I can very much sympathize with Joss Whedon’s recent abandonment of Twitter, and the astonishing spectacle of jerks letting loose on the creator of one of the greatest female heroines in fiction as being a misogynist hater of women. Why? Because they disliked his treatment of Black Widow in “Age of Ultron.” (Yes, Joss has since claimed that it was simply a time management thing, but that does nothing to explain or excuse his treatment.)
They didn’t allow for the notion that he was interested in trying a different angle on her. They didn’t allow for the fact of the actresses’ pregnancy perhaps requiring the curtailment of action sequences. Instead they resorted to snide comments and threats, as if he weren’t the creator of “Buffy” and “Dollhouse” and “Firefly,” all of which starred or featured strong women (remember River destroying the roomful of Reavers? How awesome was that?)
I can relate. It wasn’t all that long ago that I wrote a video game called “Shadow Complex” that was based on a book written by noted homophobe Orson Scott Card. My involvement resulted in angry fans denouncing me and declaring that all my work should be boycotted…at the exact same time that GLAAD was presenting me an award for my gay-friendly work on X-Factor.
Boycotts have more recently been suggested because I dared to point out that there is in fact a lot of merchandise out there for female fans. Two dozen Black Widow t-shirts on Amazon, action figures, all kinds of stuff. As much as for the heroes? No, definitely not. Should there be more? Of course, I said, but at least there’s * some *. That attitude got me tagged with the same epithets that were tossed at Whedon, although certainly not with the range and fury that he received. I couldn’t believe the comments thrown at someone by fans declaring that “Age of Ultron” had ruined everything from the Black Widow to their lives. How does a film ruin your life?
They say they come for discourse and to express ideas, but that’s only half true. They are interested in declaring their ideas. But they are not remotely interested in listening to any responses. They want to be heard but don’t want to hear anyone else beyond a reply of, “Gee, you’re right.” If you do dare to give an answer, however measured, they have various terms to be employed—“mansplaining,” “privilege” and the like—that gets wielded so that they can have an excuse to dismiss what you say out of hand. If you speak calmly, they attribute the nastiest voice to it possible. They will invent quotations for you and attack the quotations as if you said it. They speak in insulting and condescending manner and if you get fed up and respond in kind will then immediately condemn you for being insulting and condescending, never taking responsibility for the notion that they are the ones who instituted it.
Could a case be made that it was odd Natasha referred to herself as a monster because she had allowed them to sterilize her so she couldn’t have children? Yes, absolutely. It’s a decision that many women make and I’m sure they don’t see themselves as monstrous. But it’s certainly a point that could be made in calm, clinical manner rather than launching an all-out attack on the writer.
When the hëll will these extremists realize that they are hurting themselves when they engage in this behavior? When will they understand that the way to get people to listen to them is with reasoned actions rather than name calling and declarations of boycotts? And when will more moderate voices—and there are some out there—understand that associating with these people is going to hurt their cause instead of helping them?
Hëll, I know that posting this piece alone will result in more people declaring I should be boycotted. But sometimes you just have to say what’s on your mind and screw the consequences.
PAD
well said
Thanks, Peter. I really was not sure what all the furor was about even though my wife and I saw the movie on opening weekend. Now I can see where much of this vehemence is coming from–as misplaced as it is.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the outrage people have over Natasha.
What I understood is that she she thinks she’s a monster for allowing to be sterilized in order to become a better assassin.
Did people understand that Joss was implying that she was a monster BECAUSE she was sterilized? I mean, really?
Some people’s only reason for living is to “take offense” at any- and/or everything.
Of course they’re interpreting it that way. After all, why take an entire paragraph of sentences for what they were when you can cherry pick the last couple of sentences to twist into the worst way imaginable?
As a follow up thought: I think a large part of the problem is the compressed storytelling. If that scene had a bit more time to breath, or if the conversation was reworked a little, it probably wouldn’t have caused this shitstorm.
But in the end, her lines came across as “I’m a murderer. I can’t have kids. I’m a monster.”
I say this in all sincerity, but I honestly don’t think most of these people give a šhìŧ.
I mean yea I’m sure that are a certain number who have a legitimate gripe with Black Widow’s treatment as the lone female member. But I think most of the complainers are just people who saw a pebble and decided to turn it into a boulder because that’s what šhìŧhëádš on the internet like to do.
‘Hey look that awesome comic book movie featuring a team of superheroes that most geeks never thought they’d live to see is making bank! Quick let’s šhìŧ on it.
Oh look that one chick is complaining about females being nothing moar than sex objects in games. Can’t have that, let’s šhìŧ on her too. Hugo awards? Can’t let those things get too prestigious, best to just šhìŧ on them too.’
