My Nomination for a Stand-Alone Female Superhero Movie


Last time I talked about how superhero films seem to fall flat whenever a heroine is at the helm, and I listed a bunch of reasons why. Today, I’d like to talk about which superheroine I’d nominate for a standalone film, one who could be introduced in an ensemble film.

I nominate… SHE-HULK!

Here’s all the reasons why I’d love to see her featured in her own movie.


1) We don’t need to have a full movie focused on her origin story. I say, “Well, she’s the Hulk’s cousin and got her powers from a blood transfusion.” If you know who The Hulk is, then you know who She-Hulk is.

2) Her alter-ego, Jennifer Walters, is a lawyer. Walters is an attorney who often works with other superheroes in matters of law. Having this kind of a job makes her character extremely flexible for a screenwriter to play around with. She can be on or off camera for a trial, which offers her the ability to be part of an ensemble cast or featured as the primary character in a story arc. The benefit to this job, is that her character can also fit our time period and be painted in a way we can better relate to.

3) She-Hulk has a reason for being strong. Due to her physiological nature, She-Hulk is expected to have superhuman strength, agility, speed, stamina and reflexes. We don’t have to get some overblown justification as to why she’s strong. Anyone who knows what the Hulk can do would hope to see She-Hulk lifting cars and throwing bad guys.

4) She-Hulk is an iconic character. Whether you paint her as a modern day Jekyll and Hyde or as a supercharged Bionic Woman, She-Hulk is an iconic character that resonates through and through.

5) Introduce She-Hulk in The Avengers! She-Hulk is a character that’s been introduced in several ensemble cast movies. To build up her fan base, introduce her in the upcoming Avengers movie or one of the superhero stand-alone films. There’s plenty of options available, so I think she’d make an excellent choice.

What do you think? Which female superhero would you like to see in her own movie? On Twitter and Facebook, some people mentioned Zatanna and others Power Girl. I can see why those might be good choices.

February 17, 2011
Permalink ∞

What’s the Trouble with Female Superhero Movies?


The superheroine is no stranger to the comics narrative, nor is she unique to a specific time period. Emma Frost. Batgirl. Firestar. Hawkgirl. Huntress. Witchblade. Wonder Woman. Ms. Marvel. Invisible Woman. The Magdalena. Liberty Belle. Mirage. Zatanna. Nightshade. Oracle. Phoenix. Liberty Girl. Velocity. And, of course, Supergirl.

But this isn’t a post about superheroines, it’s about the films and why they’re often poorly received. Here’s a great post that speculates Why Aren’t There Any Good Girl Superhero Movies?. I really liked this list, because it highlights there’s a problem with both standalone and ensemble movies. Neither one seems to get the job done, the question is why?

Hence, the reason for my post today.

Often, I feel the way superheroines are characterized is either toned down or hyperfeminized in the live action films. Sure, they are hypersexualized in the comics to the point where their bodies aren’t realistic or anatomically correct, but so are the men! There is, however, distinct differences in the way they’re portrayed in the films. They’re not the same type of heroic character. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that female superheroes really aren’t “super.”

In a movie, a woman isn’t allowed to kick all kinds of ass unless she has an over-the-top emotional response that justifies her need to be violent. In other words, in order for her to “be strong,” she has to be the spirit of vengeance (Ultraviolet, Aeon Flux), the token female (Fantastic Four, X-Men) or the girl power comic show (Charlie’s Angels).

The evidence for this is in the ending. Do you remember what happens when the heroine’s deed is done? In stand-alone films the problem I see, is that the story arc reduces the heroine to the life of an everyday character. Neither Ultraviolet or Aeon Flux are heroines after the film ends, because they save the day. Problem solved. We imagine that they can finally retire because there is no reason to kick ass anymore. Arguably, the same is true of Elektra and Catwoman (e.g. the Halle Berry version). Once the bad guy/girl is taken care of, many of these heroines drop what they are doing and either unmask or are “redeemed.” This, I’m sorry to say, breaks their character and the role of what a superhero is all about. For me, superheroes are supposed to be iconic. They fight bad guys, but after one villain is done, there’s another one around the corner. So they keep on fighting because the world needs them.

