Six-Year-Old Upset By Lack of Female Friendly Avengers Toys

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

dversion:
-snip-

Then I'm not sure what you ARE trying to argue, because we've already established:

1) That the toys actually do exist and are easily purchased on Amazon or other such sites.
2) That since she didn't know the toys existed, that would suggest that she's either not an actual customer of the toy line or else is significantly ill-informed about products she allegedly buys.
3) That if she's not actually a customer of the toys in question, she really has no right to demand that companies cater to her.
4) That previous attempts to invest in female superheroes as a market have all met with considerable failure, suggesting that the demand simply isn't there.
5) That asking a company to invest millions into a market which (as point 3 states) isn't actually there to begin with is a considerable risk with a low probability of significant returns on that investment, thus making it an unreasonable demand to make in the first place.

So....what exactly do you have left to stand on?

The correct answer, of course, is nothing.

Let's resume this discussion again when this supposedly massive underground female superhero-loving demographic decides to actually show up with their wallets and invest in these products they supposedly enjoy. Then they can start demanding more equality, and I'll be happy to join them in that fight. Until then? If you're not a customer of the products in question, you don't get a say.

In fairness Black Widow is hardly one of the films "big guns". She was certainly a fun character but is nowhere near as iconic as Thor, Cpt. America or Iron Man, each of whom has had one or two movies just for themselves.

CriticKitten:

dversion:
-snip-

Then I'm not sure what you ARE trying to argue

Yeah, No kidding.

So I was not talking about any of that. Like at all....

Again, the notion you stated waaay back when we started this conversation was that supposedly products are these neutral things placed into the market place that anyone can buy. And that If people wanted them, all they simply have to do is buy them. Saying that there just is not a market for these things may be true, but it does not mean that any demographic is somehow inherently never going to buy it. Sure yes, technically everyone can buy whatever they want but young boys will buy these products, not because boys somehow like action figures more than girls because they're somehow born that way but because there is already billions of dollars invested in telling young boys that they need this product.

So I'm not talking about this specific circumstance or arguing for or against these practices. Just clearing up how capitalism works.

I have no idea how you'll interpret what I wrote, or if you'll actually read it this time, but please feel free to tell me how I'm wrong about things I did not even say or ideas I never expressed.

dversion:
Again, the notion you stated waaay back when we started this conversation was that supposedly products are these neutral things placed into the market place that anyone can buy. And that If people wanted them, all they simply have to do is buy them. Saying that there just is not a market for these things may be true, but it does not mean that any demographic is somehow inherently never going to buy it. Sure yes, technically everyone can buy whatever they want but young boys will buy these products, not because boys somehow like action figures more than girls because they're somehow born that way but because there is already billions of dollars invested in telling young boys that they need this product.

So I'm not talking about this specific circumstance or arguing for or against these practices. Just clearing up how capitalism works.

And again, we've already dismissed this nonsensical argument about three times now.

These companies market their superheroes primarily to little boys primarily because (and see if you can follow along this time) little boys are the most likely customers. Girls do not tend to buy these toys, ergo, companies do not spend money trying to convince people who do not usually buy their toys to please go to the store and buy their toys.

What you're basically making right now is a chicken-vs-egg argument, trying to claim that if they just put out the marketing "equally" that there would be equal levels of influence on both genders, and thus, it would be plausible that both genders would buy it in equal amounts. Except that marketing of products is largely influenced by societal norms, i.e. what society considers "fitting". There's not a lot of marketing of dresses towards men because men don't tend to wear dresses. So this isn't a valid place to use the chicken-vs-egg argument because we KNOW which one comes first. Society creates the norms, and companies market products to appeal to those norms.

It's not Marvel's fault if society has decided that superhero action figures are for boys, and that dolls and ponies are for girls. Nor does it make sense to be critical of Marvel for not trying to "reach out" to all audiences when societal influences will have a greater say in what they buy than any advertisements would, anyways.

CriticKitten:

dversion:
Again, the notion you stated waaay back when we started this conversation was that supposedly products are these neutral things placed into the market place that anyone can buy. And that If people wanted them, all they simply have to do is buy them. Saying that there just is not a market for these things may be true, but it does not mean that any demographic is somehow inherently never going to buy it. Sure yes, technically everyone can buy whatever they want but young boys will buy these products, not because boys somehow like action figures more than girls because they're somehow born that way but because there is already billions of dollars invested in telling young boys that they need this product.

So I'm not talking about this specific circumstance or arguing for or against these practices. Just clearing up how capitalism works.

And again, we've already dismissed this nonsensical argument about three times now.

These companies market their superheroes primarily to little boys primarily because (and see if you can follow along this time) little boys are the most likely customers. Girls do not tend to buy these toys, ergo, companies do not spend money trying to convince people who do not usually buy their toys to please go to the store and buy their toys.

What you're basically making right now is a chicken-vs-egg argument, trying to claim that if they just put out the marketing "equally" that there would be equal levels of influence on both genders, and thus, it would be plausible that both genders would buy it in equal amounts. Except that marketing of products is largely influenced by societal norms, i.e. what society considers "fitting". There's not a lot of marketing of dresses towards men because men don't tend to wear dresses. So this isn't a valid place to use the chicken-vs-egg argument because we KNOW which one comes first. Society creates the norms, and companies market products to appeal to those norms.

It's not Marvel's fault if society has decided that superhero action figures are for boys, and that dolls and ponies are for girls. Nor does it make sense to be critical of Marvel for not trying to "reach out" to all audiences when societal influences will have a greater say in what they buy than any advertisements would, anyways.

Yeah, you're right, boys never wore dresses ever. Oh wait, except you're completely wrong. But I bet those men were all just pansy kids right... except here's a picture of FRANKLIN FUCKING ROOSEVELT.

Fashion for both men and women have changed drastically and will continue to change throughout history. Men wore pink, it was considered the most masculine of colours, in fact, for a woman to wear pink would be ludicrous. Blue only became a solidified boys colour after the successful marketing campaign of Buster Brown as well as the blue uniforms men wore coming back from war. Pink for girls became popularized in the 1940s from its own marketing campaign, thus making a market for the colour pink for girls. but now we believe boys will buy blue things and girls will buy pink things and that's just the way it was because it's the norm.

Media is how we view society, it changes our perspectives and our norms.

marketing is about changing societal norms. Engagement rings were a creation of the diamond industry in the 50's but now it's a "societal norm." For a more blatant example and to see it in action. Coca-Cola has been actively trying to change tea-time in England to replace it with Coke.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it's just capitalism. You should be aware of how this stuff works and that our media is actively trying to change societal norm.