Because the only way SJWs can be happy is if they’re taking a huge šhìŧ to make sure you’re not.
Trying to use ‘social justice warrior’ isn’t going to help your case any, seeing as that cute little insult was more or less born out of the GamerGate cluster.
Oh really? I didn’t know that. I must’ve been sourcing a completely different female objectification in games situation then.
But thank you for just parroting what I said back at me like it’s an insult.
I took away from that scene was that reason she referred to herself as a monster was because she was trained to be a remorseless killer and the hysterectomy was mentioned because like Bruce, she also cant have children.
Mr. Whedon is probably better off without Twitter.
Except that unlike Natasha, Banner is technically capable of fathering kids, but he chooses not too because well, baby hulk….
In point of fact, the MCU “The Incredible Hulk” movie (not the Ang Lee “The Hulk”) made it rather clear that his Hulk state was was tied to his heart rate as well as anger, and so he was unable to have sex with Betty Ross because getting too excited would cause him to Hulk out. It’s not so much that he CAN’T have kids, but that he can’t have sex with a normal human woman – not without severely harming or killing her, at any rate – and thus is by default unable to reproduce.
I took away from that scene was that reason she referred to herself as a monster was because she was trained to be a remorseless killer and the hysterectomy was mentioned because like Bruce, she also cant have children.
That was what I took away from the film on first viewing, too.
However, the film has such quick pacing that one could still be thinking about her sterility when she calls herself a “monster.” So others may be taking away different views of the exact same sequence.
It’s not so much that he CAN’T have kids, but that he can’t have sex with a normal human woman – not without severely harming or killing her, at any rate – and thus is by default unable to reproduce.
…except that he didn’t say “I can’t have sex” or “I can’t consummate a relationship.” He jumped straight to the issue of children. He did not even raise the possibility of artificial insemination.
From that exchange, I concluded that the film version of Bruce Bannner was actually sterile, just like Natasha. I figured it was a side-effect of his overall Hulk weirdness.
This makes the film version different from the Bruce Banner in the comics and WHAT SAVAGE BEAST, where he twice conceived with Betty.
I don’t know, it might just be me, but I didn’t see her sterilisation as being why Natasha considered herself to be monstrous. I felt it was more that this was the most extreme part of a conscious attempt by her handlers to dehumanise her. To turn her into a weapon, a tool, for one purpose only. To manipulate and to kill. For them.
I can understand how others might interpret that differently. But as with several other things in Age of Ultron I do think that the way things were phrased or presented could perhaps have been a little better phrasesd. Made a little clearer. Maybe even in as little as a couple of lines of dialogue to clarify.
Analyse what was done to Natasha, though. There is no way that you can really call that anything but Monstrous. Not because the act of being sterilsed is an evil or wrong thing. It isn’t. Thousands of women opt to do just that. It is their choice, and I don’t personally think there’s anything wrong with theur doing it. It’s their body and, frankly, nobody else’s business.
Providing that it is their choice. And that it’s a choice they’ve come to willingly.
In the Avengers it wasn’t Natasha’s.
This was something effectively forced upon her, in a truly unpleasant way. It was the very intention of her handlers to be a dehumanising experience. Because that’s what they wanted. Not a human being, with true free-will. That would be, in their eyes, inefficient. Potentially unreliable for their purposes. So they took that option away from their subjects. In order to complete the program this was done to each girl put through it. Almost certainly not the only dehumanising part of their training, by a long shot. But certainly one of the most extreme. Taking away that choice is monstrous. It’s inhumane.
As to whether that’s truly how it comes across on film is possibly up for debate, but to accuse a writer of intentionally trying to in some way damage the character through malice?
No. I don’t see evidence of any specific agenda here. I just don’t.
If that’s what others took the film, that’s what they took from the film, though. I’m not saying you’re wrong if you did, or that your opinion is invalid. You’re totally entitled to it.
What you’re not entitled to do, as with anybody, is to openly abuse somebody over it though. To set about making personal attacks.
Blog about it, sure. Discuss it on an internet forum. Talk about it with your friends. Build up coherent and logical reasons for why you feel this way. Do that. I welcome that! It’s a conversation that maybe needs to be had, and your opinion should be part of it.
But don’t do it as a personal attack on an individual on a social network. That’s just wrong. And it’ll make you come out looking like the bad guy by doing that. You should be better than that.
Because abusing somebody on Twitter or Facebook is the digital equivalent of spotting somebody in the street, running right up to them, grabbing them by the lapels and shouting in their face.
You wouldn’t do that in real life. Not without expecting the possibility of the Police getting involved, anyway.
It’s not cool.