In the animated films, this isn’t as much of a problem for me. Hulk vs. Thor was an excellent example of how the female characters make sense in an ensemble cast. Even though it had a love triangle between Sif, Thor and Amora, the writing was fantastic. Amora is a villainess who teamed up with Loki because she wanted revenge, but when she saw the damage she caused, she had a change of heart. However, her core personality didn’t change. She was still a villain, even after the fact. There’s this really tense scene where she shows up to defend Odin alongside Sif as penance for her crime. That one scene shows she hasn’t irrevocably turned into a namby pamby good girl. She will be who she is regardless. Sif, on the other hand, is a really fierce heroine. We do see her tender side, but she dons the role of defender even through impossible odds. While there’s not a lot of romantic tension between her and Thor, the movie isn’t about the two of them, so this makes sense.


Yes, there are a few live action movies where the main character is a superheroine, but we either have to look outside the comics industry to find them or go to a smaller press. Kick Ass. I’m still laughing about that movie. It was tongue-in-cheek, but Hit Girl doesn’t stop being who she is, even after the death of her father or her attendance at a school. Phil Elmore on Twitter mentioned Aliens. Ripley is a great character and an excellent example of how it is possible to have an ensemble cast with a female at the helm; even though she’s not a superhero in the traditional sense, she’s still iconic, in part because the real bad guy, the corporation, will never go away. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series NOT the movie…) and Liz from Hellboy are two other examples. They’re the reluctant heroes, but they do the job because they have to, not necessarily because they want to.


All right, so all these complaints are fine, well and good. Let’s come back to reality for a second. Would a mainstream audience respond well to a superheroine rather than a superhero? Sure, marketing is a big part of this, but so far none of the films have been that successful. Is it because the public doesn’t want a mainstream superheroine film? Can we really say that with a straight face?

Here’s what I would look at for a stand-alone film:

    Her character needs to be iconic. None of this emo glitter crap. Seriously. Comics have proven time and time again that there is absolutely nothing wrong with an iconic female superhero. That can resonate in the films, too.

    The character needs to resonate with the time period. One of the reasons why I feel Iron Man is such a great film, besides the fact that Robert Downey Jr. was made for that role, is because his backstory in the movie is contemporary. So, a stand-alone film would work best for female characters that fit within our time. So, while I think a The Magdalena movie would be pretty cool, I feel we need an exemplary modern film before we move into other eras.

    Give us a character we can all relate to, regardless of the audience’s gender. It is an absolute myth that women only relate to female characters and men only relate to male characters. If that were the case, then only female authors would write female characters and vice versa. Instead of amping up all her feminine qualities, amp up her heroic side.

    Build a story that’s crucial to her heroic deeds. Okay, here I’m talking about movies where the token female is kind of thrown in. She doesn’t really have to be there for the story to continue. In a stand-alone film, if you remove the main character, the world should fundamentally change for the worse.

    Introduce her character in other films so you don’t have to have an origin story. One of the biggest challenges with female superheroes, is that they can’t stand on their own. They’re not popular, so they’re not supported, so they’re not popular. By picking a character with a stronger origin within the context of other superheroes, you’d have an easier time of it. Black Widow may be going that route, but it’s hard to say. We’ll see.

So who would I nominate for a stand-alone film? Find out next time! Don’t forget to nominate yours below or add your thoughts.

February 10, 2011
Permalink ∞

Yep, I’m a Feminist

girl power

There are things going on right now that deeply disturb me. Strange and unusual things. Things like a movement to redefine what rape is to counteract Roe vs. Wade. I get that people don’t like abortions, but what I don’t understand is why any woman in her right mind would support legislature that decreases the rights we’ve fought so hard to get in the first place. Push the topic of abortion aside for a moment. Redefining an ugly act that has a deep stigma associated with it for its victims is really narrow-sighted and incredibly selfish. This isn’t “for the people,” this is for someone’s vanity.

