zslane

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

Another point of view on that:
 
http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-wonder-woman-movie-has-a-brilliant-approach-to-gett-1753211325

It warms my heart to see how this loving homage to pop culture is becoming beloved pop culture itself.

I kind of assumed that most of the rank and file employees were unaware of the secret experiments going on in the secret labs on the secret floors of that facility. Knowledge of the psychic dimension penetration experiments was likely limited to only a handful of scientists, lab technicians, and security personel.

Yeah but inter-team distrust and paranoia is apparently a reflection of the zeitgeist. It is so now. It's like 24 went off the air and all kinds of shows rushed in to fill the void (Person of Interest, The Blacklist, Blind Spot, Agents of SHIELD, etc.).
 
I think part of the problem may have been that superhero fans wanted more superhero stuff and less political thriller stuff, while political thriller fans didn't care for the superhero/scifi elements. Notice how Peggy Carter was successful when it focused on the espionage thriller stuff, but then lost viewers when it steered into Weird Sci-Fi territory. These shows suffered from a bit of an identity crisis, if you ask me.

It is my belief that Hawkeye and Black Widow, as portrayed in the MCU, owe more to their Ultimates incarnations than their traditional 616 incarnations. Unfortunately, Whedon either didn't understand how, or wasn't permitted, to give those two characters the same roles (within the team) and the same degree of badassery as in the Ultimates comic. The result is two characters that, by and large, don't really fit with the scope of power of the other Avengers.
 
And as the Avengers storyline continues to climb the power ladder, becoming more cosmic and universe-threatening, the degree to which these two characters are out of place (and indadequate) only grows. It isn't hard to see that stepping back from the trajectory of the Infinity Gauntlet story to tell a gritty, more gounded, dare I say small story like a BW film would, just isn't on anyone's priority list over at Marvel.
 
Maybe Black Widow needs to be a Netflix series, rather than a summer blockbuster.

Sure, but that's back to being a logistical issue, not a "doesn't fit our plans for the larger narrative" issue.

Bazza makes a lot of sense, except that Ant-Man defies the Phase Three Directive Theory, IMO. I see nothing about that character that is important to the Thanos/Infinity Guantlet storyline, and yet Marvel saw fit to squeeze that film in and squeeze him into the Avengers team. Black Widow already inhabits the world and the Avengers/Thanos storyline, and I am confident that the creative team at Marvel could find a way to make a BW film not only good, but also tightly connected with the larger Avengers plotline.
 
I mean, look at what they're doing with Rogue One. It has nothing whatever to do with the storline of the new films, but Disney is giving us this "filler" film anyway. It is basically a flashback movie, giving us a kind of behind-the-scenes look at events we didn't even know we cared about. And while some folks here may say, "You're right I don't care about any of that and don't plan to see it," Disney is banking on the fact that lots of other fans will go see it. They could easily do the same thing with Black Widow, regardless of the specific issue of how it "fits" into the rest of Phase Three, banking on the apparent demand for such a film within fandom.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But the series simply didn't have time to address the wrongful death suits and other "real world" stuff that would have been going on in the margins of the main story. Nor would I have wanted any time spent on it, to be honest.

Yeah, I wondered about that too. But the series simply didn't have time to address the wrongful death suits and other "real world" stuff that would have been going on in the margins of the main story. Nor would I have wanted any time spent on it, to be honest.

Yeah, it's definitely not because they (or anyone) thinks Black Widow isn't worthy of a film. Though with the current Avengers line-up walking into the proverbial sunset, her time as an A-list MCU character has probably passed. But if the popularity of characters like Peggy Carter, Bobby Morse, and Jessica Jones are anything to go by, Marvel should certainly realize there is a market for something like a Black Widow movie.
 
Then again, the feminist conspiracy chasers will tell you that Marvel doesn't really want to make superhero movies for female title characters at all, and that Captain Marvel is just a rare case of the "right thing" happening despite all the misogynistic forces marshalled against that kind of project in Hollywood. Could they be right?