I personally don’t find it plausible that, on the form of past creative endeavours, Joss Whedon is a massive misogynist asshat. I just don’t see it. But that is just my opinion. It’s not right. It’s not wrong. It’s the conclusion I’ve come to from watching and reading a lot of his past work. Maybe your own experiences are different. I’m certainly not going look down on anybody for having a different opinion.
The manner in which they convey that opinion, however? That might be very different.
FWIW Black Widow is a fictional character. It’s not eggzactly the end of the world if she gets šlûŧ shamed, sterilized, or relegated to female love interest.
Otoh just yesterday, NY Knicks owner James Dolan rehired convicted sexual harasser Isiah Thomas. You can read a recap of Isiah’s history here (http://www.sbnation.com/2015/5/5/8553115/isiah-thomas-new-york-liberty-knicks-raptors-pacers-cba-fiu). If you can’t bother to read the whole piece, the following quote captures Isiah’s essence quite nicely:
“According to former assistant GM Jeff Nix, a 15-year employee of the team who was recently fired, he witnessed Thomas calling Browne Sanders a “bìŧçh” and “ho” and recalled one 2004 meeting in which Thomas yelled at Browne Sanders, “Don’t forget, you fûçkìņg bìŧçh, I’m the president of this fûçkìņg team.””
And no this wasn’t a lone quote unfairly taken in the heat of the moment. Isiah has a long history of sexual harassment.
So what did Knicks owner Dolan do when the accusations came to light? Promptly fired the women, labeled her a crazy fem-Nazi, then subsequently laughed off the $10 million suit he was forced to pay while ridiculing the court’s decision.
And now he’s just rehired his BFF Isiah to be the President of NY’s WOMEN’S basketball team. Take a moment to let the absurdity of that wash over you.
For those of you unfamiliar with sports and don’t know who James Dolan is. Imagine a billionaire as rich, as powerful, and as morally ambivalent as Lex Luthor. Who’s as stupid as Lex is smart. Someone who views people and sexual harassment lawsuits as playthings to kill time. I know this sounds like hyperbole but it’s not, he’s truly that despicable a human being.
So why is it a nice guy like Joss gets šhìŧ all over, while scum like Dolan get to have their cake? Why all the outrage over a fictional heroine’s depiction while real women are forced out of their jobs and livelihood because they stood up to subjecting themselves?
And the answer is because these SJWs and all these other trolls could give two šhìŧš about women or feminist rights. They simply live to stir the pot wherever and whenever possible. But God forbid they actually stand up for real people with real problems. Best to just stick with standing up for fictional characters to be absolutely sure no one wins.
Also please give us a Cowboy Pete review of Age of Ultron. Don’t let the trolls take that little bit of joy away from us too.
Joss Whedon reveals why he left Twitter: ‘The real issue is me’
Read more at http://nerdreactor.com/2015/05/06/joss-whedon-reveals-why-he-left-twitter/#CUIigUsb7jEfMiVD.99
“That is horseshit. Believe me, I have been attacked by militant feminists since I got on Twitter. That’s something I’m used to. Every breed of feminism is attacking every other breed, and every subsection of liberalism is always busy attacking another subsection of liberalism, because god forbid they should all band together and actually fight for the cause.”
“I saw a lot of people say, ‘Well, the social justice warriors destroyed one of their own!’ It’s like, Nope. That didn’t happen. I saw someone tweet it’s because Feminist Frequency pìššëd on Avengers 2, which for all I know they may have. But literally the second person to write me to ask if I was OK when I dropped out was [Feminist Frequency founder] Anita [Sarkeesian].”
http://nerdreactor.com/2015/05/06/joss-whedon-reveals-why-he-left-twitter/
Not that this undermines the point about the asshats who posted the stupid šhìŧ that they did. But, for the sake of clarity, Whedon has been saying for a day(ish) now that he left for reasons beyond what everyone assumed.
http://www.shakesville.com/2014/11/so-glad-our-oppression-amuses-you-sir.html
I don’t really consider Melissa that much of an extremist, and I rather like Whedon, but I do think she makes some good points.
And she lost me this far in.
“And, because he is a straight white cis dude, with lots of visibility and influence, he gets asked to talk about feminism a lot.
“Since no one is a better spokesperson for feminism, no one’s voice more important, than super privileged dudes.”
Best way to make sure you’re talking to only the audience you already have on an issue? Talk like a dûmbášš with a chip on your shoulder before you ever get to your first actual point.
Really? I couldn’t find them. All I saw (and I actually read through the whole thing) was the typical concept of rewording, making up fake quotes and commenting on the fake quotes, and putting the worst interpretation to every single word he said. And plus, of course, plenty of like minded individuals chiming in to agree. In other words: SOP.
PAD
If this is an example of good points one can only imagine how badly made the others must be.