We use to think advanced "gadget like" technology was only for particularly geeky men but Apple went out of their way to make the iPhone and iPod consumer friendly to everyone of all genders. If their marketing had only focused on men then it's most likely it would still be considered a niche product for the male demographic.

Again, (and see if you can follow along this time.) I'm not saying Marvel or Hasbro should do anything, you seem to be inferring an argument on my part that I have not ever stated.

Could Marvel try to include more demographics? Well they'd have to fight existing market forces which are already heavily invested in revenue from products targeted at girls. Unless the mega structure that is Disney made it some prerogative to expand their market, which they probably don't want to do because it would cannibalize their Disney process market stuff. In the end, it could possibly be advantageous but there's a lot of unknowns and in the crowded marketplace, fight a lot of battles. So from their standpoint it's not worth it.

And just so we're clear. I've been like agreeing with you this whole time. Like I don't know why you want to argue things I have not been saying.

We both agree it's a big risk from a capitalism standpoint to expand their demographic, although we disagree on the reasons behind it. I agree that complaining about a product not existing when it does and not supporting the product is not helping anything. And I think the MLP thing is really cool and that if what you say it's true, that Hasbro is actually trying to expand the market for those products in some meaningful way then perhaps other markets may open up that way more often.

i think she wants to tell us that it's not fair

good job, mommy, get your kid to deliver the message YOU want to get across - now that's what i call good parenting!
really, a toast to her for a job well done - Anita Sarkessian's heritage will live on.
...
......
oy.

seriously though, you don't market (or even produce) the less known characters (i got "who's this Black Widow?" quite often from my friends - nobody needed info on Iron Man or Captian Nationalism/Patriotism/ America or the Hulk, though - not only because of the movies each of them had, but because these are overall better known characters - and THAT'S what you can sell; at least easier than a product you have to raise awareness for beforehand)

dversion:
Yeah, you're right, boys never wore dresses ever. Oh wait, except you're completely wrong. But I bet those men were all just pansy kids right... except here's a picture of FRANKLIN FUCKING ROOSEVELT.

Fashion for both men and women have changed drastically and will continue to change throughout history. Men wore pink, it was considered the most masculine of colours, in fact, for a woman to wear pink would be ludicrous. Blue only became a solidified boys colour after the successful marketing campaign of Buster Brown as well as the blue uniforms men wore coming back from war. Pink for girls became popularized in the 1940s from its own marketing campaign, thus making a market for the colour pink for girls. but now we believe boys will buy blue things and girls will buy pink things and that's just the way it was because it's the norm.

image

Aw, that's cute, it thinks it made a point.

And maybe if it weren't clearly stated that boys wore "dresses" in those days as part of an existing societal norm for the time period in question, you might have had a valid point.

But you don't. In fact, you only reinforced my point: that society itself dictates its own social norms, and that the products that are sold within said society do so in accordance with their own social norms. Dresses on young boys were popular back then not because companies went out and actively advertised dresses to them, but because (from a societal standpoint) no one saw anything "wrong" with little boys wearing dresses. Society dictates the terms of its own culture, and companies sell products designed to appeal to that culture.

Media is how we view society, it changes our perspectives and our norms.

marketing is about changing societal norms. Engagement rings were a creation of the diamond industry in the 50's but now it's a "societal norm." For a more blatant example and to see it in action. Coca-Cola has been actively trying to change tea-time in England to replace it with Coke.

But companies aren't "the media". Companies are simply businesses that provides the goods and services that a society deems necessary. Do note the key words there are "that a society deems necessary".

And besides, the media is merely a reflection of society.

Why are there always more bad news stories than good? Because bad news stories attract more viewers. Why are there tons of sites that focus on celebrity gossip? Because there are tons of people who care about that shit. The media isn't the "problem", the society is. The media just reflects the values that a society holds dear. And these views can be found not only in news, but in TV and movies and all forms of media.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it's just capitalism.

Then why are you pretending that it IS a conspiracy?

You're rather directly implying that companies are consciously choosing not to market to women. And yes, there are, but it's not for malicious reasons. Nor is it because companies don't feel it necessary to push for gender equality. It's because females don't tend to buy those products in the same quantity as males. And when gestures were made to include women, they were generally significant failures.

We use to think advanced "gadget like" technology was only for particularly geeky men but Apple went out of their way to make the iPhone and iPod consumer friendly to everyone of all genders. If their marketing had only focused on men then it's most likely it would still be considered a niche product for the male demographic.

That's absolute nonsense. There was never a conscious effort by computer companies to advertise and sell their gadgets ONLY to males.

In fact, one of the first and most popular Apple advertisements of the 1980s featured a female protagonist "saving the world from Big Brother" (IBM).

Both men and women were represented in such advertisements. It wasn't the company who decided "these are for geeky men". It was society that made that decision, when men opted to embrace the advance of technology into the computer age and women didn't buy in nearly the same numbers. Which is why you see movies and TV shows of that day and age with lots of geeky men, and not a lot of geeky women.

Again, media reflects society.

The video game market is the same way. It was originally an outside niche advertised to everyone. Men latched onto it with far more significant numbers, so games evolved to reflect that. It's not that women weren't allowed to buy it, nor that they were actively discouraged from it. It's that women CHOSE not to invest in that market until later on, and do not invest in the market at nearly the same level as their male counterparts.

Now that's slowly changing, and games (and comics) will continue to change accordingly. But right now, complaining about reality isn't really all that sensible. Things are as they are because the people in society chose what was important to them and their gender/nationality/religion/etc. Those choices influence what products get sold and to whom, and all other aspects of society and media as well.

Again, (and see if you can follow along this time.) I'm not saying Marvel or Hasbro should do anything, you seem to be inferring an argument on my part that I have not ever stated.

And just so we're clear. I've been like agreeing with you this whole time. Like I don't know why you want to argue things I have not been saying.

Then why are you here arguing with me? Boredom?

You've said multiple times now that you "agree with me" and yet you're clearly not agreeing with me at all, because we disagree quite vehemently on whose responsibility it is for societal norms. You seem convinced that it's the companies' decision. I say it's society itself which needs to accept change, because companies will naturally adapt to serve that changing society. Or else they'll fail to evolve and die out, either way that's how proper capitalism works. You don't "force" the company to change its tune, it's not going to. You change society instead, and then the company HAS to change.