Just this morning, I came across an article talking about how Justice Scalia claims the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to women or gays, in part because he prefers an original interpretation of the law. The “original interpretation” makes me laugh. Our founding fathers were not gods, they were human. They applied the law to what they thought would be best for their society at the time. Although the law does affect future generations, there’s only so far a human being can see into the future. Take a trip back in time for a second. The 14th Amendment was drafted because back in 1868, they were still dealing with the repercussions of something called “slavery,” yet another topic we gloss over and pretend has no effect on racism today.

Keep in mind, too, women didn’t receive the right to vote until 1920. That is less than a hundred years ago. Multi-racial marriages? Weren’t legal until 1967. It’s worse for people dealing with sexual orientation issues; it’s now 2011 and two human beings still can’t marry who they choose to? Were any of these changes in the constitution? Nope. Laws change as a result of our cultural progress. Sure, our culture ebbs and flows like the tide, but it flourishes when we have a well-fed, healthy and literate population.

What kills me about these attacks, is that if we let this happen, we do a great disservice to the generations that came before us. We forget the wars they fought to be treated like decent human beings. The U.S. is still very, very young compared to the rest of the world; our country is unusual because it has experienced rapid growth. Are we cultural leaders? Yeah, not a chance.

While this country has been through a lot, our short history is rooted in violence and strife because a bunch of immigrants forged a series of micro-cultures on top of the ones that already existed here. (e.g. Native Americans. Yeah, they were here first. For thousands of years, in fact.) Did America begin with an amalgamation of different religious and political movements? Yes. Has our society changed dramatically over the last century? Yes. Not only did we go through several wars and the Age of Industrialism, our population levels have increased, to the point where a movement called “zero population growth” was founded in the late 60s. And we’re still growing. Still advancing. Still changing. Truly, miraculous.

Mind you, I love this country and all its possibilities, but what I don’t love about it is our cultural attacks on “the other.” When someone isn’t like us, typically we don’t try to identify with them, we isolate them and attack them. Worse, we make claims that someone is whining when they stand up for themselves. It takes a bunch of kids dying for us to go, “Oh shit, maybe bullying gay kids is bad.” Terrible stuff, that.

In my opinion, the biggest challenge we face is apathy. The increased channels of communication we have are both a blessing and a curse. Change is happening all over the world and we’re right there to see it, hear it and respond to it without ever leaving our desk. But change is damn scary to a lot of people, if not most of them. Very scary. Some believe that if they themselves change, it makes them less honorable or a hypocrite. Some people are so afraid, that they need to either revert progress to make it safer for them and those around them, or they hide and stick their heads in the sand. Let someone else deal with it, it’ll sort itself out. Right? Or, change it back to the way it was, because that’s how they can cope.

Maybe I’m missing something, but when did we lose our ability to be empathetic toward other human beings?

So what happens when the proposed changes by our elected leaders are not justifiable? What then? Do we allow a reversal of rights to happen, even when it doesn’t apply to us directly, because it’s too hard to deal with? We absolutely have to pick our battles, sure. But for crying out loud, if there’s one thing I learned: the less you exercise the rights you have, the more chance you have of them being taken away.

So yeah, I’m a feminist. I abhor labels, especially ones I have to identify with simply because I support the idea that all human beings were created equal. For bonus points, you should know I also believe we are not islands. Just by living, we have a relationship with other people, our environment and the animals around us. So, I guess my stance also makes me a person of coloralist and a gayist and a senior citizenist and an animal loverist… Well, you get the idea.

A couple of links follow below. I am absolutely willing to hear alternate points of view. Do I listen to the “you suxx0rs” comments? Yeah, no. Fair warning: if you’re going to be an asshole, I will screen your comments out. Unlike YouTube! or a newspaper, I do have a comment policy. Say what you gotta say, just don’t be a jerk about it.

Oh? And the reason for the picture? Because I needed a little pick-me-up. I shouldn’t have to remind myself why I’m awesome, but hey… Sometimes, I have to reassure myself that just because I was born a woman, of which I had no choice over, I don’t have to allow myself to be treated like dirt.