One of the nice things about being labeled a conservative is not having to even pretend to waste time on this stuff beyond the amount it takes to lose interest. And since the SJW crowd is finding it harder and harder to get a rise out of those who oppose them they have no choice but to go on the attack against allies for insufficient loyalty. Because if they aren’t making people feel badly they aren’t doing it right. It’s the only arrow in their quiver.
In fact, taking down someone with a reputation for Thinking Good Thoughts…a Harlan Ellison, a Peter David, a Joss Whedon…probably counts for way more than just another slam on some already shunned conservative. It’s a victims cult and what could make them happier than to have even their allies revealed as oppressors?
Laugh at them. They hate that.
“(and I actually read through the whole thing)”
You’re a more charitable and patient man than I am today, PAD. I mean, I read that someone isn’t “that much of an extremist” and the first thing I read indicates a person looking at the world through through a prism of extremism so large and all encompassing that there’s no way it’s not skewing and screwing up their perspective on pretty much everything they’re about to discuss… Yeah, I’m done.
I could only read about half of that piece. But I appreciated the irony in her calling out Whedon for implying the existence of “hysterical feminists” (which he didn’t even do).
“How does a film ruin your life?”
By having a life devoid of any real meaning and being full of hate and vitriol and always playing the “victim”
First World Problems 101.
Um, maybe he left Twitter because it’s a stupid waste of time? Maybe?
It is? That might explain why I never bothered with it in the first place.
PAD, I believe I’ve made it clear I can’t stand your politics. I think you’re a brilliant writer who’s hopelessly naive on major issues.
But I’m also a die-hard fan of your work, and own far more of it than I care to admit. Including hard copies of Pulling Up Stakes and The Camelot Papers, and a truly nifty custom-autographed hardcover of Q Squared.
Not to get too partisan here, but I’ve noticed a major trend on the left to politicize EVERYTHING, and to hold everyone — even those who aren’t overtly political — to political standards. You talk about it here with the video game, Whedon has hounded by the radical feminists, a pizza place was nearly driven out of business over a theoretical gay wedding (what self-respecting gay couple would want their wedding catered by a PIZZA PLACE, anyway?), and so on. As a trend, it’s ugly as sin.
And I heard that the next New Frontier will be an e-book out later. I really prefer paper, but I’ll probably bite the bullet and get that, too.
The phenomenon you described is hardly absent on the political right.
Well, to be fair, he’s not exactly citing accurate examples of politicizing something here either, so it’s not really much of a point either way.
Memories Pizza? That’s more an example of a semi-viable business that didn’t cater at events all telling the press that it wouldn’t cater a a gay wedding, closing its doors while crying victimization and persecution, and then fleecing the suckers to the tune of close to a cool million dollars. But, hey, every movement has to have its fake martyrs to keep going I guess.
It’s distressing that part of the subtext of these kinds of rantings seems to be: how dare a man presume to depict a woman in fiction (this isn’t limited to comics; there are camps in literary criticism that think you need to be English to comment authoritatively on English lit, African American to comment on Af-Am lit, and female to comment on fiction by women). Which is weird, given that everything you hear, especially now, seems to be that women want to see more women on screen, and in comics. You’d think, then, that people wouldn’t eviscerate someone who does a pretty good job of it. I fear that ultimately the reaction of some creative types is going to be “screw it, I can’t win. Why bother?” and just not even try. One gets the impression that the internet ranters want a film written and directed by a woman, starring only women, seen and critiqued only by women, and unsullied by the hands/eyes of men.
But then again, it’s the internet. It’s overwhelmingly a sink of negative, destructive sputum. Screw it.
When she explained to Bruce that she was a monster, I immediately thought of that episode of Agent Carter in which they introduced the school in which they trained Black Widows and how deadly their training was. I felt that the monster part was from how she was trained and not simply because she was sterile.
Extremists, people with mental disorders. People with hate in their heart are the ones who are the loudest and most vocal. Nothing anyone says, no rational argument will ever change that. I just tend to ignore them and realize for every one vocal person who says something insane, there are 5000 sane person who are quietly enjoying the work being done by the creative talent.
I would never judge Mr. David on being asked to work on something that did not have any homophobic content and was just written by someone who did. It’s a job and bills have got to be paid and there is a distance between the work and the author. But having said that when people like Oraon Scott Card stand on a soapbox, write articles, join boards and organizations that actively prevent a minority from being able to pursue life, liberty and happiness, then I feel I am more than justified that he doesn’t see a penny of my money regardless if his work has anti gay content or not.
My only issue with how they handled Natasha in the new film?
A woman that smart should know better than to pursue a romantic relationship with a man that can turn into a rage monster when he gets over-excited. Like, say, during love-making.
