Avengers Movie *Spoilers*

[listenuscrewheads]

Yeah, the average superhero comic-book does have such gaps in logic, but I guess Death by Mime is perhaps a bit flabbergasted by the fact that, unlike the average comic-book, this movie is getting a free pass from critics because they are getting carried along by the action, with an almost 100% positive critical reception.
But, I would say he is being as hard on the film, as many critics are being blindly devoted.

[ImpulseUCF]

I'll rephrase once more. Phase 2 was a perfectly realistic response to Thor and the destroyer's invasion and spanking the humans. Do you expect them to just go "Oh, wow, there's aliens after all, and boy did they slap us around! Oh, well, eat least we had a good run" or do you expect them to do what we've done for THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HUMAN HISTORY and try to improve tech/weapons and get the one up? Also, all they had were rifles that I saw. Furthermore, right as they were getting into the debate (which was amped up by Loki's staff) shit went down so they didn't really have a whole lot of time to deal with it. Maybe that will be brought up in a future movie. Wow, planning ahead! Ongoing sub plots. Sounds like something a comic book might do...

There is nothing that will make you happy or change your mind here, so why keep bitching about your perceived issues and minutiae? You can go ahead and be a nitpicky cynic, and I'll continue finding myself agree with the 93% of critics and $1 billion worth of moviegoers worldwide from the past 2 weeks who found the movie to be great.

[RDMacQ]

You are accusing me of cynicism, and yet it is your position that if someone tells the heroes, you can't do this, it's hopeless, that they should simply accept that as truth.

And you'd be absolutely wrong in that.

What I'm saying is that the story establishes that the portal is hard to shut down. Selvig tells Iron Man he can't stop it, Iron Man responds by blasting the portal and gets rebuffed by an energy field. Then Loki shows up and the Invasion starts.

The "Not giving up hope" thing you mentioned comes when the Black Widow steps up to try another attempt to shut down the portal.

What does cynicism even mean to you? Not liking a comic book movie is cynicism? Whoa.

No. Making up stuff to complain about in an attempt to sound smart is cynical.

"He forced me to build him a negasonic death ray," weeps Dr. Hamilton, "with that, Luthor is unstoppable!"

"Well, damn," says Superman, "I guess we should quit trying to stop him then. Everyone try to evacuate people out of his way."

"Hey, we can't keep doing this forever," says Batman, twenty minutes later. "This is getting exhausting."

"Well," shrugs Superman, "I guess we should try to stop him then. Oh wait, this was possible all along?! Boy, is my face red!"

See, this is that "Making stuff up to complain about" thing I mentioned.

Seriously- if the thing you are complaining about and have an issue with in the movie never exists- then why are you upset?

[RDMacQ]

Yeah, the average superhero comic-book does have such gaps in logic, but I guess Death by Mime is perhaps a bit flabbergasted by the fact that, unlike the average comic-book, this movie is getting a free pass from critics because they are getting carried along by the action, with an almost 100% positive critical reception.
But, I would say he is being as hard on the film, as many critics are being blindly devoted.

I don't see how people are getting "carried away" by the film. The action was good. The plot was well set up an executed. Questions we would have had are addressed earlier in the movie. Events are established early on that pay off later.

What Death by Mime is arguing is that the characters should just magically *know* things about the plot because they are revealed later and they should just suspect that. That the characters should just *know* that Selvig built in a secret back door to the portal device to shut it down and they should have been focusing on THAT rather than the alien invasion. That's not pointing out a flaw in the film. That's making something INTO a flaw in order to criticize the movie to sound smart.

[Jim Thompson]

I don't see how people are getting "carried away" by the film. The action was good. The plot was well set up an executed. Questions we would have had are addressed earlier in the movie. Events are established early on that pay off later.

What Death by Mime is arguing is that the characters should just magically *know* things about the plot because they are revealed later and they should just suspect that. That the characters should just *know* that Selvig built in a secret back door to the portal device to shut it down and they should have been focusing on THAT rather than the alien invasion. That's not pointing out a flaw in the film. That's making something INTO a flaw in order to criticize the movie to sound smart.

Better get used to it, Mac. The Avengers is big enough now so that it'll be hip to hate it for a while, for some.

[ImpulseUCF]

What Death by Mime is also doing is fabricating faults, or in laymen terms, "making shit up" to criticize. "The Avengers never tried to shut down the portal!" Yes, they did. Simple, observable fact. At this point when logic and facts are being pointedly ignored it's time to stop feeding the troll and move on.

