"A Black Widow movie will never be made"

>"A Black Widow movie will never be made"
They said.
"A Black Widow movie would be boring"
They said.
"A Black Widow movie would not sell"
They said.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_(film_series)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(2010_film)
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I think you mean Ike Pearmutter

it wouldnt sell within the context of the MCU, where you need to pull around 500-700M for a movie to be considered successful these days

It's still not a Black Widow movie, no matter what vague similarities it may have.

Also that synopsis sounds stale as fuck.

Yeah, I don't understand how they won't make a Black Widow movie, but they were perfectly okay with taking a risk with GotG

because the guardians of the galaxy are actually fun and interesting but black widow isn't.

Scar jo can't play a convincing russian, it'll be a shitty movie no matter what

You can't make a Black Widow movie for the whole family

You can't take your kids to a movie about assassinations and espionage

Honestly, Scarjo isn't even that good of an actress. She's just really pretty and doesn't suck at acting. 90% of successful actresses are just pretty faces with mediocre talent and I'm sick of it.

>, but they were perfectly okay with taking a risk with GotG

This ''GotG was a risk!!! taking D listers and turning them into A listers!!!'' meme should end.

GotG was a formula withting a fomula, a wacky Han Solo dude making ''Earth'' references, a snarky talking animal/alien, a snarky girl that is the girl, a brute that is kind of a rutless killer but he is snarky about it so its cool and the pet/Groot.

Add a ton of 80s music, dumb one liners and a terrible bad guy and you get= HOLLYWOOD playing it safe!

This.
There's no family friendly way to tell a Natasha Romanova story.

it was good though

Agreed
It should be x rated with gang-bangs.

Nah, torrid lesbian love scene.

>would not sell
This is never a good reason not to tell a story.

it was a risk because the IP wasnt known to normies and its soft-scifi setting could have easily made people not give a fuck (like that john carter movie)

of course it followed a storytelling formula, most films do, even most good comics do

literally everythign that Marvel Studios makes will be golden to the usual crowd of nerds and geeks that just like pop culture.

And like user pointed out, they played it the safest by also catering to the "muh 80s" nostalgia.

Heck, even that awful song is being used to promote the second film.

They were right. BW is a shit character.

>literally everythign that Marvel Studios makes will be golden to the usual crowd of nerds and geeks that just like pop culture.

it took GotG's success for everybody to realize that tho

It could be a hit if there was a scene of the hulk and her getting buttfucked in the pussy

her pairing with hulk made no sense

banner should always a bipolar autist with no gf and a young, attractive male sidekick

I know it isn't MCU, but didn't Deadpool prove that you can cater movies within the same universe to different, even adult, audiences? DP was a hard R, and it made fucktons of money for Fox. Why would anyone think that the MCU would be different?

Fuck, meant to reply to

They could probably use CG to make her look ugly.

Snarky girl wasn't snarky and neither was the "rutless" killer

But literally none of that except for Starlord being a Han Solo expy, and Ronan being a terrible villain, is true. It being a risk had nothing to do with the actors (They had fucking Bradley Cooper for fuck's sake) and everything to do with GotG being a Literally Who property for 90% of everybody, comic readers included.

fox aint disney. the MCU movies all same the same light tone to them. their edgiest shit has been the last 2 cap america movies (and they had widow)

and deadpool itself was very well done, its not just that they made it for a different audience, but made it appealing to general non-marvel fans. it will be very hard to re-do that, even for deadpool sequels

John Carter failed because the marketing department decided at the last minute to change the title and give it absolutely no exposure. It was a pretty big critical success, and has done well with DVD sales, it just shit the bed on the opening release because Disney fucked the project over.

Why couldn't a Black Widow movie be well done? A tight spy thriller prequel type movie that expands on Widow's backstory and delivers buckets of violence and sex appeal would make all of the money. None of the Foxverse movies were anything like Deadpool either, but it payed off huge. If anything, diversifying the brand can only help in the long run, by keeping the MCU from getting stale.

>Why couldn't a Black Widow movie be well done? A tight spy thriller prequel type movie that expands on Widow's backstory and delivers buckets of violence and sex appeal would make all of the money.

The problem i think is that Disney is no longer looking to experiment, like Fox still is. They've had tons of success, and everything they release with their current formula makes loads of money. They wont deviate from the family-friendly rating until the prophesied "super hero backlash" starts to make their shit less and less profitable among their current audiences.

>its soft-scifi setting could have easily made people not give a fuck
No it couldn't have, soft-scifi is the only kind of popular scifi.

But why though? The whole MCU was an experiment in seeing if people would pay to see a whole bunch of movies in order to understand any given movie that was coming out. Given the success of that gamble, why would expanding to a different audience be so unthinkable? I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I don't buy the logic behind dismissing the idea out of hand.