Seriously, THAT was just stupid, unless the whole point was the pursuit of a relationship that was always going to be doomed to failure BECAUSE it could never be consomated.
Actually, that’s how I took it. She’s self-sabotaging by pursing a pre-doomed relationship, like a lot of people I know (male and female).
I thought Banner only hulked out when angry, afraid, or in danger. He seemed largely in control of his changes, in the film, except when Wanda messed with his head.
Weird, I could have sworn I posted here, but I can’t see my comment.
I thought this response was interesting. I don’t always agree with Melissa, and I like Whedon, but I think she makes some interesting points:
http://www.shakesville.com/2015/05/with-allies-like-these.html
But the problem, and I did read this one, is that she comes off as condemning the idea that the militant lunatics in a movement can be criticized at all or at least saying that only certain people in the movement are allowed to do so. That’s foolish.
His comments that raised her ire: “Believe me, I have been attacked by militant feminists since I got on Twitter. That’s something I’m used to. Every breed of feminism is attacking every other breed, and every subsection of liberalism is always busy attacking another subsection of liberalism, because god forbid they should all band together and actually fight for the cause… …If you don’t live up to the litmus test of feminism in this one instance, then you’re a misogynist. It circles directly back upon you.”
Her comments: “If that argument sounds familiar, perhaps that’s because it’s exactly the same “marginalized feminists who criticize privileged feminists are toxic” rhetoric that white feminists use against feminists of color all the time, and exactly the same “circular firing squad” rhetoric that progressive men use against feminists all the time, and exactly the same “criticism of privilege is divisive and marginalized people who won’t shut up are the people who are preventing unity” rhetoric that we are obliged to deconstruct around here all the time.”
What, she’s questioning why the truth sounds familiar when spoken?
He is correct. There is a branch of the militant in feminism, just as there is in everything else, who only supports you when you walk in absolute lockstep with them at all times. Step out of line even once, act in the not approved way once, and you’re attacked.
This is a guy who has been very pro-feminist in his career. He’s supported such things professionally and created characters that feminists (and even people who don’t consider themselves feminists) view as strong female/pro-feminist characters. He’s got, what, a little over two decades of this track record now?
In the first Avengers film he had her kicking the ášš of guys left, right, up, and down. She’s in control of situations at almost all times, even playing “tough guys” for fools in the early part of the film. Loki plays two primary male characters for fools, trapping one and killing the other, but she’s the one who is shown outwitting Loki. She also, with no superpowers, kicks more ášš in the action and battle scenes than any other character without powers from any Marvel film before than, and maybe more than some of the guys with powers are shown doing.
Second film- She’s still kicking ášš. She’s still smarter, faster, and better than many other characters. But then he makes the mistake of actually treating her like other characters and she, as Hawkeye, you know, the man, did in the first film, gets nabbed by a bad guy. Of course, she actually gets to do way more than he did and is shown being the key to them finding her and Ultron as fast as they did while not being captured for as long as he was mind controlled. But, hey, no matter. He didn’t portray her as flawless, invincible, unstoppable, and powerfully heroic in every second of the film. He’s crossed the militant feminist’s line and must now be taken down.
Look, she can play the smoke and mirrors game all she wants to, and the gullible can call it great thinking, but it’s still bat guano crazy stupidity. If someone really is dishonest and a thief and I call them a dishonest thief, her coming along and saying that someone like me (fill in the blank for whatever argument) calling calling someone like them (fill in the blank for whatever argument) a “dishonest thief” has long been the rhetoric to delegitimize them doesn’t change the fact that, yeah, this person really is a dishonest thief with a criminal record ten pages long.
She can whip out the smoke and mirrors of “that argument sounds familiar” all day long, it doesn’t change the actual facts of the matter if the truth is being spoken.
And I loved this stupidity of hers.
“Whedon says he has been “attacked by militant feminists,” which is a very particular word choice that plays into a very particular stereotype which is used to demonize and delegitimize feminists. He hasn’t been criticized; he’s been attacked. Not just any old feminists, but by militant feminists.
They have to be militant feminists, you see, because Whedon is a feminist, and thus Doing It Right. To acknowledge that maybe just regular old feminists could have disagreement with him, and he with them, is to implicate himself in the divisive lack of unity that he explicitly condemns: “God forbid they should all band together and actually fight for the cause.” The singular cause. The one cause that he is definitely getting right, unlike those militant feminists who attack him.”
She likes to keep her brain on low power, doesn’t she?
Seriously, does she actually bother to know what she’s talking about? Did she even try to look at what was being discussed? I mean, I certainly did. There’s an entire Twitter thread of rabid, foaming at the mouth, militant feminists attacks on him that has been immortalized on a webpage. There’s no criticism there. Maybe she’s not bright enough to know the difference between the two things, but anyone else with functional brain cells who saw that stuff saw it for what it was- Attacks.