[carabas]

Two quick points to start: first, the part you quoted was in response to a guy who was arguing Phase 2 was a perfectly reasonable thing. As you've said, this is ridiculous, everyone in the movie thinks it's terrible. Second, when Tony Stark hacks the hellicarrier, he pulls up a CGI model of a missile of some sort. I have no idea if this is purely theoretical, or if they've got a couple of prototypes, but tesseract nukes are on the table.

Everybody seems to be quite clear, including the Council and Fury, that Phase 2 isn't ready.
And there is absoutely nothing indicating that Tesseract nukes are on the table.

But to get to your main point, sure, if they are setting things up for further movies, they are doing it at the expense of the movie right now.

I don't see how.

The dispute over Phase 2 is the set-up for the 'main' conflict of the movie, the Avengers' inability to form a team.

It can be that, and set-up for the B-plot in the next film, both at the same time.

It is the discovery of Phase 2 that sets everyone against SHIELD and makes it look like this whole Avengers Initiative will fall through.

Indeed, perfectly setting up a future conflict. Although it's not just Phase 2 that creates conflict in this movie. Actually, Phase 2 is one of the things the Avengers bond over in this movie. It's one of the things they all agree on. They're this vastly different egos, and the discovery of Phase 2 is one of the things that makes them see, hey, these other weirdos aren't complete idiots, I thin I can work with them.

B

ut then Coulson dies, and suddenly everything is fine, everyone has put Phase 2 behind them, and they go out to beat on some Chitauri. A major conflict is suddenly shoved aside halfway through the story and never resolved, what kind of writing is that to set up a sequel?

Well, it would be rather stupid to go off investigating some possible Phase 2 shenanigans and let the entire clear and present danger of Loki unattended. Phase 2 is a big thing, but it's not a big thing that is trying to kill us this very moment, unlike Loki and his mooks.

And further more, how is this effectively setting up a sequel? For example: are the Council really Fury's bosses?

Well, they were giving him orders. And had the ability to go over his head wen he stoppoed following them. So yes, they're his bosses.

Do they actually have the capacity to fire him?

Presumably. Or at least cut SHIELD's funding, which amounts to the same thing.

He never does a single thing they say and they seem to have absolutely no mechanisms in place to make him follow their orders. They can only go behind his back to give orders to other people. The end scene, they are not blustering "Fury, you're fired!" nor is Fury in open conflict with them.

Yeah, because it's not written for 3-year olds who need to have this explicitly spelled out for them.

If Fury is replaced by Hill in Avengers 2, what will that mean for me, having watched the first movie?

Umm, it's extremely likely they'll say so...

Hill is largely an extra in this movie...

Extras usually don't have lines, actions scenes, names, or well-known actors portraying them.

she is a really competent SHIELD officer, that is about the extent of her character.

And that's all that is required of her in this movie.

She seemed perfectly loyal to Nick Fury

And there is absolutely no reason she woudn't be.

[listenuscrewheads]

I don't see how people are getting "carried away" by the film. The action was good. The plot was well set up an executed. Questions we would have had are addressed earlier in the movie. Events are established early on that pay off later.

What Death by Mime is arguing is that the characters should just magically *know* things about the plot because they are revealed later and they should just suspect that. That the characters should just *know* that Selvig built in a secret back door to the portal device to shut it down and they should have been focusing on THAT rather than the alien invasion. That's not pointing out a flaw in the film. That's making something INTO a flaw in order to criticize the movie to sound smart.

He had a couple of other relevant points though...
...if Loki hadn't wanted to get captured, he could have easily escaped when Thor and Iron-Man started fighting...

...Cap and Iron-Man had already formed a working relationship before Fury did the performance with the trading cards, and the arguments and tension was caused by mystical means anyway( my main bugbear about the film)...

...how heroes standing around the portal gizmo were not targeted by the aliens...

...how Cap could easily survive being shot with their weapons, when Hydra had more potent high tech weapons in WWII...

I can't recall what else he said, but these are valid points, they are aspects that could have been tidied up. But they are not so annoying that they ruin the movie at all imo, they are daft things that happen in many comics/action movies.

[ImpulseUCF]

He had a couple of other relevant points though...

But each of them are so tiny and trivial that they are easily reasoned away with minimal thought and effort/suspension of disbelief.

...if Loki hadn't wanted to get captured, he could have easily escaped when Thor and Iron-Man started fighting...