Could Marvel try to include more demographics? Well they'd have to fight existing market forces which are already heavily invested in revenue from products targeted at girls. Unless the mega structure that is Disney made it some prerogative to expand their market, which they probably don't want to do because it would cannibalize their Disney process market stuff. In the end, it could possibly be advantageous but there's a lot of unknowns and in the crowded marketplace, fight a lot of battles. So from their standpoint it's not worth it.

Of course it's not worth it!

Bloody hell, I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. Women don't buy these products in equal quantities as men. There is a significant gender gap, and as such, companies have focused their advertisements towards the gender that buys them. That is NOT their fault or their responsibility.

It is up to society at large to change its norms, NOT individual companies!

CriticKitten:
It is up to society at large to change its norms, NOT individual companies!

That's pretty much the end of it.

A company is not and should not be under any obligation to change societal norms. A company REACTS to them, it doesn't try to change them.

The very nature of supply and demand is that you supply the demand - you don't supply what might be a demand because someone states there "could" be one. The feminist agenda here wants the company to take a massive risk with the company's money for the feminist movement's benefit with no promise of returns.

They've tried catering to females, it didn't work. It might work but it'll require a lot of restructuring and shifting focus from its primary consumer base - something that seldom has positive results.

CriticKitten:

Aw, that's cute, it thinks it made a point.

But you don't. In fact, you only reinforced my point: that society itself dictates its own social norms, and that the products that are sold within said society do so in accordance with their own social norms. Dresses on young boys were popular back then not because companies went out and actively advertised dresses to them, but because (from a societal standpoint) no one saw anything "wrong" with little boys wearing dresses. Society dictates the terms of its own culture, and companies sell products designed to appeal to that culture.

But you haven't even attempted to explain why they change. They just change because of other reasons? Not because of the billions of dollars spent in attempting to change these ways. Why do commercials even exist if people are just destined to buy these products without being influenced?

Since people today would find it unbelievable to put a young boy in a dress today. But why is this? You can say "it's sociatal norm" but you don't ever try and think one level higher and explain why it is and why would it be hard today to sell dresses to young boys, even though there is clearly no inherent reason they can't and have been bought in the past.

But companies aren't "the media". Companies are simply businesses that provides the goods and services that a society deems necessary. Do note the key words there are "that a society deems necessary".

And besides, the media is merely a reflection of society.

Why are there always more bad news stories than good? Because bad news stories attract more viewers. Why are there tons of sites that focus on celebrity gossip? Because there are tons of people who care about that shit. The media isn't the "problem", the society is. The media just reflects the values that a society holds dear. And these views can be found not only in news, but in TV and movies and all forms of media.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What do you mean by "companies arn't 'the media'"... like in a metaphorical sense? a spiritual sense?

Because, in reality, Six companies own practically all the media. Like all of it. Every magazine, radio station, news network, film studio. These are the same companies that want to sell you their products.

Then why are you pretending that it IS a conspiracy?

You're rather directly implying that companies are consciously choosing not to market to women. And yes, there are, but it's not for malicious reasons. Nor is it because companies don't feel it necessary to push for gender equality. It's because females don't tend to buy those products in the same quantity as males. And when gestures were made to include women, they were generally significant failures.

This is a neat point directed to something I never said, but whoever you're arguing against, you sure tell 'em.

Also, way to not address any of the points I did actually make and examples of how societal norms are "artificially" created by the creation of markets. But I guess if there's evidence that completely invalidates your beliefs than arguing against a straw man is probably easier.

That's absolute nonsense. There was never a conscious effort by computer companies to advertise and sell their gadgets ONLY to males.

In fact, one of the first and most popular Apple advertisements of the 1980s featured a female protagonist "saving the world from Big Brother" (IBM).

Both men and women were represented in such advertisements. It wasn't the company who decided "these are for geeky men". It was society that made that decision, when men opted to embrace the advance of technology into the computer age and women didn't buy in nearly the same numbers. Which is why you see movies and TV shows of that day and age with lots of geeky men, and not a lot of geeky women.

Again, media reflects society.

The video game market is the same way. It was originally an outside niche advertised to everyone. Men latched onto it with far more significant numbers, so games evolved to reflect that. It's not that women weren't allowed to buy it, nor that they were actively discouraged from it. It's that women CHOSE not to invest in that market until later on, and do not invest in the market at nearly the same level as their male counterparts.

Now that's slowly changing, and games (and comics) will continue to change accordingly. But right now, complaining about reality isn't really all that sensible. Things are as they are because the people in society chose what was important to them and their gender/nationality/religion/etc. Those choices influence what products get sold and to whom, and all other aspects of society and media as well.

Riiight.... that was an apple computer and Apple has managed to have a large share of women using their products more than PC in terms of ratio. I'm not sure what the numbers for 1990 were, however Apple has always sold well with the woman demographic. Why? is it because woman can't like PCs? Or is because Apple has convinced them that the Apple computer is right for them.

Look at the advertising back when the Wii launched.They tried their darnedest to broaden the market with heavy advertising directed at girls, women, the elderly. The ps3 however went after the male demographic hard, so one it was the societal norm for an elderly women to have a Wii but not a PS3.

Yes, there are other factors to creating what is 'right' for society and bushiness will try to capitalize on those if they see profit in it. However, it's less risky to just try and keep things the way they are,

Of course it's not worth it!

Bloody hell, I'm not sure how many times this has to be said. Women don't buy these products in equal quantities as men. There is a significant gender gap, and as such, companies have focused their advertisements towards the gender that buys them. That is NOT their fault or their responsibility.

It is up to society at large to change its norms, NOT individual companies!

Well other than they spent billions upon billions of dollars to convince men to buy these products. I mean unless all that advertising was just for... like nothing? And men were going to buy it anyway?

1. I'm sure she thought that little tirade up by herself and was in no way encouraged.

2. Do I complain when Ken doesn't have any weapon accessories? No. These are marketed at boys. Yes, it is a stupid decision because girls would be more than happy to join in that market properly than be incidental to it. But that is the strategy that the toy manufacturers have chosen, whatever their reasons. But I don't think it says anything about gender issues.