February 3, 2011
Permalink ∞

Writing the Future, the Slow Creep of Ages

My friend (and incorrigible Scrabble player) Maurice Broaddus and I had a long conversation last year about setting goals. One thing that he tries to do is have twelve short stories out in the wilds. Good idea! I was up to half a dozen, but right now I’m back down to three, since the others got picked up by various publishers.

Two of those three are set in a far-flung future that was going to be a game. (That’s another story…) Anyway, this setting was developed about ten years ago. To create it, I took three basic elements: economy, politics, and overpopulation and spun them out about five hundred years into the future. For some of the physical setting elements to make sense, the time period is noted 1,000 years ahead.

Here’s what I predicted back then:

+ The Republican Party will splinter, creating new political groups. One portion will be based on a platform for gun rights and will be funded by the NRA. The other, a religious-based group with a heavy emphasis on Christian fundamentalism.

+ Credit card companies will collapse. Due to poor economic conditions, more people will rely on credit cards to survive. Unfortunately, their combined inability to pay these bills will result in a massive institutional collapse. This has a permanent effect on the economy and credit cards are no longer issued to most individuals.

+ Indentured servitude will return, replacing minimum-wage jobs. To erase debt and ease the financial devastation caused by massive debt, some corporations will offer indentured servitude in exchange for a clean slate.

+ Corporations will emerge as families. Instead of having a corporation that you work for, bills to pay, housing to find, etc. My characters have campuses they live on. Everything is provided for them as long as they are loyal to the corporation. It’s a skilled worker’s best chance at having a decent life.

+ Government will fracture into city-states. Five hundred years from now, the expansion of cities and the problems they deal with will be handled moreso on a local than a national level. My characters live in, for lack of a better explanation, micro-countries. While the government is still present, they occupy three spaces at that time instead of one in D.C. They’re in Chicago and L.A. specifically. Part of the reason why these centers exist, is because after a while our Federation of States begins to creep into Canada and parts of Mexico.

+ We ration. Everything. Overpopulation is a drain on all our resources, so goods–including water, basic foodstuffs, clothing, etc.–are not readily available. There is a very visible division between the rich and the poor. No middle class. No lower class. In most places, either you have or you don’t. Over ninety-five percent of the population has nothing. As as result, we do some interesting things to try to survive and help one another.

For this world, many countries degrade through a series of events and factors that we do not work together to prevent. Um, yeah… I did make predictions for multiple countries… The two that I focused heavily on were Russia, due to the huge find they’ll one day discover beneath Siberia, and China.

Now, this is fiction. None of these things may happen, but I feel that they could. Hence, as a writer, I feel I can provide a more realistic setting that you can really relate to. Here, there is no apocalypse. Just the slow creep of time and the aggregation of multiple events.

January 18, 2011
Permalink ∞

First Ever Net Neutrality Legislation has Passed

Today, I watched the FCC hearing on Net Neutrality before they took their vote. I listened to speeches, both for and against the order, and I heard the vote.

I still don’t know what to make of this, especially after hearing Commissioner Baker say that the order was drastically changed yesterday and delivered to her at 11:30 p.m. last night. What’s more, is that this order might not stick:

The net neutrality measure is the federal government’s first move to regulate broadband access. Questions remain, however, over whether the agency has the legal right to serve as the nation’s watchdog over Internet access. Last spring, a federal appeals court said the FCC overstepped its authority by sanctioning Comcast for blocking access to users of BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer sharing application. — SOURCE: FCC passes first net neutrality rules

Already, both sides of the fence are reacting. FCC Breaks Obama’s Promise is just one of many articles on the subject.

So, my answer is: too early to tell, especially since this order excludes mobile. Once this gets caught up with legal, it could be months or years before this gets sorted out.

December 21, 2010
Permalink ∞
Previous Posts Next Posts




Looking for Monica’s books and games that are still in print? Visit Monica Valentinelli on Amazon’s Author Central or a bookstore near you.

Archives

Back to Top