>DP was a hard R, and it made fucktons of money for Fox. Why would anyone think that the MCU would be different?

For one, Deadpool was a comedy. That whole irreverent comedy thing was a big reason it did so well. The first two Hangover movies each made a half billion dollars each. Add in superhero, and you've got a novel but attractive concept.

Black Widow wouldn't be a comedy; it would be a spy movie (if done right, at least). Jason Bourne -- arguably the most famous non-Bond spy franchise -- only made $412million on its most recent movie. Even Ant-Man made more than that.

Box Office aside, Disney cares deeply about the MCU brand -- far more than Fox does about the X-Men brand. Aside from printing money at the box office, the movies have to do a few things:
-Appeal to as many viewers as possible
-Sell toys
-Keep the MCU brand fresh in viewers' minds
-Advance the overall MCU story

A full-on Black Widow movie simply wouldn't do that all that. It wouldn't target all viewers, it wouldn't sell as many toys as nearly any of the other MCU films, and it likely wouldn't be too important to the mega-arc.

Now, I'm not saying a BW movie SHOULDN'T happen, but clearly that's why Disney isn't making one. The only movie that doesn't fit that mold perfectly is Ant-Man, and it was pretty much grandfathered in and ended up proving itself.

Maybe after Infinity War is over we'll see less importance on keeping the mega story going. But unless they completely rebrand, it just doesn't make sense.

---

TL;DR: It's the same reason we'll never see a rated R Star Wars movie.

>Given the success of that gamble, why would expanding to a different audience be so unthinkable?

They already won their bet -- why gamble again?

The MCU has the box office by the nuts. There is absolutely no reason to experiment at this point. They're pretty much guaranteed a billion dollar movie every year with 2 $500-700million movies as support.

Why the hell would they change anything?

>Jason Bourne -- arguably the most famous non-Bond spy franchise -- only made $412million on its most recent movie.

Yeah, but that was the fourth in the franchise, and starring a totally different dude. The rest of the movies made fucktons of money and defined the action genre for the entire 2000's.

It's especially great that you chose that as an example, since Renner starred in that turd, and it still made a respectable amount of money, and he'd be the likely choice to star opposite ScarJo in a BW movie (Budapest, anyone?). I seriously don't think Disney is motivated by anything outside of money, and I'm utterly unconvinced that a darker, more adult take on BW wouldn't make money hand over fist. FFS they're making a Captain Marvel movie, to release right after the comics have finished assassinating her character. That's far more of a gamble than a movie starring one of their hottest, most successful actresses.

>Yeah, but that was the fourth in the franchise, and starring a totally different dude

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_(film_series)

Nope. A new one with Matt Damon just came out, and it only made $412milion, as I said. Ultimatum, the end of the original trilogy made just under $450million, so they hardly made "fucktons of money."

Do a little bit of research rather than just making shit up.

> FFS they're making a Captain Marvel movie, to release right after the comics have finished assassinating her character.

First off, the comics matter literally nothing to the success of the movies. Do you think anyone watching the movies has read Civil War II? Or even the first Civil War?

Secondly, "fighting Marvel space lady" is absolutely more attractive to a major audience than "Marvel spy lady," even if that lady happens to be ScarJo.

You got me on the Bourne movie, I didn;t know that, but I take objection to the rest of your post.

>"fighting Marvel space lady" is absolutely more attractive to a major audience than "Marvel spy lady," even if that lady happens to be ScarJo.

But y tho? That seems like an utterly baseless assumption.

what? did you motherfuckers not watch James Bond movies when you were kids?

When I was a kid the James Bond movies were the Brosnan ones and cartoony and kid friendly as fuck.

They didn't forcibly sterilize Bond so that he'd be shooting blanks for the rest of his life like they did Natasha

The Brosnan Bond films were all rated PG-13. So was Avengers. A Brosnan-tier BW film would be shit, because the Brosnan Bond films were shit, but because of the maturity of the content.

*NOT because. Damn drunkposting.

>They didn't forcibly sterilize Bond so that he'd be shooting blanks for the rest of his life like they did Natasha

doesnt he fuck like 10 women each film but has no kids?

maybe they did

A good chunk of the women get killed off in the same movie, and we don't see many of the survivors again, so maybe he has twenty bastards off-screen.

It already has... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(2010_film)

>No it couldn't have, soft-scifi is the only kind of popular scifi.
Eh Arrival is being pretty fucking popular right now.

>But y tho? That seems like an utterly baseless assumption

Because box office trends. Big budget space and superhero movies do better than spy movies, it's that simple.

Despite her presence in the Avengers, Black Widow simply doesn't have the superhero bonus. She's cool and she kicks ass, but she can't fly or punch hard or use energy beams or whatever -- she's just a person.