CriticKitten:

dversion:
-snip-

Then I'm not sure what you ARE trying to argue, because we've already established:

1) That the toys actually do exist and are easily purchased on Amazon or other such sites.
2) That since she didn't know the toys existed, that would suggest that she's either not an actual customer of the toy line or else is significantly ill-informed about products she allegedly buys.
3) That if she's not actually a customer of the toys in question, she really has no right to demand that companies cater to her.
4) That previous attempts to invest in female superheroes as a market have all met with considerable failure, suggesting that the demand simply isn't there.
5) That asking a company to invest millions into a market which (as point 3 states) isn't actually there to begin with is a considerable risk with a low probability of significant returns on that investment, thus making it an unreasonable demand to make in the first place.

So....what exactly do you have left to stand on?

The correct answer, of course, is nothing.

Can I just say...boom, headshot.

dversion:
But you haven't even attempted to explain why they change. They just change because of other reasons? Not because of the billions of dollars spent in attempting to change these ways. Why do commercials even exist if people are just destined to buy these products without being influenced?

Since people today would find it unbelievable to put a young boy in a dress today. But why is this? You can say "it's sociatal norm" but you don't ever try and think one level higher and explain why it is and why would it be hard today to sell dresses to young boys, even though there is clearly no inherent reason they can't and have been bought in the past.

Uh, go back and actually read the link before you spout off more incorrect assertions here.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What do you mean by "companies arn't 'the media'"... like in a metaphorical sense? a spiritual sense?

Because, in reality, Six companies own practically all the media. Like all of it. Every magazine, radio station, news network, film studio. These are the same companies that want to sell you their products.

I mean that companies aren't the media.

I'm not sure how else to explain such a simple statement.

This is a neat point directed to something I never said, but whoever you're arguing against, you sure tell 'em.

Also, way to not address any of the points I did actually make and examples of how societal norms are "artificially" created by the creation of markets. But I guess if there's evidence that completely invalidates your beliefs than arguing against a straw man is probably easier.

What evidence? You've given NONE. I've linked several articles in proof of my statements, you have given NONE.

So before you start down that trail of thought? Time to start offering proof of your own assertions first. >_>

Riiight.... that was an apple computer and Apple has managed to have a large share of women using their products more than PC in terms of ratio. I'm not sure what the numbers for 1990 were, however Apple has always sold well with the woman demographic. Why? is it because woman can't like PCs? Or is because Apple has convinced them that the Apple computer is right for them.

Proof? Evidence? Numbers? Anything?

You keep asserting things that have no numerical evidence to suggest that it's true. >_>

Whereas I'm actually taking the time to find evidence for my claims. For example, here's a graph which shows that while women do prefer Apple iPhones over most other similar products, it's not by nearly the significant margin you claim.

image

And that chart doesn't show how many women or men actually buy the products, or by what margin.

Look at the advertising back when the Wii launched.They tried their darnedest to broaden the market with heavy advertising directed at girls, women, the elderly. The ps3 however went after the male demographic hard, so one it was the societal norm for an elderly women to have a Wii but not a PS3.

Er no.

It would be more correct to state that the Wii advertised to a larger audience in terms of age demographics (because they did), it is not more accurate to claim that the console specifically went after women (because they didn't, they advertised to both genders equally).

Nintendo doesn't appeal to women specifically, rather it's that their rivals don't. When there are three consoles, and two of them target teenage males, the third is bound to get more of the female audience. >_>

Well other than they spent billions upon billions of dollars to convince men to buy these products. I mean unless all that advertising was just for... like nothing? And men were going to buy it anyway?

No, they spend billions of dollars to convince men to buy their product instead of their rival's product. Because, you know, there's more than one company out there offering the same product more often than not.

For someone who claims to understand capitalism, you seem to have no understanding of how it actually works.

CriticKitten:
I mean that companies aren't the media.

I'm not sure how else to explain such a simple statement.

And cats arn't felines.

If it's such a simple statement then it should be easy to explain... unless it means absolutely nothing,

I guess you're right. There's no such thing as media companies.

Also, as a case point on how markets are created. Here's the diamond one I mentioned earlier.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/26619/why-engagement-rings-are-made-diamonds

Here's coke trying to market their products as breakfest tea-time drinks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/06/26/business-coke-breakfast.html

Also, congrats on not actually yelling at me for things I never said and positions I never took this time. I bet that was hard for you.

Abomination:

CriticKitten:
It is up to society at large to change its norms, NOT individual companies!

That's pretty much the end of it.

A company is not and should not be under any obligation to change societal norms. A company REACTS to them, it doesn't try to change them.

The very nature of supply and demand is that you supply the demand - you don't supply what might be a demand because someone states there "could" be one. The feminist agenda here wants the company to take a massive risk with the company's money for the feminist movement's benefit with no promise of returns.

They've tried catering to females, it didn't work. It might work but it'll require a lot of restructuring and shifting focus from its primary consumer base - something that seldom has positive results.

Right, it is good business to expand one's market but while it's easy to say, doing it is quite another problem. There are actual differences, socially and biologically, between men and women. Just offering something or even marketing it appropriately to a demographic does not mean that it'll be liked or accepted.

So while a company may try to broaden their market, and be unsuccessful at it, it is not their responsibility to do that. It isn't their job to waste millions on a project that may not work at all. The genders are evolutionarily wired differently and are socially programmed differently. That doesn't mean that the regular Joe can't think like a Jane or that the regular Jane can't like things a Joe likes. But it does mean that in aggregate we do see different trends in some products. Toys have historically been one of them. Though I suspect that the parents are the consumers there.

"Child wants toy she doesn't have, writers scramble to the headline-cave".

Seriously, it's a 6 year old wanting a toy.

dversion:
And cats arn't felines.

If it's such a simple statement then it should be easy to explain... unless it means absolutely nothing,

I guess you're right. There's no such thing as media companies.

Required reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Which companies own which media outlets has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Companies != media.

The fact that you patently ignored every other part of my post JUST to pick at this one only further highlights just how blatant of a straw-man this is.

Also, as a case point on how markets are created. Here's the diamond one I mentioned earlier.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/26619/why-engagement-rings-are-made-diamonds

Here's coke trying to market their products as breakfest tea-time drinks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2013/06/26/business-coke-breakfast.html

Except that (if you actually read what was said), this is again a reinforcement of my point rather than yours.

Using the diamond example: Companies want to sell diamonds in jewelry, but that is outside of the norm. So they start having celebrities and figures of power wear them....thus other poorer people want to buy and own them because the richer folks do it. In other words, they became a societal norm by virtue of the rich and powerful making them seem "necessary", and the companies were already prepared to meet the new demand. But the order was the same as I described it: society said "we want this" and the companies delivered it.