First, he did want to be captured. Second, his staff had been taken away and Thor and Stark's powers/tech grossly outclass him without it, so he couldn't have gotten far on foot and would have been easily recaptured.

...Cap and Iron-Man had already formed a working relationship before Fury did the performance with the trading cards, and the arguments and tension was caused by mystical means anyway( my main bugbear about the film)...

They came together out of necessity during an attack and behaved professionally. That is not the same as buying into the idea and really working as a unit. The tension was enhanced by the staff, but the doubts and conflicts existed before. It just seemed to dull inhibitions like having a few drinks.

...how heroes standing around the portal gizmo were not targeted by the aliens...

Loki was overconfident. The device was self-sustaining and protected by what he thought to be an impenetrable shield. The aliens expected humans to be pushovers and pose no significant threat and were busy wreaking havoc all over. If the Chitauri were even aware of/cared about the location of the portal, the villains had no reason to expect it would be vulnerable. Overconfidence and arrogance have been the undoing of many,

...how Cap could easily survive being shot with their weapons, when Hydra had more potent high tech weapons in WWII...

These were clearly not the same as the WWII Hydra weapons. We don't know how much protection the suit afforded. We don't know of the aliens weapon was set to a kill mode or incapacitate. So many potential reasons it may not have been fatal that it doesn't require dwelling on.

I can't recall what else he said, but these are valid points, they are aspects that could have been tidied up. But they are not so annoying that they ruin the movie at all imo, they are daft things that happen in many comics/action movies.

Could they have been addressed? Maybe, but they didn't need to be. My point is not to say these were all perfectly executed, but they were sufficiently covered by the scope/context/etc everything else so as not to stick out. With a movie like this, it's the stuff that glaringly exceeds the ability to suspend disbelief or that sticks out beyond the context of what has been shown that breaks down. None of these do that.

[carabas]

He had a couple of other relevant points though...
...if Loki hadn't wanted to get captured, he could have easily escaped when Thor and Iron-Man started fighting...

Not seeing what the relevance of this one is.

...Cap and Iron-Man had already formed a working relationship before Fury did the performance with the trading cards, and the arguments and tension was caused by mystical means anyway( my main bugbear about the film)...

Certainly not all of the tension was caused by mystical means. The way I saw it, all Loki did was aggravate the tensions and mistrust that were already there.
And there's a massive difference between shelving your differences so a ton of people don't die right now, and actually forming a bond.

...how heroes standing around the portal gizmo were not targeted by the aliens...

Not seeing the problem. They took care of those in the immediate area of the portal, no?

...how Cap could easily survive being shot with their weapons, when Hydra had more potent high tech weapons in WWII...

The Chitauri have regular sci-fi blasters. Hydra had Tesseract-powered weapons that were several steps more advanced.

[ImpulseUCF]

I'm not specifically speaking to anyone in particular but addressing a common point. Many people seem to overlook an essential characteristic that divides effective action movies from the ones that don't work, and that's finding the right balance between outrageous, spectacular feats and "realism" and consistency. People aren't expecting literal, real-world accuracy in movies with aliens flying around, shooting lasers out of spears from flying worms fighting mythical gods with magic powers and irradiated brutes. People don't expect plots that stand up to the scrutiny of the finest literary scholars or every detail explained in excruciating expository detail like in detective novels. Nobody expects all of the science and tech to be vetted against cutting-edge research and the world's leading scientists. No, what people want is a fun, smooth ride that is sufficiently covered so as not to jar them out of the experience. Immersion into a movie or book or whatever has its own momentum, and when things drag the user out of it, it ruins the experience. People who are in the zone don't WANT to be pulled out, so minor things that don't conflict with what they know or what the movie has told or shown them don't matter. It's when things go too far outside of this scope that people get pulled out.

Cap getting a glancing shot in a covered/armored section where he is hurt but not killed? Easy enough to write off. We never really saw what those weapons did to humans. Had we seen the aliens shooting people dead-on and vaporizing them onscreen with those weapons and then they shot Cap square in the chest with the same thing and he was fine with no explanation, then you have a glaring hole that would pull people out. An explicit explanation would be needed like the suit had energy dampeners, etc, and even then since it was so jarring might take some people out of the film. Since the offense wasn't egregious, though, an explicit explanation isn't needed. This is just an example of one way this works, but in general, you can get away with fantastical stuff it works within the context of what has been setup. It's when these setups are not done properly or explanations are not provided that stuff sticks out. The action movies of the early 2000s were horrible about this, having regular people in realistic settings perform impossible feats that should have killed them.

