Avengers Movie *Spoilers*

[RDMacQ]

Other then Hill, how does this owe to Bendis' take?

Edit: Wait, are you talking about story elements, style, what here?

Avengers tower. The Avengers working closely with SHIELD, overseen by Nick Fury. Characters being referred to their real names instead of their code names.

There's more, but I think this skews far more closely to Bendis' take on the Avengers- and Millar's Ultimates- than any "classic" version of the characters.

[Lascoden]

Avengers tower. The Avengers working closely with SHIELD, overseen by Nick Fury. Characters being referred to their real names instead of their code names.

There's more, but I think this skews far more closely to Bendis' take on the Avengers- and Millar's Ultimates- than any "classic" version of the characters.

Wasn't the whole SHIELD/Fury thing started with Millar?

I wouldn't say it has far more in common with Bendis' take. It's got a classic line-up, more in common with older runs. Story based on the original founding of the team, with Loki attacking each, and them uniting. The Chitauri from Millar.

[KingofMadCows]

I'd like some examples of these, because nothing like that comes to mind. I don 't recall Sidney Bristow fighting Greek Gods or whatever.

Have you actually seen "Alias?" The goal of the main villain is to acquire a mysterious artifact created by a 15th century inventor with the power to give people immortality. That same inventor also created neutron bombs, medicine that give people healing factors, advanced sonar technology that could map the ocean floor, a chemical repository of his memories, etc. Heck, the show has tech that's less plausible than a lot of the stuff in Iron Man. The show essentially revolves around bad guys trying to acquire and use these magical technologies.

There have been super villains in spy movies ever since "Moonraker."

Like Loki? Who she outwitted.

Except she didn't. It was Loki who tricked her into getting everyone into the lab with the scepter to start the argument and keep them distracted from Hawkeye.

Also, she didn't actually fight Loki. How do you think she'll fare if she had to go against Loki alone?

I don't think anybody suggested that.

Considering how that's a huge factor in deciding which characters get movies, Black Widow won't get a movie until more marketable superheroes get their turn.

[The Animal Man]

i doubt dark knight rises or man of steel will be able to top this and while Amazing Spider-Man Might be decent there's no way it can compare to this there's just no way!

[protege]

You know, the first time i saw it, i thought that Stark was converting his tower into a headquarters for the team. I couldn't really figure out the schematics, but the second time i saw it, that his bulding got trashed, and the "A" was the only letter left. Maybe he just thought it was synergy, or something.

[CMBMOOL]

You know, the first time i saw it, i thought that Stark was converting his tower into a headquarters for the team. I couldn't really figure out the schematics, but the second time i saw it, that his bulding got trashed, and the "A" was the only letter left. Maybe he just thought it was synergy, or something.

Maybe it was a coincidence that the A was left at that ending scene ?

[Hrist]

I don't know if you know this but there are plenty of female spies/assassins on television and in the movies already, many of them are three dimensional, some have much more depth and are much more developed than Black Widow. There's Nikita (all three of them), Sydney Bristow, Sarah Walker, Hanna, Salt, Emma Peel, Mallory Kane, the Bride, just to name a few. And they're pretty much all "confident, ass-kicking, beautiful super-spy" and most of them have "a checkered past just waiting to be explored."

How… is this an argument against Black Widow? Most of these characters have been pretty successful, and a lot of them have endured in pop culture memory even after their films or TV series has finished. It's a marketable concept. The Avengers, the Marvel Cinematic universe, is also pretty marketable, and a film that could successfully blend the MCU superhero feel, that shared successful universe, with another genre that is also pretty successful and easy for filmgoers to understand— that is why people are interested in a Black Widow movie. People like spy flicks! They like the MCU!

Obviously there are those people who just don't like female characters, hold them to higher standards of usefulness, will forever write them off as oversexualized and unimportant and reduce any heroic role they play to ass shots, either consciously or unconsciously. These people are probably not excited at the prospect of a BW film, and can't understand why anyone else would be.

[KingofMadCows]

This film. Kind of gave her a significant boost.

Except she isn't the only character in the movie and she certainly isn't the most marketable character. Marvel/Disney doesn't exactly have an infinite amount of cash to work with and they won't risk releasing too many superhero movies for fear of oversaturation.

Again, "extended lifespan." She wouldn't NEED to be 5 years old during the Cold War.