The analogy you're making here really doesn't carry over to toys, either, so I'm not sure why you're bothering trying to make this point at all. These markets aren't even remotely alike. Certainly there are occasions where a company can force out demand of a product, but forcing new demand out of a new demographic in an overall market that is already in decline isn't even remotely similar to either of your case points. The toy market is slowly declining, and there's no way in hell you're going to talk such an industry into making a multi-million dollar gamble on females when they've never attempted to support the market in large numbers in the past. You can sit back in your little command chair and think it's all nice and easy for them to do, because it's not your money. But it's not easy, it's rarely successful, and for them to make that effort could push them into decline at a much faster pace.

Also, congrats on not actually yelling at me for things I never said and positions I never took this time. I bet that was hard for you.

Now you just need to try it yourself instead of throwing up these pitiful straw-men.

VonKlaw:
(there is a Black Widow action figure), her complaints extend beyond her inability to find a particular toy. She also takes exception to the fact that Black Widow, hardly a minor character in the film, fails to appear on the bulk of the toy packaging. Unless you're buying the actual Black Widow action figure, the packaging doesn't acknowledge that there's a female member of the Avengers.

Permalink

I think the fact that there is a black widow action figure says TON- that its not put on the box itself is not that important, its still in the store with the same packaging.

No, this is more of a positive thing Id say.
That theyve actually started making femal action figures, thats good, and not being on the package is not that important seriously :D

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe a 6 year old shouldn't have an action figure of a woman who has sex with men and then kills them?

Mycroft Holmes:
Am I the only one who thinks that maybe a 6 year old shouldn't have an action figure of a woman who has sex with men and then kills them?

Oh, the black widow? She's an excellent role model for how to get ahead in life in today's trying and difficult times... [/sarcasm]

CriticKitten:
media companies.

Required reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Which companies own which media outlets has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Companies != media. [/quote]

Yeah, maybe you should read that yourself. I am addressing your points as to what you're saying. Since you refuse to explain what you mean I don't have much to respond too.

How does it have nothing to do with our discussion?
Companies own, operate, schedule, distribute, cultivate, buy, trade, create, and produce the media. But keep saying companies arn't the media over and over and maybe it might make it true.

The fact that you patently ignored every other part of my post JUST to pick at this one only further highlights just how blatant of a straw-man this is.

Except that (if you actually read what was said), this is again a reinforcement of my point rather than yours.

Using the diamond example: Companies want to sell diamonds in jewelry, but that is outside of the norm. So they start having celebrities and figures of power wear them....thus other poorer people want to buy and own them because the richer folks do it. In other words, they became a societal norm by virtue of the rich and powerful making them seem "necessary", and the companies were already prepared to meet the new demand. But the order was the same as I described it: society said "we want this" and the companies delivered it.

Only you just said... YOU JUST SAID that they changed societal norm to make people feel like they need diamonds. You just contradicted yourself! They only said "we want this" because the diamond company managed to change the perception of their product.

So let me get this straight: The diamond companies managed to change societal norm to sell diamonds. But somehow it's still just society asking for something... but they only asked for it because the diamond companies changed society...

So what you're saying is companies can broaden their markets by changing societal norm and not have to just wait for society to suddenly want their products.

So you agree with me. Good.

Are you even reading your own words?

The analogy you're making here really doesn't carry over to toys, either, so I'm not sure why you're bothering trying to make this point at all. These markets aren't even remotely alike. Certainly there are occasions where a company can force out demand of a product, but forcing new demand out of a new demographic in an overall market that is already in decline isn't even remotely similar to either of your case points. The toy market is slowly declining, and there's no way in hell you're going to talk such an industry into making a multi-million dollar gamble on females when they've never attempted to support the market in large numbers in the past. You can sit back in your little command chair and think it's all nice and easy for them to do, because it's not your money. But it's not easy, it's rarely successful, and for them to make that effort could push them into decline at a much faster pace.

So... like did you read that straw man article you irreverently sent me? Did I say companies should do any of this? Where did I say that they should take the risk? Again, keep arguing against this imaginary person, I bet it makes you feel good.

I'd like to go back to our Wii example. Because if I understand your argument, companies should only go after markets they know exist and will only expand their market once other people start demanding it. Now while you misunderstood what I was saying during our Wii example, I was of course not saying that they only went after women and older individuals. Nintendo marketed to the regular market of course but they made a push to expand the market. They managed to successfully expanded their market and was very profitable because of it. So where were the soccer moms and elderly and young children demanding they be marketed towards? That Nintendo make a system just for them? Did they get together and buying GameCube to show that they want products made for them?

Nintendo took a risk and went after a market that had not been catered too before. Just because they had not bought a game system does not mean they never would. They marketed their system to make it acceptable for other demographics to own a gaming system.

]Now you just need to try it yourself instead of throwing up these pitiful straw-men.

This made me giggle. Can you explain to me how I'm actually doing this or just saying the word 'straw-man' need no explanation because it makes you feel smart.

Well there are quite a few Black Widow action figures, as well as a lot of female comicbook figures.. though the character itself in the film and comic is aimed at boys/men anyways. Why else would she wear a skin tight leather costume? I'm not saying it's a good thing that the character or any other female comic book characters dress like sluts,( I like female characters that know what clothing is) but it's just the way it is.. The little girl is better off with more appropriate toys till she's older.

crazygameguy4ever:
Well there are quite a few Black Widow action figures, as well as a lot of female comicbook figures.. though the character itself in the film and comic is aimed at boys/men anyways. Why else would she wear a skin tight leather costume? I'm not saying it's a good thing that the character or any other female comic book characters dress like sluts,( I like female characters that know what clothing is) but it's just the way it is.. The little girl is better off with more appropriate toys till she's older.

I'm not sure if anyone notices this, but super heroes in general where skin tight material. It's just a little more noticeable in the avengers with the characters that generally wear armor in various forms.

But that's like saying the hulk was aimed at girls because why else would he be bare chested or why else would Bruce Banner be naked after going Hulk?