Whedon walked this fine line very carefully in The Avengers, so while some things could have risked sticking out, there is enough already there that they don't. Individual thresholds are of course subjective, but it all worked for me.

[listenuscrewheads]

I'm not specifically speaking to anyone in particular but addressing a common point. Many people seem to overlook an essential characteristic that divides effective action movies from the ones that don't work, and that's finding the right balance between outrageous, spectacular feats and "realism" and consistency. People aren't expecting literal, real-world accuracy in movies with aliens flying around, shooting lasers out of spears from flying worms fighting mythical gods with magic powers and irradiated brutes. People don't expect plots that stand up to the scrutiny of the finest literary scholars or every detail explained in excruciating expository detail like in detective novels. Nobody expects all of the science and tech to be vetted against cutting-edge research and the world's leading scientists. No, what people want is a fun, smooth ride that is sufficiently covered so as not to jar them out of the experience. Immersion into a movie or book or whatever has its own momentum, and when things drag the user out of it, it ruins the experience. People who are in the zone don't WANT to be pulled out, so minor things that don't conflict with what they know or what the movie has told or shown them don't matter. It's when things go too far outside of this scope that people get pulled out.

dude, I agree, and as i said, even though he made a couple of points that i thought were valid, they were not nearly enough to ruin the movie in any way for me.
But, i have seen people on messageboards cite the most inane elements that apparently ruin a film for them, there are people out there with far less of a suspensiopn of belief threshold than you or I, but to them their threshold is just as valid as anyone else's.

Cap getting a glancing shot in a covered/armored section where he is hurt but not killed? Easy enough to write off. We never really saw what those weapons did to humans. Had we seen the aliens shooting people dead-on and vaporizing them onscreen with those weapons and then they shot Cap square in the chest with the same thing and he was fine with no explanation, then you have a glaring hole that would pull people out. An explicit explanation would be needed like the suit had energy dampeners, etc, and even then since it was so jarring might take some people out of the film.

I don't think it is easy enough to write off, the point he was making was that those aliens had far more advanced tech than us, so why were they not as deadly as the hydra weapons?...There is no good explanation for this...the *real* reason is, they did not want Cap to look like a weakling, so instead of seeing him just get knackered, battleweary, or maybe come off the worse in a hand to hand situation with some aliens, they had to have him shot. It does not make sense when you think about it, the aliens should have been using weapons that were at the very least as deadly as a high caliber pistol.

Also, it would have made the movie better if we had seen some people getting killed and whatnot, we got stuff like that in Independance day right? A whole street of people getting blown up at one point in that movie, and that was considered family entertainment. They didn't have to show that much, but some actual heightened sense of peril would have been good in the invasion scene, so it was more than just a Saturday morning cartoon show.
People still complain about the Spider-man 90s animated show, as Spidey was not allowed to punch anyone, and real world guns were not allowed, so I think it is a fair point to make about no civilians being shown to get killed during an alien invasion, with war on the streets.
If there were any civilian deaths shown during the invasion, i don't recall them, so maybe my memory is hazy on that.

edit: We saw Shield agents getting bumped off, but this was an Alien invasion in the center of NY, we should have seen some civilian deaths. I don't know if they couldn't show any because of ratings or whatever though, but if they could show Shield agents getting killed, why not civilians?

Whedon walked this fine line very carefully in The Avengers, so while some things could have risked sticking out, there is enough already there that they don't. Individual thresholds are of course subjective, but it all worked for me.

It was fine for me too, but there are some things that could be tidied up to make the film better, and the thread would be very dull if we did not discuss them.

take the points that you and carabas answered...

I liked your answer about Loki not being so powerful without the staff, and not getting far on foot, I forgot that Iron-Man's armour would have body heat detecting gizmos that could have picked him up in the general vicinity. Well, i guess he has that gizmo anyway...

as for carabas's point...

And there's a massive difference between shelving your differences so a ton of people don't die right now, and actually forming a bond.

I think they already formed a bond through their teamwork which saved lives, that is exactly the type of activity that forms bonds, ask any firefighter, cop or surgical team.
I don't mind the scene with Fury using the bloody cards as incentive, but when you think about it, it was probably not needed. You can just say he was giving them some kind of personal push, just in case, but again, I don't think it was needed for the characters for their motivation, I have to agree with the mime guy on that one.

[ImpulseUCF]

All good, man, and thanks for being civil and reasonable. I agree everyone's threshold is different. I think it's testament to the movie that the only quibbles there are to discuss are fairly minor details, like is this thing too unrealistic for a superhero movie or not, was this one scene absolutely necessary, maybe not but it's fine, etc.