Nothing to suggest she's had the biotech enhancement. Even if she did, unless they make her 50 or 60 years old, they'll still be dealing with the very end of the Cold War when not much interesting was happening.

Neither are superhero movies at this point. But as we've seen with the Avengers, you can do something that is familiar and still surprise people as well as knocking their socks off.

Except there hasn't been any (good) live action superhero team up movies in the past.

There's been plenty of spy movies/tv shows/video games that have flash backs to the protagonist's dark past, which then later come back to haunt them. Heck, plenty of those flashbacks involve the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

I just saw the movie again last night. Can someone point out where there were "pointless" @$$ shots? I mean, we do know that filming a character from BEHIND doesn't count as a "pointless" @$$ shot, right? If so, Cap, Tony, Hulk, ect, all had "pointless" @$$ shots, want with being filmed with their back to the camera and all.

It's not a matter of filming a character from behind, it's how it's filmed and whether or not that kind of shot was necessary. This would be a "normal" shot from the back:



This would be a gratuitous ass shot:



I'm pretty sure there were those in the movie.

And all the other things he did, sure.

Like what?

Charisma Carpenter WANTED to leave the show BECAUSE she got pregnant and wanted to focus on motherhood. If it really WAS that "spiteful," she probably wouldn't have returned for the 100th episode the next season.

Did you not hear about that Christian Bale angry rant on the set of Terminator? Did you know that Michael Bay almost seriously injured Shia LaBouf while having him do a stunt for Transformers? Did you know that Ed Harrison got so pissed at James Cameron during the filming of "The Abyss" that he punched Cameron in the face? Did you know that Dennis Hopper was addicted to all sorts of drugs during the filming of "Easy Rider?" A cursory search would reveal all sorts of crap that went on during the filming of "Apocalypse Now." And we don't even need to get into all the nasty rumors of producers and directors having compromising videos of young aspiring actors. If people in Hollywood stopped working when they get mistreated, nothing would ever get done. Charisma has said on multiple occasions that she was against what they did to her character. She also said that she agreed to return for the 100th episode if they didn't kill her character off and Whedon lied to her to get her to do the episode.

Also, I've done this little thing of actually- you know- WATCHING the Buffy series (It's actually one of my favorite shows. Of all time.) So it's actually kind of offensive that you're trying to imply that there was some sort of weird fetishization with Buffy and Angel making love for the first time. Buffy wasn't exactly depicted as an innocent, naive virginal figure who Angel took advantage of. In fact, she was depicted as a girl who was "17 going on 40." I'm also not sure how depicting a relationship between Buffy and Angel somehow doesn't make Whedon a "feminist," given everything ELSE he did with the character. Taking ONE instance out of context doesn't negate EVERYTHING else he did to make Buffy an independent, strong, resourceful, complex and compelling lead who didn't need a man to save her or a male counterpart to "interest" people both male or female.

The REAL metaphor with their sexual encounter wasn't some sort of sexual fantasy. Quite the opposite. After they slept together, Angel turned evil and became the big bad for the season, which was meant to serve as a metaphor for how after some girls sleep with guys, they "turn evil." Not exactly the stuff that sexual fantasies are made of.

Except Buffy is only strong because she was given special powers. If you're going to read into all the metaphors, don't ignore that. In the episode where she had her powers taken away, she turned into a weak little girl whom everyone described as "normal," despite the fact that she has had several years of martial arts training. And don't give me any of that crap about how the drugs made her weaker than a normal girl of her age since not only did her super strength turn come and go (it wouldn't make any sense for her to be as strong as a gorilla one second and weak as a mouse the next like a "super strength" switch was being thrown unless it only affected her supernatural powers, otherwise it would have been a slower process of weakening) but Giles also specifically said that it would make her a "normal girl" and everyone else echoed that sentiment. If you really want to look for hidden meanings in his shows, it's this, "women are weak unless they have special help from magical sources. Women who actually train themselves to be strong physically will only be victimized and destroyed like Cordelia."

And as for your "REAL metaphor" with their sexual encounter, are you forgetting the fact that she already knew that Angel used to be a ruthless murderer and despite having a soul, is still a monster with a craving for flesh? So going by your own logic, the correct interpretation would be that having sex with a guy who used to be abusive but has since reformed will turn him back into an abusive misogynistic monster again.