Let's say there is a tentative slot in the phase 3 or 4 slate for a Black Widow film. But then the deal for Spider-Man goes through with Sony and you need to bump something. And then Ant-Man does well enough financially that executives start having visions of $$$ from a sequel dancing in their heads and want to bump something else. I can see how Black Widow ends up drawing the short straw on this, disappointing though it may be.
 
SJ may also have other projects in the works that make it difficult to schedule her for another MCU film (in addition to the ones she's already scheduled for) any time soon. Like, there could be a three-month window where she's available in 2017, but Marvel won't be ready by then. And then maybe her next slot of availability doesn't line up with Marvel's development schedule until 2019 or 2020. This stuff isn't easy to make happen given all the people and resources that have to be marshalled.
 
Let's also consider that Marvel may have decided, however wrongly, that audiences don't have that much interest in an MCU spy movie given the generally lackluster response to Marvel's Most Wanted.
 
There are a lot of factors being considered to put any MCU film into production: practical, financial, logistical, strategic, corporate, and personal. Without knowing all the details behind the decisions, they can seem awfully arbitrary, but I am confident they aren't, and that it would probably make sense if we knew all the details.

Let's say there is a tentative slot in the phase 3 or 4 slate for a Black Widow film. But then the deal for Spider-Man goes through with Sony and you need to bump something. And then Ant-Man does well enough financially that executives start having visions of $$$ from a sequel dancing in their heads and want to bump something else. I can see how Black Widow ends up drawing the short straw on this, disappointing though it may be.
 
SJ may also have other projects in the works that make it difficult to schedule her for another MCU film (in addition to the ones she's already scheduled for) any time soon. Like, there could be a three-month window where she's available in 2017, but Marvel won't be ready by then. And then maybe her next slot of availability doesn't line up with Marvel's development schedule until 2019 or 2020. This stuff isn't easy to make happen given all the people and resources that have to be marshalled.
 
Let's also consider that Marvel may have decided, however wrongly, that audiences don't have that much interest in an MCU spy movie given the generally lackluster response to Marvel's Most Wanted.
 
There are a lot of factors being considered to put any MCU film into production: practical, financial, logistical, strategic, corporate, and personal. Without knowing all the details behind the decisions, they can seem awfully arbitrary, but I am confident they aren't, and that it would probably make sense if we knew all the details.

Gwen Stacy was the girl next door. MJ was the hot chick with a modeling career.

I agree with Jeff T.
 
Something that writers and directors today must learn first, though, is that snark and sarcasm != sense of humor. I like the fact that Holland's take on Spidey's sense of humor seems to come from a youthful exhuberance, not some snotty, emo attitude that is supposed to connect with today's youth somehow.

Gwen Stacy was the girl next door. MJ was the hot chick with a modeling career.

Gwen Stacy was the girl next door. MJ was the hot chick with a modeling career.

Gwen Stacy was the girl next door. MJ was the hot chick with a modeling career.

Gwen Stacy was the girl next door. MJ was the hot chick with a modeling career.

Gwen Stacy was the girl next door. MJ was the hot chick with a modeling career.

I don't have any financial figures to back it up, but I would think that putting out controversial continuity-changing storylines that divide the fanbase would be a good thing. Any time you have the fans arguing over things it means they are reading the material and caring about it, to the extent that they fight over it.
 
As I see it, the real problem is that comic publishing, whether it is digital or paper, is a business first and foremost. The notion of stopping a successful title just because the character should (realistically) retire after ten years of fighting villains--to say nothing of the plot churn that comes with such longevity--is anathema to publishers. Moreover, they realize that coming up with interesting characters and (financially) successful storylines is not so easy, so exchanging one aging character with a fresh new character in the company's roster would be a terrifying prospect.
 
However, that's how I would want to run a comic publishing company if I had the chance. I'm not saying it would work out, but I like the idealism of it. I like the idea that each character is allowed a single virtual "lifetime" to fight crime and save the world, and that the superhero universe is allowed to have an ever-changing tapestry of characters that come and go once their storylines are played out. Sure, there might be the occasional immortal character, but this standard practice of keeping the main characters 25-35 years old forever would go bye-bye.
 