Saying that someone has been lying all these years in order to get behind the movement so that they could finally stab the movement in the back is not criticism. Saying that he’s a misogynist for no other reason than he didn’t follow the lockstep desires of the fringe at all times is not criticism. Saying that, since he’s such a lying, betraying, misogynistic bášŧárd, that one hopes that he and/or his family die is not criticism.
Well, I guess that could be called criticism if your synapse are regularly misfiring and you were dropped on your head way too many times from way too high when you were a baby. I don’t think most people with working gray matter would say the same though.
Sure, if she wants to really work hard at her smoke and mirrors game she can find an article with someone attempting to lay out an intelligent dissection of the plot that attempts to explain why for Black Widow the story had her working out of character or used improperly, but all it would be is a smoke and mirrors game. Why? Because no one is talking about that kind of thing. The questioner was asking him about the stuff I mentioned above. He was responding with regards to those attacks. The rest of us have been talking about those militant loonies and their vulgar behavior and not someone with a brain in their head attempting to create an intelligent critique of the film and the use of the character.
When it comes to being involved in any movement, you will find militants in that movement with you. With regards to your movement not becoming a joke and you being a part of the solution versus a part of the problem, you have one of two options when presented with the actions of the militants. You either work to counter them or you excuse and defend them while attacking anyone who points them out for what they are.
You’ve presented us with two links to this dim bulb’s website. So far, that’s two links showing that she prefers to be a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution. She’d rather defend the militants, even if she has to be somewhat disingenuous to do so, than support, in her words, a “super privileged” “straight white cis dude” who happens to be correct.
She’s either too stupid or too willfully ignorant to realize that she’s a part of the problem. when it’s all said and done, if true sides could be drawn and seen, she’d be standing there with the loony militants that rip the cause and movement apart with their childish hissy fits and purity tests and defending them while she herself is attacking the sane ones who might actually be able to communicate with the people that need to be communicated with, the people that need to be brought on-board with the goals, and effect positive change for the movement.
And the whole “monster” thing? I partly addressed it below, but you’d basically have to have been looking to be offended, wanting to be offended, to get a stick up your backside over that. So if that’s also in her list of grievances, who the hëll cares?
Sorry, just spotted my first comment. The link I just posted is a new one. Also sorry Melissa’s posts are received so badly herein.
Sadly, wherever you get people who are legitimately concerned about a social problem (such as the treatment of female characters in popular fiction), you’ll also get pompous jerkwads who don’t care so much about making anything better as they do about playing “King of the Hill” and anointing themselves the Best Crusader for whatever the cause is. The Internet draws these people like crap draws flies, so for every Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti writing thoughtful thinkpieces about the topic (or recognizing it’s a non-starter and writing about something else), you’ll get about 100 self-absorbed dimwits making áššëš of themselves on Twitter or Tumblr.
I think others have already said what needs to be said about how deplorably some people are behaving towards others online. I’ll just add that unless I saw a different “Age of Ultron” movie than everyone else, people complaining about Whedon’s treatment of the Black Widow are omitting that it was her resourcefulness that enabled her cohorts to find and rescue her and locate Ultron in the process. Plus she rejoined the fight and continued to kick ášš. That wasn’t very damsel-in-distressy of her.
Actually I do have one other thing to add: I wish people would stop saying that this kind of behavior is more prevalent in those with whom they disagree. I know just as many liberals as I do conservatives who act like this and it’s why I almost never participate in online forums and have severely limited my social media activities these days. I don’t give a dámņ what your politics are. Just don’t be an ášš, you know?
The most ridiculous aspect of this to me is that the screamers do themselves and their movement more harm than good with regards to their stated goal. I mean, big gun creators with a strong track record and fan base aren’t going to be too shy about just doing whatever the hëll they want to do, but I always think that there has to be some lower level creators and newer guys, maybe even guys that might have it in them to create the next really great character that would make the dimwits like these screamers happy,who see this stuff and decide that it’s too big of a headache to deal with at that point in their budding career.
Plus they just come off looking like dumb f’ks anyhow. This air-headed screamers want strong characters that are treated as equals to the male characters by the creators and fans, but then, when you really treat them as equals, as in getting both the good and bed end of situations in a story, they go after you like a pack of rabid wolves.
Black Widow gets introduced in Iron Man 2 and kicked more ášš than anyone not in a big metal suit. They made her look like ultimate badass #1. In Avengers, she gets one of the best scenes in the early part of the film where she shows that she’s in total control of a situation that three men though they were in control of. She outwits Loki later in the film.