Except she'd be one of the few female spies, and her adventures would take place in the Marvel U. A spy story with a Marvel twist. That's an interesting story right there.

And every other spy adventure has their own unique twist. And they can't exactly capitalize on that Marvel twist and still keep it a Black Widow only movie. If they have Widow fight a weaker super villain like Deadshot or Snapdragon then it won't be much different than other spy movies. If they have her fight a powerful superhero like Loki or the Leader then she'll need help from another superhero and it won't be her movie anymore.

Other than starring in a critical and commercially successful motion picture that raised her profile considerably.

Along with 8 other major characters, at least 6 of which are more marketable and will be getting new movies made about them. And yes I am including Loki as it is probably more likely that we'll get a Loki movie before a Black Widow movie unless they make a movie that stars Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Nick Fury.

[Cowtools]

Considering how that's a huge factor in deciding which characters get movies, Black Widow won't get a movie until more marketable superheroes get their turn.

That's such defeatist thinking. Who decides what's marketable? How do they know unless they try? I don't recall Iron Man being a widely known and well-loved brand amongst non-comics fans, until they made an excellent movie for him.

To use some of your exmples, Jennifer Garner was an unknown until they cast her in Alias and gave it a big marketing push. 'Nikita' was a French film with no Hollywood stars at all, and it's been remade in America three times because they decided to stick with the idea.

A Black Widow movie would star a well-known and liked actress, as a character with a recognizable look, with tons of comic history to be explored, spinning out of one of the biggest movies of all time. How is that not a marketable property?

And why does it have to be an 'either/or' situation? Why can't they make a Black Widow movie as well as some of the other, as you say, 'more marketable' superheroes?

It boils down to this: the reason we need to make noise about wanting a Black Widow movie is that the default assumption in Hollywood is that they can't sell solo female action movies, and that's why they don't make them. Even the successful ones, like Kill Bill and Alias and The Hunger Games, are treated as anomalies, and their success is chalked up to other factors. We need to let them know they're wrong.

[Cowtools]

How… is this an argument against Black Widow? Most of these characters have been pretty successful, and a lot of them have endured in pop culture memory even after their films or TV series has finished. It's a marketable concept. The Avengers, the Marvel Cinematic universe, is also pretty marketable, and a film that could successfully blend the MCU superhero feel, that shared successful universe, with another genre that is also pretty successful and easy for filmgoers to understand— that is why people are interested in a Black Widow movie. People like spy flicks! They like the MCU!

Exactly! Female Jason Bourne in the Marvel universe. How is that not an easy thing to sell?

Obviously there are those people who just don't like female characters, hold them to higher standards of usefulness, will forever write them off as oversexualized and unimportant and reduce any heroic role they play to ass shots, either consciously or unconsciously. These people are probably not excited at the prospect of a BW film, and can't understand why anyone else would be.

Exactly. Unfortunately, a lot of the people you describe work for the development and marketing departments of Disney and Marvel.

[RDMacQ]

Have you actually seen "Alias?" The goal of the main villain is to acquire a mysterious artifact created by a 15th century inventor with the power to give people immortality. That same inventor also created neutron bombs, medicine that give people healing factors, advanced sonar technology that could map the ocean floor, a chemical repository of his memories, etc. Heck, the show has tech that's less plausible than a lot of the stuff in Iron Man. The show essentially revolves around bad guys trying to acquire and use these magical technologies.

There have been super villains in spy movies ever since "Moonraker."

Not on the same level as guys like Baron Strucker and Viper from Hydra.

Except she didn't. It was Loki who tricked her into getting everyone into the lab with the scepter to start the argument and keep them distracted from Hawkeye.

Uh, no. She tricked him into revealing that he wanted the Hulk there to get rid of them. He had nothing with getting them all together in the same room.

Also, she didn't actually fight Loki. How do you think she'll fare if she had to go against Loki alone?

What does this have to do with anything.

Considering how that's a huge factor in deciding which characters get movies, Black Widow won't get a movie until more marketable superheroes get their turn.

And given her character is featured in an incredibly critical and commercially film, and is portrayed by one of Hollywood's hottest actresses, who's performance has been very well received, I think she's successfully marketable.

[RDMacQ]

Except she isn't the only character in the movie and she certainly isn't the most marketable character. Marvel/Disney doesn't exactly have an infinite amount of cash to work with and they won't risk releasing too many superhero movies for fear of oversaturation.