I'm not saying she wasn't dressed attractively. But you're talking about a character in a comic that looks like that. Not only that, but she's a spy that seduces men. Attractive is kind of a weapon in her arsenal just like for real spies. But please don't forget, compared to the way women regularly dress, she was over-dressed. I mean, she wasn't running into battle in juicy shorts that expose the bottom half of the buttocks and a skin tight tube top. She wasn't wearing just a sports bra and very tiny sports shorts. She was wearing a functional leather outfit. Let's look at the movie version, considered very sexy as played by Scarlet Johansson.

image

I might even question the notion of this being as overtly sexual as her opening scene was or even skin tight. The comics are a lot more smooth/skin tight. But they can vary greatly to points where she doesn't even have that low cleavage V shape exposed. Look, girls want to look attractive. A girl looking attractive doesn't mean that the girl is dressed like a slut. You may think what you said there was white knighting the female cause but it took a turn at the slut comment when referenced to this character's clothing. Especially when regular women dress far more scampily on a regular basis, particularly when physical activity is about to be involved. The black widow, however, she's dressed like batman. She's dressed to get through areas stealthily by cover of the shadows.

You want to see a super hero targeted to guys? Look at the adult version of Starfire compared to the Teen Titan version in a similarly aged girl's response to it:

http://io9.com/5844355/a-7+year+old-girl-responds-to-dc-comics-sexed+up-reboot-of-starfire

dversion:
Yeah, maybe you should read that yourself. I am addressing your points as to what you're saying. Since you refuse to explain what you mean I don't have much to respond too.

No, what you did was ignore several points in that post to attack only one of them that you perceived as a weakness, and you made a completely unrelated and nonequivalent statement out of what I said to attack said point. That's exactly what a straw-man is.

From the Wiki: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

My position was that companies are not a direct manifestation of the media. Rather, the media is a reflection of society and its values, and companies augment that society with products that cater to the values that people hold dear. You proceeded to go off on an irrelevant tangent explaining how companies own the media and how this proves that the two are exactly the same....which has nothing to do with what I said at all.

That's a straw-man. Recognize that you were wrong and move on.

Only you just said... YOU JUST SAID that they changed societal norm to make people feel like they need diamonds. You just contradicted yourself! They only said "we want this" because the diamond company managed to change the perception of their product.

So let me get this straight: The diamond companies managed to change societal norm to sell diamonds. But somehow it's still just society asking for something... but they only asked for it because the diamond companies changed society...

So what you're saying is companies can broaden their markets by changing societal norm and not have to just wait for society to suddenly want their products.

So you agree with me. Good.

No, you clearly didn't read what I said at all and are just being belligerent for the sake of ignorance at this point.

What I said was that companies do not, in any way, directly alter societal norms. People do. People make the conscious decision what is valuable to them, and more often than not, they do so by looking at what they don't have and that richer folks do have.

Can a company influence societal norms? Absolutely. Can they change them directly just by willing it? Not at all. In the end, the decision of whether or not to buy a product boils down to the individual.

Can Marvel say "we've decided that superhero toys can be played with by girls now" and suddenly everyone will start buying them? Of course not. That's a decision that PEOPLE have to make, by deciding whether or not to buy those toys.

What this girl and her parents are trying to do is tell the company that they should advertise and sell more toys to girls even though there is no demonstrable evidence that a demand exists in that demographic, and they're doing so while admitting that they're ignorant of the products the company sells. That's not a very strong case for them, or for you.

Are you even reading your own words?

Well you're obviously not, so I suppose someone has to.

So... like did you read that straw man article you irreverently sent me? Did I say companies should do any of this? Where did I say that they should take the risk? Again, keep arguing against this imaginary person, I bet it makes you feel good.

The articles I've used, to date, were all direct responses to the statements you yourself made. You keep telling me that I need to learn what "straw-man" means while misusing its definition yourself.

I'd like to go back to our Wii example. Because if I understand your argument, companies should only go after markets they know exist and will only expand their market once other people start demanding it.

No.

My argument is that companies should be allowed to invest their money however they want, without the bitchy interference of people like yourself who pretend to be activists. It's their money. They're allowed to decide how to invest it. If they choose to invest only in market demographics that have yielded consistent results, that's their decision. If you're not among those demographics but want a larger say in what they do, perhaps you should actually buy their products in significant quantities. This way, the company will notice your growing demographic and make adjustments to start catering to you.

Now while you misunderstood what I was saying during our Wii example, I was of course not saying that they only went after women and older individuals. Nintendo marketed to the regular market of course but they made a push to expand the market.

What "regular market"? That's such a broad term as to be meaningless. Nintendo's "regular market"? The "regular market" of console gamers? Define your terms.

They managed to successfully expanded their market and was very profitable because of it. So where were the soccer moms and elderly and young children demanding they be marketed towards? That Nintendo make a system just for them? Did they get together and buying GameCube to show that they want products made for them?

Nintendo took a risk and went after a market that had not been catered too before. Just because they had not bought a game system does not mean they never would. They marketed their system to make it acceptable for other demographics to own a gaming system.

You're completely misunderstanding Nintendo's strategy.

Nintendo didn't advertise to this audience purely because they were bold innovators, they did it because they were losing ground to their competition in the most common gaming demographics. The PS2 defeated the Gamecube by a significant margin, and the XBox was a new upstart system that also managed to beat their established brand name. They were in trouble. They took a gamble because they weren't winning in their choice demographic, and if they didn't take a risk by trying to reach out to other markets, they risked falling far behind their competition.

And as the Wii U is showing, the gamble paid off in the short term, but not the long term. Nintendo didn't secure itself a solid customer base out of new demographics with the Wii. Most of the folks who bought the Wii have since moved on to other forms of gaming, or left the market again. So, while looking at the Wii might tell you "gee, it's totally worth it to take a gamble for new markets", the Wii U tells you the rest of the story: that you aren't necessarily going to retain their business forever, and if that happens, you'd better be ready to go back to catering to your main demographics again. Which is precisely what Nintendo's doing now, if you look at their upcoming launch lineup (new Smash Bros, new DK, new Mario, etc).

So, again, what you consider to be proof of your point is actually proof of mine. Even if you put together a great product, advertise it to everyone under the sun, and succeed with that product....you haven't necessarily changed society forever. In the end, people make the final decision about what they value, and if a particular company's products aren't on that list, they won't buy them no matter how popular they once were. Societal norms are not easily changed by the whim of a single company. They don't just take a lot of time to start changing. They also require a conscious effort by the "alienated" demographics to continue that trend.

So, the real problem with this is the talk. The bad talk that the father and mother has to have with their child.

Not that sex sells, Not that there are differences in the world... per se. But more you are valued by your marketability.