Fans of popular characters would cry, "But we love the Justice Queen! Don't take her away!" to which I would respond, "Don't worry, we have another character coming up that is just as interesting and that you'll love even more!" It would be necessary to back that up with the goods, but that's the challenge. The creative challenge that no publisher is willing to undertake because it's too hard and probably doesn't make enough money (though I think that is solved by merchandizing the characters in other forms).
 
Anyway, that's my idealistic rant for the day.

I don't have any financial figures to back it up, but I would think that putting out controversial continuity-changing storylines that divide the fanbase would be a good thing. Any time you have the fans arguing over things it means they are reading the material and caring about it, to the extent that they fight over it.
 
As I see it, the real problem is that comic publishing, whether it is digital or paper, is a business first and foremost. The notion of stopping a successful title just because the character should (realistically) retire after ten years of fighting villains--to say nothing of the plot churn that comes with such longevity--is anathema to publishers. Moreover, they realize that coming up with interesting characters and (financially) successful storylines is not so easy, so exchanging one aging character with a fresh new character in the company's roster would be a terrifying prospect.
 
However, that's how I would want to run a comic publishing company if I had the chance. I'm not saying it would work out, but I like the idealism of it. I like the idea that each character is allowed a single virtual "lifetime" to fight crime and save the world, and that the superhero universe is allowed to have an ever-changing tapestry of characters that come and go once their storylines are played out. Sure, there might be the occasional immortal character, but this standard practice of keeping the main characters 25-35 years old forever would go bye-bye.
 
Fans of popular characters would cry, "But we love the Justice Queen! Don't take her away!" to which I would respond, "Don't worry, we have another character coming up that is just as interesting and that you'll love even more!" It would be necessary to back that up with the goods, but that's the challenge. The creative challenge that no publisher is willing to undertake because it's too hard and probably doesn't make enough money (though I think that is solved by merchandizing the characters in other forms).
 
Anyway, that's my idealistic rant for the day.

I don't have any financial figures to back it up, but I would think that putting out controversial continuity-changing storylines that divide the fanbase would be a good thing. Any time you have the fans arguing over things it means they are reading the material and caring about it, to the extent that they fight over it.
 
As I see it, the real problem is that comic publishing, whether it is digital or paper, is a business first and foremost. The notion of stopping a successful title just because the character should (realistically) retire after ten years of fighting villains--to say nothing of the plot churn that comes with such longevity--is anathema to publishers. Moreover, they realize that coming up with interesting characters and (financially) successful storylines is not so easy, so exchanging one aging character with a fresh new character in the company's roster would be a terrifying prospect.
 
However, that's how I would want to run a comic publishing company if I had the chance. I'm not saying it would work out, but I like the idealism of it. I like the idea that each character is allowed a single virtual "lifetime" to fight crime and save the world, and that the superhero universe is allowed to have an ever-changing tapestry of characters that come and go once their storylines are played out. Sure, there might be the occasional immortal character, but this standard practice of keeping the main characters 25-35 years old forever would go bye-bye.
 
Fans of popular characters would cry, "But we love the Justice Queen! Don't take her away!" to which I would respond, "Don't worry, we have another character coming up that is just as interesting and that you'll love even more!" It would be necessary to back that up with the goods, but that's the challenge. The creative challenge that no publisher is willing to undertake because it's too hard and probably doesn't make enough money (though I think that is solved by merchandizing the characters in other forms).
 
Anyway, that's my idealistic rant for the day.

It is difficult to tell stories about the same character for nearly 75+ years. Attempts to freshen up the character for each new generation are inevitable, and not all attempts are going to work well. It ruined the Star Trek franchise (IMO), and it is ruining the DC(E)U. I would say that 50-75 years of creaking continuity has ruined 616 and whatever DC calls its comic book multi-verse, but at this point nobody really expects the comics to save themselves from their own editorial misadventures anyway.
 
Me, I'm looking forward to the tv version of Wild Cards now.