Yeah.

This is BS.

"Fear of oversaturation?" Have you SEEN all the superhero films that have come out over the years? And do you REALLY think a major motion picture studio WOULDN'T want to milk the Avengers franchise with sequels and spinoffs for all its worth?

Nothing to suggest she's had the biotech enhancement. Even if she did, unless they make her 50 or 60 years old, they'll still be dealing with the very end of the Cold War when not much interesting was happening.

You do realize that it wouldn't take much to just reveal this in a solo film, right?

Except there hasn't been any (good) live action superhero team up movies in the past.

Uh, there haven't been ANY superhero team up films in the past. But people have been critical of the "superhero films" and how the genre is "dying." This film shows that there is still life.

There's been plenty of spy movies/tv shows/video games that have flash backs to the protagonist's dark past, which then later come back to haunt them. Heck, plenty of those flashbacks involve the Soviet Union and the Cold War.

And there can be one more starring the Black Widow.

It's not a matter of filming a character from behind, it's how it's filmed and whether or not that kind of shot was necessary. This would be a "normal" shot from the back:

This would be a gratuitous ass shot:

I'm pretty sure there were those in the movie.

No, there weren't. I just saw the film again last night for the second time. We got the first type of shot from behind, not the second.

Like what?

Actively promoting strong female leads. Avoiding stereotypical personalities. Trying to make many complex female characters that just aren't stereotypes. Engaging in relationships that aren't sensationalized. Ect, ect.

I mean, it's kind of hard NOT to notice this sort of thing if you even take a partial glance at Joss Whedon's body of work.

Did you not hear about that Christian Bale angry rant on the set of Terminator? Did you know that Michael Bay almost seriously injured Shia LaBouf while having him do a stunt for Transformers? Did you know that Ed Harrison got so pissed at James Cameron during the filming of "The Abyss" that he punched Cameron in the face? Did you know that Dennis Hopper was addicted to all sorts of drugs during the filming of "Easy Rider?" A cursory search would reveal all sorts of crap that went on during the filming of "Apocalypse Now." And we don't even need to get into all the nasty rumors of producers and directors having compromising videos of young aspiring actors. If people in Hollywood stopped working when they get mistreated, nothing would ever get done. Charisma has said on multiple occasions that she was against what they did to her character. She also said that she agreed to return for the 100th episode if they didn't kill her character off and Whedon lied to her to get her to do the episode.

So, you have proof of this, right?

Because- while I know this is just Wikipedia, this is what I found out about the episode.

"Carpenter says she was satisfied with the way her character left the show, as she feels Cordelia's story has been fully resolved.[10] Creator Joss Whedon agreed, saying, "In seven years, we'd sort of run through our course of [the] character and didn't want to start just doing hollow riffs on what we'd done."[11] Since Whedon suspected this season would be the last, Carpenter says, "we didn't want to just leave Cordelia in a coma..this would be a very big story left untold."[12] Carpenter says the 100th episode was a momentous time to have her character die,[10] calling it "bittersweet...a love letter to Cordelia."[5] David Fury agrees: "It's a beautiful farewell to Charisma for the series."[1]


Reaction to the death of long-time character Cordelia was generally positive. After being disgusted by Cordelia's fourth season arc, which she claims "destroyed Cordy's character and viewer trust", author Jennifer Crusie applauds this episode. "The writers play fair," she says, "foreshadowing the Gotcha to come" - Cordelia is in a private room, yet hastily draws the curtains around a bed-ridden roommate, and remarks to Angel that she understands why Doyle used his "last breath to make sure [Angel] kept fighting." Rather than undercutting the emotional impact of the story, the twist of Cordelia's tragic ending reinforces and honors her character. "She is...our Cordy again," Crusie says.[16] Cordelia exits the series "needed, loved, and wanted"; her final words are "You're welcome," Janine R. Harrison argues, because "she knows her worth."[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_..._note-E_News-9

In fact, from what I did read about this in the past little while, you ARE correct in that she was RELUCTANT to come back for fear that they'd kill off her character, but AFTER SHE READ THE SCRIPT she changed her mind and thought it was a good sendoff.

Except Buffy is only strong because she was given special powers.

Well, that's bullshit.