There would be no way to carry a Black Widow movie. Maybe an Agent Phil movie, but that's because he became such a dark horse that no one could have predicted it. But a Nick Fury or a Hawkeye movie? Hawkeye would be pushing it, and you'd probably have to completely bank Jeremy Renner much like Blade banked on Wesley Snipes star power (seriously, how many of you even knew who Blade was before Wesley Snipes made the movie).

I can think of few female comic book characters who are just characters. Not 'I AM A WOMAN AND I'M DEALING WITH THE SAME PROBLEMS AS REGULAR HEROES' set pieces that writers create. Much like the 'MY SKIN IS DIFFERENT, I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AS STRONG AS THE BIG HITTERS, BUT SOMEONE WILL FIND VALUE IN ME' minority characters they make. It's tough to market that. It's tough to take all of that social activism and try to make people want to spend their hard earned money to see that. Blade did it because as far as I knew, him being black really didn't enter into the character as much (I don't know about the earlier stuff though). He just killed and looked good doing it.

Don't get me wrong, Black Widow does a good job of just doing her job. But she's not super enough to have her own movie. In terms of abilities that would keep people watching for an hour and a half. Blade punched the shit out of vampires, Captain America punched the shit out of Robo-Nazis ('MURICA!). Black Widow would... what? Seduce a bunch of people in one of Marvel's made up, safe countries to prevent... a bomb from being sold? Then shoot her way out of it? I'm down with the shooting the way out of it, but that's not the core of the character and you just can't stretch that out and still say it's the Black Widow. Because it's not her bag and you should have made a movie with a character that IS their bag.

The Falcon can't make it big. Shang-chi can't either. And I'm sorry, Black Widow won't ever have that clout.

I WOULD love, though, to see a Great Lakes Avengers movie. LOVE IT.

Or screw that. Someone get a Nextwave Movie up. Or a cartoon. It would be so good...

I'm all for equal rights and representation, but even I feel like this child's parents are behind this. As stated before, Hawkeye isn't on the boxes either, but he is a white male, so for the sake of this conversation he is irrelevant. I ask this question:

Are black children upset that Nick Fury isn't commonly represented on the box art? I'm black by the way but I don't see much difference in complaining about the lack of representation in brown or minority characters than women. I havent heard anything about black children complaining, maybe it's because I just can't seem to figure out exactly what Nick Fury does in the first place haha.

I feel like it is a big step for these characters to even be included in the movie, portrayed by Colbie Smulders and Scarlett Johansen, at least it has the CHANCE to pass the Bechdel test, which I don't think it does, but with that movie I don't think there is a second minority character at ALL and I haven't heard a peep about it. My problem is more that women and minorities are underrepresented in the source material, in this case comic books (especially minorities, I can only think of 3 black or brown total off the top of my head in terms of the Marvel and DC universes), but nitpicking about the action figures when one in fact DOES exist shouldn't be a focus to me.

As far as toys in general go, I do believe there is some unfortunate correlations and marketing preferences, and the arguments stated earlier are very much legitimate. I have a very young nephew who's favorite color was pink, but various members of my family discouraged him from it by telling him it was "girly," now if you ask him what his favorite color is, it changes every day.

[/Ramblings]

ObsidianJones:
There would be no way to carry a Black Widow movie.

It'd basically just be a spy movie.

CriticKitten:
-snip-

So if you're addressing my points, please, tell me, when did I say anything about what a company should do? When was I being a bitchy pretend activist?
I don't mean where in your pretend imagination was I doing this? I mean in reality. I guess it's better to label me a "pretend activist" then to deal with what I'm saying.

I merely stated what companies COULD do which gave them more responsibility over who bought their product than the demographics themselves.

It's like you heard the word straw-man the other day and think it's some sort of invincibility shield.

See I disagree with your position on having sex with cats. That's crazy. I, unlike you, don't think people should have sex with cats, instead people should have sex with people. Therefore you're wrong about everything.
(I'm not sure if subtlety or sarcasm are things you can pick up on but that would be a blatant example of straw-manning. It's the thing you've been doing the whole time by somehow accusing me of dictating what a company should do and being an activist, positions I never took and repeatedly told you that I was not taking.)

In terms of the company/media "tangent" this was me explaining how companies use the media to change the way people think about their product. A fact you admit with diamonds and the Wii. Something that demographics may initial consider dumb can turn into a craze like pet rocks. Companies can tap into unused demographics and expand their market like Nintendo did.

It doesn't matter why they did it, only that they did. Now since they released the Wii, the iPad and iPhone has really eaten into that market which still exists.

So, listen, I'm going to end this little back-and-forth of our because over the course of the conversation you've changed your stance from companies influencing society to buy their products from being "completely nonsense" to actually how things work. Your initial point was that if demographics want to be catered to they should go out and support the existing product. The Wii didn't do that and now my great aunt owns one. Since then, like I said, you see mothers and children and even some elderly play with iPad games, Nintendo has even admitted to Apple being the largest threat.

PEople go with trends, they get convinced they want or need something by marketing and media in various ways. I had a friend who's job it was to go to clubs and flirt with women but his job was to convince them to like a certain kind of wine, for instance. If this stuff didn't work, and that it was all up to individuals to like something, then why would they even spend money on convincing people.

if Apple had not tried to market their iPhones as something everyone can use regardless of gender, we'd probably see a very different smart phone market out there.

I'm not saying risks always work, that's why they're called risks.

Anyway, you seem to actually agree with me, you've changed your position that companies can influence demographics and markets and all you've got left is to argue against things I never said and ideas I never expressed.

So please, feel free to have the last word and to keep talking about this guy who supposedly wants to tell companies what to do, who's a feminist and a pretend activist and other labels so you create your own man of straw and attack him.
Keep fighting the good fight against that imaginary man in your head.

Lightknight:

ObsidianJones:
There would be no way to carry a Black Widow movie.

It'd basically just be a spy movie.

A weird one.

Where would anyone put it?

The trappings of Marvel and the inability to keep it serious and dark (Given the ways they've gone with most of the comic book movies to date) would probably make it campy and tongue in cheek. From preference, I can say I probably wouldn't be interested in a movie like that.

And given the Marvel universe, people would be wanting to see superpowers go off here and there... nanites aside, Natasha is like a semi amped up Jason Bourne.

Do you make it sexualized? Marvel would probably disagree. Would you play it for the Lulz, you'll probably get another Green Lantern.