In Age of Ultron she’s still being badass. Then she gets snatched by the bad guys for a fraction of the film, and less time than Hawkeye was under the control of the bad guys in the first film. Suddenly treating her like everyone else, letting her get tricked or trapped (as most of her male counterparts have been) is misogynistic and betraying the cause?
I saw the same crap back when Xena was on. Or, for that matter, with just about any other female lead that’s been portrayed as strong and then gotten knocked down in a few stories here and there.
And the whole “monster” speech? I saw the film opening weekend before any of this blew up and before anyone would be looking at the scene through the prism of this “controversy.” I looked at it as her describing the mindset of the people running the program, and I thought her performance was amazing because she nailed the hesitancy and lingering self doubt that I’ve seen in people who broke away from insane, brainwashing type of upbringings. They know what they were raised in wasn’t true, but talking about it really brings it back to hit them. I thought it was a great scene and in no way reflective of Whedon saying or the character actually feeling like women who can’t have kids are monsters.
My interpretation of Widow was that she considered herself a monster because of her checkered past, being an assassin and a killer. But then, I wasn’t actively looking for stuff to offend me.
I think Ruffalo’s remarks on the subject were pretty insightful. Lack of adequate representation means every portrayal is under intense scrutiny. The solution is more strong female characters, more varied performances and personalities. Whether this will appease people is unknown. Even if it does, some other disenfranchised demographic will rise up to take their place, and then the cycle continues.
Peter David: “How does a film ruin your life?”
Luigi Novi: By virtue of being a fûçkìņg’ loser.
For all values of “When will these extremists realize…?” the answer is “never”.
The reviewer Quint at Ainitcool.com made what I think is the perfect statement on this nontroversy:
“And anybody who thinks that when she tells Banner that she’s also a monster she means she’s a monster because she can’t have any children is either being willfully ignorant or is just a plain old dûmbášš. The intent of the scene is crystal clear and you have to contort in some pretty huge ways to draw that meaning out of it. She clearly says she’s a monster because her inability to have kids makes her a better killer and that she made that choice of her own free will. Period. I will use this scene as an idiot detector for a good long while, I think.”
Yep. Boy,some people have really made it easy to never again take them seriously. The mask slipped and the shark jumped.
Natasha didn’t mean she was a monster because she was sterilized, she was a monster because she was a trained killer. English, people, English…
Ask Kevin Costner about Waterworld sometime…
I can’t speak to the issues with the movie itself, since I skipped this one because I can’t stand Whedon’s dialogue, but the merchandising issue is pretty self-explanatory. Simply put, this version of Black Widow is not as interesting as the other heroes.
Hulk is an irradiated monster that can tear through an army with his fists. Thor is an ageless Norse God with elemental powers and a unique weapon. Iron Man is a genius industrialist with a rampaging ego and an mechanical exosuit. Captain America is a genetically-enhanced soldier and a perpetual “fish out of water” trying to adjust to an unfamiliar decade. Black Widow? She has a gun and kicks high. No cool gear (unless you count the Tron-lite stuff they cooked up for this movie). No iconic costume or instantly recognizable color scheme. Hëll, she isn’t even written consistently or well but instead assigned a personality based on the script requirements. Honestly, the only reason people are clamoring to see any merchandise of her at all is because she is a girl.
That’s your opinion. It’s completely off base and totally wrong, but it’s still your opinion.
And this line?
“I can’t speak to the issues with the movie itself, since I skipped this one”
We can add “Uninformed” in there as well.
Okay, Jerry. Sell me on the idea that Black Widow is as marketable as Hulk or Iron Man. Convince me that every kid in America would love to have a piece of Black Widow gear as iconic as “Hulk Hands” or Cap’s shield. But use actual facts and observations, not insults.
Use actual facts? So you want others held to a standard that you don’t hold yourself to?
“… but the merchandising issue is pretty self-explanatory. Simply put, this version of Black Widow is not as interesting as the other heroes.”
That, and every word that followed, was pure opinion. It was speculation on your part presented as fact. It was also speculation that nicely left out anything that you needed to leave out to make it work.
You mention the Hulk, Iron Man, and Captain America. You leave out Hawkeye, a character with lass film appearances who is arguably written less interestingly than Black Widow in every Movie he’s appeared in. Yet, he has far more toys available and on the market than she does.
“Black Widow? She has a gun and kicks high. No cool gear (unless you count the Tron-lite stuff they cooked up for this movie). No iconic costume or instantly recognizable color scheme.”
And yet, Nick Fury, a character with a gun who doesn’t even kick high, has no cool gear, and no “iconic costume or instantly recognizable color scheme” beyond what she has is more well represented on toy shelves.