Seriously, there was an entire episode that disproved this. Plus the whole Faith arc which contrasted Buffy with another Slayer without the same sort of strength of personality. Plus, there were many bad guys that Buffy fought that were way stronger than her, and seriously harmed her. She wasn't just "strong" because she had special powers.

If you're going to read into all the metaphors, don't ignore that. In the episode where she had her powers taken away, she turned into a weak little girl whom everyone described as "normal," despite the fact that she has had several years of martial arts training. And don't give me any of that crap about how the drugs made her weaker than a normal girl of her age since not only did her super strength turn come and go (it wouldn't make any sense for her to be as strong as a gorilla one second and weak as a mouse the next like a "super strength" switch was being thrown unless it only affected her supernatural powers, otherwise it would have been a slower process of weakening) but Giles also specifically said that it would make her a "normal girl" and everyone else echoed that sentiment. If you really want to look for hidden meanings in his shows, it's this, "women are weak unless they have special help from magical sources. Women who actually train themselves to be strong physically will only be victimized and destroyed like Cordelia."

Yeah, sorry. At this point you're just looking for things to criticize Whedon for.

Sorry he wrote a strong female character. Sorry that he actively promotes trying to have strong female characters. He's made no secret about his feelings on this matter. Trying to make this into some sort of larger conspiracy against the guy doesn't make your point any more salient.

And as for your "REAL metaphor" with their sexual encounter, are you forgetting the fact that she already knew that Angel used to be a ruthless murderer and despite having a soul, is still a monster with a craving for flesh? So going by your own logic, the correct interpretation would be that having sex with a guy who used to be abusive but has since reformed will turn him back into an abusive misogynistic monster again.

No. It was the "Guys turn evil after you have sex with them."

That's what the creators were going for. They've said this multiple times.

I don't understand why people try to dismiss Whedon by trying to undermine his efforts and imply conspiracies and faults where there are none.

And every other spy adventure has their own unique twist. And they can't exactly capitalize on that Marvel twist and still keep it a Black Widow only movie. If they have Widow fight a weaker super villain like Deadshot or Snapdragon then it won't be much different than other spy movies. If they have her fight a powerful superhero like Loki or the Leader then she'll need help from another superhero and it won't be her movie anymore.

Well, this is also Bullshit.

That's like saying that Cap can only fight villains like Loki or the Leader from now on. I don't see why the Black Widow has to have to be treated any differently than the male heroes.

Then again, I'm not threatened by the idea of a strong female hero.

Most of this seems less like "He didn't write a strong female hero" and more "He didn't write a female hero to my exact specifications and the way I think a female hero should be presented, so therefore it doesn't count."

Along with 8 other major characters, at least 6 of which are more marketable and will be getting new movies made about them.

Prove it.

Prove that Hawkeye is more "marketable" than Black Widow. Prove it, then we can talk.

And yes I am including Loki as it is probably more likely that we'll get a Loki movie before a Black Widow movie unless they make a movie that stars Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Nick Fury.

AAAAAAAand THIS is where I stop taking you seriously.

A LOKI movie, before a Black Widow movie? You SERIOUSLY believe that LOKI is more marketable and has a BETTER chance at a movie than the Black Widow?

SERIOUSLY?

[KingofMadCows]

Actively promoting strong female leads. Avoiding stereotypical personalities. Trying to make many complex female characters that just aren't stereotypes. Engaging in relationships that aren't sensationalized. Ect, ect.

I mean, it's kind of hard NOT to notice this sort of thing if you even take a partial glance at Joss Whedon's body of work.

You've misunderstood my point about Whedon and the rest of your post concerning Whedon stems from this misunderstanding so I'll correct it here.

My point was that people only consider Whedon to be a strong advocate for female roles because everything else in the media treats women so badly. He's good by comparison much like how Star Trek was really progressive and forward thinking back in the 1960's.

Think about it. How does having a female character who is not a stereotype or one dimensional make that character a strong role model or some kind of feminist role model? Characters with depth and complexity is the bare minimum you need for a passably written story. Someone who writes three dimensional female characters or even well written female characters do not necessarily advocate for strong female leads or feminist values any more than a writer who writes three dimensional working class characters advocate for working class values or a writer who writes three dimensional military characters advocate for military values. You do not make assumptions about the author's support for a certain type of character or set of values based simply on the fact that a character is portrayed realistically. However, because there are a so few well written female characters, as soon as people see one, they treat the writer like some huge advocate for women. Again, going back to Star Trek, it's just like how when that show first came on and had a black female character who wasn't a maid, everyone treated Roddenberry like some kind of visionary and while Uhura was realistic and had some depth, she wasn't a very interesting character, and her major defining characteristic was that she was not a black stereotype. Is Whedon forward thinking? Certainly, but to say that he's an advocate for feminist ideas or even strong female leads is a overstatement of his accomplishments.