Captain Marvel will be a tough sell too, though it'll probably have the benefit of Wonder Woman having gone first.

>Jason Bourne -- arguably the most famous non-Bond spy franchise -- only made $412million on its most recent movie
Mission Impossible 5 made...
$682,293,528

>salt

While it was a good movie, it only did about 2.5x its budget. And at the time, I'd say Angelina was a much bigger action-female draw than ScarJo is.

That's why it won't happen. There's not enough money to be made.

Goldeneye & The World is not enough are genuinely good & aren't immature plotwise at all.
Yes Denise Richards sucked but the rest of TWINE is great.

>Mission Impossible

Fair enough. Though the MI movies have become pretty far removed from spy thrillers -- they're like full-on action movies for the past few. Also, Tom Cruise is on a whole other level.

But you're right, I instantly went to Bourne when MI might prove otherwise. My dream BW movie would be a lot closer to Bourne than MI, though.

Either way, I just don't see BW being able to carry a solo movie to that level, even with the MCU connection. Cap and Thor movies get a boost from the whole "WATCH THE NEXT PART OF THE AVENGERS SAGA" -- that draw isn't there for Widow.

I should clarify though: I would absolutely love a Widow/Hawkwye spy flick. Basically a big budget version of the SHIELD cleanup that AoS is doing (and the show could benefit with references to the movie) or something like that. I just completely understand why Marvel isn't using up space in their upcoming slate for a BW movie.

But that movie was awful?

Every one always asks why don't they but I'm not hearing many compelling stories here they could fit her in at this junction of the MCU. Does Window even have a good nemesis for a solo movie? Also no time for an origin movie of an established character.

No james bond is shit.

dude, it would be another first avenger or ant man, agood kick buck but never something worthy for today expectations

She's

A

Slut

Banner should be Batman?

So is Tony, and he's been in 6(?) MCU films so far.

>Jennifer Lawrence
Fucking dropped

idk about established comics villains, but the options are pretty simple:

-ex-SHIELD person gone rogue
-Hydra person still at large
-someone within SHIELD gone bad (see: TWS)
-current Russian government
-Russian person from her past
-some combination of the above

It would be pretty easy to fit this in the fallout of Civil War. Here's my shitty, 5-minute thinking of it:
>the Avengers are broken up
>Cap and Co are on the run
>because it's Cap, he's still fighting the good fight, but they're on the run
>some threat comes up with Villain A [see above villains]
>Cap is busy and it's a delicate matter that needs spies
>Natasha is like "lemme call Clint for help"
>oh yeah, Bucky and Falcon are busy too
>they successfully neutralize Villain A
>but oh shit, that's just the tip of the iceberg
>Villain A is part of an organization run by the nefarious VILLAIN B [see above villains again]
>Tasha and Clint argue about why they're even still doing this
>Hawkeye gotta Hawkeye so he probably gets captured
>Natasha has to relive some Russian shit from her past
>she saves Hawkeye
>they kill VILLAIN B
>the day is won
>but like, she's emotionally damaged and stuff
>POST CREDITS
>idk some Avengers shit or whatever
>*black widow will return in AVENGERS FIVE*

Now how do I get that Hollywood money?

>Literally Who
To their credit: they did make light of the Literally Who aspects of the GotG even in the earliest trailers. Unlike, say, Suicide Squad, where we are all just expected to preemptively know about - uh - was it nine? I'm gonna say nine- C and D list supervillains.

You forgot to mention that that Bourne movie was reviewed as being a horribly edited mess where action was more incoherent than the Transformers films.

>Secondly, "fighting Marvel space lady" is absolutely more attractive to a major audience than "Marvel spy lady," even if that lady happens to be ScarJo.

I'd rather see Scarjo in a skin tight spysuit grappling, grabbing, and wrapping her legs around a hot blonde in a skin tight spysuit than see a space lady based on the lamest incarnation of the character shooting energy blasts and screaming while flying through space

>Despite her presence in the Avengers, Black Widow simply doesn't have the superhero bonus. She's cool and she kicks ass, but she can't fly or punch hard or use energy beams or whatever -- she's just a person.

So was Peggy Carter. Agent Carter was surprise hit, and if they hadn't fumbled the writing we might have had a third season. No powers, no super hero name, but plenty of fun.

>TV show
>movie

These are not the same thing

I understand perfectly what the guy you're arguing with is saying. It's not about trying to grasp for straws about why a Black Widow movie would work or could work, its about seeing it from a company's point of view and understanding that they're going to hedge their bets on the most proven horses. Like he said, execs see the trends and say "X makes more money than Y, let's do X." It's much more simple than you're making it out to be.

But that does sound boring.

That sounds like a romance rather than an action movie. And it's Jennifer Lawrence, so you know it's going to make $100m opening weekend even if it's terrible.