Hëll, Agent Coulson has been given almost as many toy treatments as Black Window. All he is in the films, and even the show to a degree, is a guy with a snarky attitude who wears an off the rack suit.
Taken in a vacuum, your description of her could easily be applied to another character that has both been in the Marvel pages and up on the big screen. Wore a black costume, the costume changed constantly over the years, so no single iconic version, used a gun, kicked a lot, was given a sword in later years to go with the kicks and the guns. That would be Snake-Eyes, and he has been one of the most popular characters and toys in the G.I. Joe franchise since introduced into it in 1982.
For that matter, a fairly normal looking shirtless guy who kicked a lot was so popular for years on end that you could find merchandise for him everywhere, and later the G.I. Joe line would basically do a Bruce Lee riff with Quick Kick.
Most of the opinion based nits that you want to pick with the character, while apparently wanting them to be viewed as facts, are pretty weak.
I have two kids, boy and girl, one of each, just shy of 8 and 5. Both like the Marvel films. Both like the Marvel toys. Both love Black Widow just as they love the other characters. Both like using Black Widow as a member of the team when playing with the Lego sets from the films, and both notice when she’s missing from some other sets. The same can be said for their friends.
As a matter of fact, the same can be said for the MCU loving kids of most of my long distance family and friends as well. Yeah, they love Iron Man and his high tech suit of armor, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t like an ášš kicking, karate flipping, self confident uber-spy character with guns and light saber daggers. That goes doubly so when comparing the hardcore ášš kicker to a guy who chastises his teammates about their language during a fight.
“Honestly, the only reason people are clamoring to see any merchandise of her at all is because she is a girl.”
No, but it is more likely that the only reason you seem to want to devalue the character is because she’s a woman. Kids don’t care if she’s a woman or a man. They only care if she kicks ášš on screen and, over, what, four films now, she’s done that. There’s also the fact that, and this might surprise you, girls liked the Avengers and the other MCU films as well as just boys. Many of them like Black Widow a lot and they deserve a better answer for why there are fewer Black Widow toys on the market for them to find than that there are dimwitted guys in charge of marketing who think that there’s no reason to market the “girl” character.
Whoa, Jerry. Take a chill pill. I never said that Black Widow wasn’t interesting. She’s just not as interesting to young kids as the big four, and the people marketing toys know this.
Avengers is an ensemble, and there are two kinds of those. There are the ones like the Ninja Turtles or Fantastic Four, where each character is promoted equally and fans are more likely to want to collect all the characters. Larger ensembles, such as the X men or Star Trek, tend to fall into a pecking order. Some toy lines will do the entire crew, while others will stick to the characters they know will sell. Sometimes they don’t make Chekov, and sometimes they skip Black Widow.
So why does someone like Hulk make it to the front of the pack? Kids love his powers, the opportunity to act out righteous rage and be unstoppable. The ability to go from small and powerless to large and mighty is a powerful fantasy. Retailers love that his color scheme is distinctive, and can be recognized at a distance. His catch phrases sound great on talking toys, and his smashing action resolves nicely into Play-Doh squeezers, Rock-em, Sock-em robots, cars that explode, Stretch Armstrong-type toys and giant foam hands. As you yourself pointed out, toy franchises are full of fighters, but what Hulk offers is unique.
It’s great that your kids love Black Widow, but most of the ones I’ve met are indifferent to her. Having regrets over a sordid past isn’t terribly exciting to a child without one. Does “Russian spy” and all that references even have any resonance for kids? I also suspect toymakers are leery of marketing assassin good guys to kids.
The collector market is a different story, but here Widow is well represented. Funko has made multiple Black Widow pop figures (one for this, one for Winter Soldier, as well as a few blind box figures), and they ship in the same quantities as the rest of the gang provided your comic shop orders her. Disney recently released a comics universe figure for their retail stores. There was also a high-quality Marvel Legends figure released for Winter Soldier. If we go back to the last Avengers film, Black Widow was the only character to get her own comic book to movie tie-in miniseries. I know for a fact that she had a figure for the first film because I own it. If you want Widow merchandise, you can have it.
“No, but it is more likely that the only reason you seem to want to devalue the character is because she’s a woman. ”
That’s one heck of a straw man, Jerry. It’s funny how you’ve turned this discussion into the exact same kind of nonsense our host was lamenting. But what do I know? I’ve only watched three of Widow’s four cinematic appearances.
“That’s one heck of a straw man, Jerry.”
No, what it was was a sarcastic observation on the stupidity of your remark above.
“Honestly, the only reason people are clamoring to see any merchandise of her at all is because she is a girl.”
“It’s funny how you’ve turned this discussion into the exact same kind of nonsense our host was lamenting.”
Pot, meet kettle.