[Songbird/Diamondback]

From my seat on teh Interwebs, I’ve been hearing that Natasha is both a major stride forward for women in film and yet at the same time some sort of failure of feminism, because she has no powers and gets scared and runs errands. Or something. (You can guess where I fall in this spectrum.)

And this isn’t all from men! A large portion of this second viewpoint comes to me from outspokenly feminist sources, people who care about gender roles and social justice in general. Some of them are disenchanted with Whedon’s record regarding POCs, which is completely valid but I feel is irrelevant to this discussion aside from saying this:

If you expect any female character — or any character who belongs to a group chronically under-represented in mainstream media — to perfectly represent your ideal of that group, she has already fallen victim to tokenism.

We see this all the time with characters who are POC. If they have flaws, they’re caricatures; if they don’t, they’re unrealistic, or worse, unsympathetic. No white male character is subjected to this level of scrutiny because he is automatically assumed to be an individual, not a representative. We’ve been trained by seeing white male characters everywhere to think this way, and until women and POC become commonplace we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves.

So bend from the knees, people, not from the waist.

Natasha is a person. She’s a remarkable person, because more than possibly any superhero in Marvel or DC, she knows one essential truth:

The Black Widow uses everything she has at her disposal: her brains, her body, her past, and all the things that people will assume about her. That last one especially.

Whedon does a great job of demonstrating this simply through her introduction in the film. We see a beautiful woman tied to a chair being interrogated by smug, thuggish-looking men, and we assume we’re looking at a plan gone awry. Natasha’s nonchalant replies to their threats turn out to be more than mere bravado when she’s forced to drop the ruse and we discover that this was the plan, and she is far from helpless. (I think it says a lot to have Agent Coulson waiting calmly on the line; he knows she’ll be back in just a moment.)

This is why I think she is fantastic.

But if you’re looking for an empathetic character, a outwardly kind character, an expressive and affectionate and warm and honest and open character, do not look to Natasha. That is not what she does. That is not who she is. She’s a spy, and spies sneak and steal and cheat and lie. Love her for that or hate her for it, just don’t expect her to fulfill some romantic notion of what a feminist heroine should be.

http://fuckyeahthunderbolts.tumblr.c...ut-black-widow

[KingofMadCows]

No. People consider Whedon to be a strong advocate for woman because he's a strong advocate for women. It has nothing to do with the fact that the 90's were "simpler times."



Yeah.

This is bullshit.

He gets props because he WAS one of the few people promoting it. He demanded that women be treated equally and not as sex objects. He didn't feel they needed a male counterpart to be appealing, and that they could be complex and compelling leads.

I don't really get why he shouldn't be commended for promoting strong female role models in a time when there weren't a lot of strong female role models. You want to seem to condemn him for that, believing it to be an easy task. When in fact BECAUSE there were no strong female leads it was a hell of a lot harder.



Yeah.

Again, this is bullshit.

Buffy's PHYSICAL strength comes from her supernatural powers. But it was shown time and again that she went through the emotional wringer time and again, and still managed to come out on top.

And if you took from the series-after all is said and done- that females need "supernatural abilities" to be "strong," you clearly weren't watching all that hard, or you were looking for things to criticize the series for. You harp on "Helpless" for showing Buffy to be "weak," when if fact the entire episode showed that- even with her strength gone and all by herself- she was still capable of outsmarting her enemies if not outfighting them. That's the sort of thinking that leads to people looking at My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and seeing the show promoting lesbians and encouraging girls not to read.


Except you've provided NO reasoning as to WHY Black Widow isn't marketable. You just say she's not, and assume you are right. You assume the audience will reject her, with no proof. You say that she'd be "no different than a dozen spy films that came before," but as "proof" you just point out the reason for that is because she's "a spy" and ignore what everyone else has pointed out that separates her from all other spies out there. You point out Loki is more marketable, but again, you don't point out why.

You're confusing cynicism with insight. You being dismissive of Whedon's work and arguing he really didn't promote a strong female lead, or that his show wasn't a major accomplishment, doesn't make you seem more intelligent. It just makes you look like someone looking for something to criticize.



Only to you. I won't deny that Loki was an interesting character. But more likely to get a film than Black Widow? Yeah, don't see it. This is just you, and you really haven't done much to prove WHY Loki is more likely to get a film more than Black Widow. You've just said he is and she isn't, and that's that.

