Believe me, I'm not hating on the concept because I hate women or some other stupid thing, but I've seen the thinking that goes behind this kind of stuff and it isn't founded in social activism, it's founded in dead presidents.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If they don't push the character, then there will be no demand. They are able to create demand. That's what marketing is (I've also worked in the field for a blessedly short period of time, likely not as long as you did, and am just as loath as you to admit it). They're not even trying to crack the women's markets despite the fact that 41% of the people who went to see the film were women. There's a market for strong female characters. Hell, there's a known market for strong female characters written and directed by Joss Whedon. They could market the hell out of the character if they weren't crippled by hidebound thinking and cliched stereotypes.

If they do push the character they are going to take away from spending on a known quantity though. $20 for Black Widow is $20 less for Rainbow Brite, or whatever toy Hasbro is marketing to young women. Believe me, I'm not hating on the concept because I hate women or some other stupid thing, but I've seen the thinking that goes behind this kind of stuff and it isn't founded in social activism, it's founded in dead presidents.

No, I understand that your point is based upon their desire for profit. What I'm saying is that that's a shoddy business practice. When you have a money maker like The Avengers, you can take the occasional risk and push into a new market. Otherwise, you're leaving the field wide open for DC and WB to do a major Wonder Woman push next year, and grab the merchandising dollars.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

If they do push the character they are going to take away from spending on a known quantity though. $20 for Black Widow is $20 less for Rainbow Brite, or whatever toy Hasbro is marketing to young women. Believe me, I'm not hating on the concept because I hate women or some other stupid thing, but I've seen the thinking that goes behind this kind of stuff and it isn't founded in social activism, it's founded in dead presidents.

No, I understand that your point is based upon their desire for profit. What I'm saying is that that's a shoddy business practice. When you have a money maker like The Avengers, you can take the occasional risk and push into a new market. Otherwise, you're leaving the field wide open for DC and WB to do a major Wonder Woman push next year, and grab the merchandising dollars.

Or take the risk and let them see whether the market sinks or swims. First to market isn't always the best plan.

[Grave_n_idle]

If they don't push the character, then there will be no demand. They are able to create demand. That's what marketing is (I've also worked in the field for a blessedly short period of time, likely not as long as you did, and am just as loath as you to admit it). They're not even trying to crack the women's markets despite the fact that 41% of the people who went to see the film were women. There's a market for strong female characters. Hell, there's a known market for strong female characters written and directed by Joss Whedon. They could market the hell out of the character if they weren't crippled by hidebound thinking and cliched stereotypes.

If they do push the character they are going to take away from spending on a known quantity though. $20 for Black Widow is $20 less for Rainbow Brite, or whatever toy Hasbro is marketing to young women. Believe me, I'm not hating on the concept because I hate women or some other stupid thing, but I've seen the thinking that goes behind this kind of stuff and it isn't founded in social activism, it's founded in dead presidents.

You're drawing a contrast where there isn't one. Yes, money is the bottom line - but that doesn't mean that Black Widow wasn't axed from the packaging concept JUST because she's a woman.

Why are female superhero movies so dire? Because they aren't taken as seriously. And I don't mean whether or not they are taken seriously by the customer - that decision is a long way down the line. As Supergirl showed, there's no need to invest in quality special effects if your superhero is 'just' a girl. As Elektra showed, there's no point spending money on a decent script if it's 'just' a girl. Catwoman showed there's not even any point in putting together a story if your hero is 'just' a girl.

Now, I'm not saying those flaws ONLY affect female superheroes - look at how badly the first Dredd movie missed on just about very metric. Look at how much better the Dirty Laundry fan film was than the 'official' Punisher movie. Look at the horrible decisions about action sequences in the Daredevil movie.

But while there are reasons why studios so completely fuck up these properties (like, not understanding that Judge Dredd is satire - the same thing that sunk the Starship Troopers bigscreen adaptation) - the flaws in female-led superhero movies all stem from a half-heartedness regarding the project from inception - because they KNOW its going to fail, because it's a girl. Which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That just keeps giving.

[The Black Forrest]

Well? I don't know about now but you go back in time and the readership was 99.9 percent male. Girls just weren't interested in comic books.

So that legacy can be argued.

Has times changed? Probably. Somebody needs to present a good story line for the women.

Problem is businessmen are calling the shots and then tend to go for the easy sale.

The viewship of the newer Marvel movies at the theatre is over 40% female. Doesn't seem like a massive stretch to think they might we will to part with some readies to buy some of the merchandise as well.

The viewership of Mockingbird was more than 50% female. Women are into these kinds of films.

Liking the films and wanting toys doesn't always happen for little girls.

Even with your choices. Katnis is a major character. Widow is a secondary character. There are books and the windows only had a comic line in recent times. She was a secondary (ie Daredevil and the Black Widow) in the old days.

It would be interesting to see if little girls are asking.....

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, I understand that your point is based upon their desire for profit. What I'm saying is that that's a shoddy business practice. When you have a money maker like The Avengers, you can take the occasional risk and push into a new market. Otherwise, you're leaving the field wide open for DC and WB to do a major Wonder Woman push next year, and grab the merchandising dollars.

Or take the risk and let them see whether the market sinks or swims. First to market isn't always the best plan.

It is if you're doing it on the back of a proven franchise. The losses for failure would be minimal, while success would open up a brand new market. The relative success of Buffy figures shows that there's a market for strong female heroes. Put the marketing power of Disney behind it, and you have a low-risk high-reward enterprise on your hands. The worst that it will end up as is a tax writeoff, and the best will open up a largely untapped market for future installments. I mean, seriously, they're going to be doing Captain Marvel starring Carol Danvers in a few years. Maybe now is the time to learn how to market women to women as well as to men.