Sure Whedon and the writers who work with him can claim that they're promoting a certain point of view all they want but intentions only matter if it's properly implemented. I will certainly agree that Whedon has written three dimensional female characters with depth and complexity, but truly strong female leads? I do not agree with that assertion. The problem with Buffy is that so much of her strength is a result of her supernatural abilities instead of hard work or training. All her confidence, her friends, her entire support system developed as a result of her supernatural powers. In fact, the episode "Helpless" showed that her physical prowess was completely dependent upon her supernatural abilities as all the martial arts and weapon skills she rightfully earned through training disappeared along with her supernatural power. And what's the final message of the series? I'm sure it was intended to be about female empowerment but how is it empowering to say that women need supernatural help in order to stand up for themselves, be confident, and gain superior physical prowess?

As for whether or not a Black Widow can be marketable, if you don't agree with my reasoning, fine. I don't really care. However, I do not appreciate all your ad hominem attacks against me. I was simply expressing a pragmatic view of the situation. I have said nothing about whether or not I personally want a Black Widow movie. Understand the difference between the two. Just because I do not believe it is likely for Marvel to do a stand alone movie with Black Widow as the main protagonist does not mean I do not want it nor does it mean that I dislike the character.

And I do believe that a Loki movie is more likely than a Black Widow movie since they've already devoted so much effort to develop the character, much more than Black Widow. "Thor" was as much about Loki as it was about Thor. And since Fox has the rights to Wolverine and Lionsgate has the rights to Punisher, Marvel/Disney doesn't really have an anti-hero popular enough to do movies about, Loki would fit that role nicely.

[KingofMadCows]

That's such defeatist thinking. Who decides what's marketable? How do they know unless they try? I don't recall Iron Man being a widely known and well-loved brand amongst non-comics fans, until they made an excellent movie for him.

To use some of your exmples, Jennifer Garner was an unknown until they cast her in Alias and gave it a big marketing push. 'Nikita' was a French film with no Hollywood stars at all, and it's been remade in America three times because they decided to stick with the idea.

A Black Widow movie would star a well-known and liked actress, as a character with a recognizable look, with tons of comic history to be explored, spinning out of one of the biggest movies of all time. How is that not a marketable property?

And why does it have to be an 'either/or' situation? Why can't they make a Black Widow movie as well as some of the other, as you say, 'more marketable' superheroes?

It boils down to this: the reason we need to make noise about wanting a Black Widow movie is that the default assumption in Hollywood is that they can't sell solo female action movies, and that's why they don't make them. Even the successful ones, like Kill Bill and Alias and The Hunger Games, are treated as anomalies, and their success is chalked up to other factors. We need to let them know they're wrong.

No, it's pragmatic.

There are lots of things I'd like to see, a new Star Trek show that's cerebral and forward thinking, a Terminator movie that doesn't suck, Cassandra Cain being fixed by DC, a finished version of Knights of the Old Republic 2. But guess what, the probability of those things happening is very low. Just because I want it doesn't mean I'm going to trick myself into thinking that it's likely to happen.

[Trallis]

A Black Widow movie would basically be a 007 movie with a female protagonist and a lot more gratuitous ass shots.

There have been alot of attempted female super hero movies but they all used really lame dancey fight choreography with alot of flips and kicks and a lot of attention to the fact that she's a girl. Black Widow's character was different. Her fighting was rough and badass looking and she never seemed to need any male help. The only other female action lead I can think of like that is the Bride from Kill Bill.

A black Widow movie would be awesome, but..and don't judge me until my paragraph is done.. you'd need at least one other super hero involved. Not because she's a chick, but because she's too real. She doesn't have any super powers or an outrageous costume and I think comic book movies need at least one of those. She's teamed up with most of the most famous superheroes so the possibilities are endless. It'd be perfect if it was Daredevil, they dated for quite a bit and lived together while they were a super hero duo. There's two characters who deserve a good movie.