I have tried to have a discussion with you in good faith. I have addressed your arguments without insults. I have not dismissed any of your points without reason. I have made no personal attacks against you nor have I made any unfounded claims about sinister ulterior motives. But if you're just going to rely on ad hominems and insults then I have no intention of continuing to indulge in those behaviors.

That being said, you're not addressing my points on both the issue with Whedon and Black Widow so let me clarify my points.

You seem to think that I'm "condemning" everything Whedon has ever done. I am not, I am pointing out the things that he did wrong and why he is not as strong an advocate for women as people claim he is. It does not mean I think everything Whedon has ever done sucks or that he hates women. And I'll freely admit that he's an advocate for well written characters.

Again I have to point out the simple fact that just because a character of some race, gender, social class, etc., has depth or complexity or is well written does not necessarily mean that they are supposed to advocate for that particular belief or point of view.

What Whedon fails to do is normalize the idea of strong female roles. Look at Captain Sisko. No one on the show ever points out the fact that he's the "black captain." No one ever even implies, "he's just as good of a leader as white captains." He is a main character and a Starfleet captain, his race isn't even brought up except for one or two episodes. Same thing with the female characters on DS9. No one was there pointing out, "Kira does not need to be treated as a sex object, she can have the same amount of complexity and depth as male characters and she can be just as strong and ruthless as a man." Heck, same thing is done with a lot of female characters in a lot of other sci-fi's, Aeryn Sun, Susan Ivanova, Sarah Connor, etc. The writers and directors who actually do create strong female characters without waving their arms and going, "hey look, a female character who's not sexualized, is as complex and strong as a man, but doesn't need a man in her life" are far better advocates because they're promoting a society in which there is true equality and gender is no more of an issue than a person's eye color or place of birth.

As for Buffy's physical strength coming from her supernatural powers, there are two problems with that. The first is that physical prowess and strength of will or personality are not separate things. It takes a huge amount of mental toughness in order to train to become a good athlete, soldier, dancer, martial artist, etc. The second problem is that as I mentioned earlier, she also lost all her skills along with her physical strength. Yes she wins in the end, if she didn't they wouldn't have been able to continue the show. But why have her lose all the skills and mental fortitude she gained through her years of training? She should have been at least as courageous and physically capable as Xander. And look at what they did in the episode where Angel becomes human. He didn't become weak and scared like Buffy. He remained fearless and even though he wasn't as strong as before, he was still very physically capable and skilled with weapons.

Concerning the final message of the show, that's what happened. You see Willow give all the potentials Slayer powers, which I believe also takes away some of their humanity, and you see a montage of women all around the world becoming more confident and standing up for themselves, I believe there's a girl who hits a baseball and a woman who stands up to her abusive husband. That was in the episode. They showed that it took supernatural powers for these women to grow confident and strong. So how is that not the message if it actually happened in the episode? Why would you take the writer's interpretation of what happened over what they actually showed? You don't do that for Zack Snyder. He says that "Sucker Punch" should be interpreted as a female empowerment film and I'm sure that he can rationalize it as such but no one believes him because they look at what happens in the film rather than listen to Snyder's own interpretation of the film.

As for Black Widow, I never said that it would be impossible to market Black Widow. I never said that no one would ever go see a Black Widow movie. I simply said that she would be more difficult to market compared to other Marvel properties and I gave my reasons. Other characters have more unique or recognizable powers, abilities, or even "gimmicks." Black Widow has more competition than other superheroes since there are many shows and movies about spies. That means the audience will be comparing her to other female spies. A Black Widow movie will suffer much more if it's not as good as say "Hannah" or "Haywire." One of the advantages that "Iron Man" and "Thor" had were that there are fewer movies they could be compared to. Critics couldn't say, "Thor wasn't as good as that other movie about the Norse gods." In fact, I would say that one of the reasons why "Thor" was successful is because people were impressed that they were able to take such a silly concept, that could have easily turned out to be terrible, and make it work. Black Widow on the other hand will have to compete with a lot of spy films that were very successful and well made so the bar will be higher.

I have also gave reasons why Loki is more marketable. His backstory, powers, and "gimmick" are more unique than Black Widow's. There are plenty of movies and shows about spies, not many about Norse gods. He can be made into much more of an anti-hero, on the level of Punisher, Wolverine, and Magneto, a niche that Disney/Marvel still had not filled yet. He has also received much more character development than Black Widow. All those are reasons why he is more marketable than Black Widow.