You'll have a spy movie where we're supposed to believe this character is in mortal danger and the world depends only on her shoulders... while full well knowing she pals around with an Unstoppable Gamma powered Orge, A man in the most advanced weapon to date, A Super Soldier who is probably one of the best fighters alive, and a God. And if she doesn't pal around with them, they are there in the world. So... you know, give them a call.

dversion:
-snip-

I've maintained the exact same stance this entire time.

I've merely had to try and explain it seven different ways because apparently the first six didn't make sense to you.

Which, sorry to say, is your fault, not mine.

These "issues" pieces the Escapist digs up to sate its "seriouz journalismz" urges do grow tiresome. They are always pitched with a smug, winking "we know best eh?" at the first year gender studies crowd. Not everyone who reads the site thinks everythng must have a hard 50% gender split or that all games must have a playable black one legged lesbian. Be nice if we just focused on the games and didn't try to foist our politics on each other.

Res Plus:
These "issues" pieces the Escapist digs up to sate its "seriouz journalismz" urges do grow tiresome. They are always pitched with a smug, winking "we know best eh?" at the first year gender studies crowd. Not everyone who reads the site thinks everythng must have a hard 50% gender split or that all games must have a playable black one legged lesbian. Be nice if we just focused on the games and didn't try to foist our politics on each other.

Sure, but if they were to stop pitching those kinds of articles what would the escapist writers write about? I mean without those kinds of articles Kotaku, Jazabel & Escapist would go out of business.

They'd have to write about something else, like the objective qualities possessed by specific games... An frankly thats actually pretty boring as a topic... Especially when specific writers have essentially been bought and paid for by specifc game publishers/developers & now have to big up games the rest of us can see aren't very good.

mythgraven:
People are people. No one deserves to be treated like shit, but true equality means, everyone gets treated like shit. Equality means you no longer get special interest groups, or special rights, equality means no chivalry, equality means neither sex is subordinate, but that neither sex gets any sort of courtesy either.

Equality means you no longer need those things. So yes, in way, you're right; if everyone were equal those things would cease to exist on any meaninful level.

Trivea:
Honestly? I wish they would stop trying to put female characters in comic books as anything but a plot device altogether, and I'm a girl. No, it's not because "omg they get in the way of my hot boys", it's that they can't create any character without a Y chromosome and not absolutely ruin her. I mean, seriously, male superheroes are cool, but female superheroes?

Some work, some don't. I liked Star Spangled-Kid, who later became Stargirl or Starwoman or whatever, in the JSA revival. She had more going for her than huge boobs, at least.

One thing I've always been annoyed by is the DC editorial decision to push the "big three" idea; the Holy Trinity of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. I'm not against having a female character as one of the big stars of the universe, I just resent it being WW because it feels so token. Batman, incredibly popular, cool character. Superman, ditto. Wonder Woman...well, "we needed a girl". She's fairly boring, has a powerset that isn't particularly interesting, and it just feels as if she's always listed with the other two because tits. Have her in her own series, have her in the JLA, use her to totally undermine Superman's character by having them hook up, whatever. Just stop telling us she's one of the most important DC characters just because she's the most recognisable female. If it matters that much that your Power Trio have gender representation, try writing a cool and interesting female superhero who deserves the recognition instead.

Vizen:
As someone who works for one of the largest toy store chains in the UK, i can confidently say the Black widow figure is extremely rare, we have been selling the merchandise now for just over a year and only recently have we received the figured linked on Amazon and in limited quantity,

Hawkeye (who also isn't on the majority of the merchandising) has been in stock fairly consistently (about the same as Loki) along with his bow.

Also she isn't available in the larger figure series which is objectively better and only reserved for Ironman, The Hulk, Thor and Captain America.

Girls tastes are changing the majority hate Barbie these days. We sell way more Monster High in comparison and both boys and girls have been requesting the figure in question to complete there avengers sets.

No, shutupshutupshutup, you're ruining the wailing and gnashing of teeth. This kid's parents are clearly just using her to push their agenda; nobody with a vagina is interested in non-pink toys. That would be weird.

matthew_lane:

Res Plus:
These "issues" pieces the Escapist digs up to sate its "seriouz journalismz" urges do grow tiresome. They are always pitched with a smug, winking "we know best eh?" at the first year gender studies crowd. Not everyone who reads the site thinks everythng must have a hard 50% gender split or that all games must have a playable black one legged lesbian. Be nice if we just focused on the games and didn't try to foist our politics on each other.

Sure, but if they were to stop pitching those kinds of articles what would the escapist writers write about? I mean without those kinds of articles Kotaku, Jazabel & Escapist would go out of business.

They'd have to write about something else, like the objective qualities possessed by specific games... An frankly thats actually pretty boring as a topic... Especially when specific writers have essentially been bought and paid for by specifc game publishers/developers & now have to big up games the rest of us can see aren't very good.

Quite! Kotaku seems especially odd these days.

ObsidianJones:

Lightknight:

ObsidianJones:
There would be no way to carry a Black Widow movie.

It'd basically just be a spy movie.

A weird one.

Where would anyone put it?

The trappings of Marvel and the inability to keep it serious and dark (Given the ways they've gone with most of the comic book movies to date) would probably make it campy and tongue in cheek. From preference, I can say I probably wouldn't be interested in a movie like that.

And given the Marvel universe, people would be wanting to see superpowers go off here and there... nanites aside, Natasha is like a semi amped up Jason Bourne.

Do you make it sexualized? Marvel would probably disagree. Would you play it for the Lulz, you'll probably get another Green Lantern.

You'll have a spy movie where we're supposed to believe this character is in mortal danger and the world depends only on her shoulders... while full well knowing she pals around with an Unstoppable Gamma powered Orge, A man in the most advanced weapon to date, A Super Soldier who is probably one of the best fighters alive, and a God. And if she doesn't pal around with them, they are there in the world. So... you know, give them a call.

I mean, she's basically a Batman/Batgirl analogue with a strong side of international spy. It could be a good movie. But she's likely have to be paired with another hero like Hawkeye to carry the story. She's not a bad character, you just have to find the right writers/directors.

Lightknight:
I mean, she's basically a Batman/Batgirl analogue with a strong side of international spy. It could be a good movie. But she's likely have to be paired with another hero like Hawkeye to carry the story. She's not a bad character, you just have to find the right writers/directors.

Don't get me wrong. I actually like Black Widow a lot.

But given what people are expecting from Comic Book Movies nowadays, I doubt it would sell.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here