Oh, the fangirls are not going to like this...
SOURCE: Male heroes draw comic fans
(Side-Note. Isn't that one of the worst headlines ever? It sounds like Captain America and Iron Man are doing caricatures on the street!)
The basic upshot of the article is that it puts forth three main ideas:
1) The reason why comic book movies that center upon female characters do worse than comic book movies centering upon male characters is because most men are uncomfortable with powerful women.
2) Fantastic Four is some kind of exception to this rule because the three main male characters balance out the one female, who is in many ways the heart of the team.
3) Jessica Alba as Sue Storm is a step up from Halle Berry as Catwoman, because she gets a costume that covers her whole body.
And what experts do they get to promote this idea?
The guy who runs Comics2Film and one of the bimbos from G4 TV, which is described as a channel for "video gamers and comic-book devotees".
This seems a bit inaccurate as the only time I can remember G4 covering anything remotely related to comics was when they had some of their staff at The San Diego ComicCon - and then they seemed to be more interested in the girls dressed as Princess Leia than interviewing Jeph Loeb. But I digress.
Let's just say I think there's got to be someone a bit more qualified to discuss women in comics and fanboy psychology. Someone who works for a comic company? A psychiatrist who is an expert on human sexuality and how men view women? At the very least, someone whose career doesn't depend on being vapid eye-candy for a bunch of stoner frat boys who use words like "pownz" in every-day conversation?
Just a thought.
Anyway, this article just disturbs me because:
1) The real reason Spider-Man and Superman made more money that Catwoman and Elektra had more to do with...
a) Familiarity. Nearly every kid knows who Spider-Man is - hardly any know who Elektra is.
b) Advertising. Spider-Man and Superman were more heavily promoted than Catwoman and Elektra. And despite all the movies having PG-13 ratings, Spider-Man was marketed as a family film while Catwoman featured a hot woman in bondage gear. Not exactly the type of thing to make mom want to take the kids out for a day at the cinema.
c) Quality. Superman and Spider-Man were made by experienced film directors who were fans of the comics and endeavored to stay as close to the look and spirit of the original books as possible. Catwoman had absolutely nothing in common with the comics on which it was based - apart from the name of the character - and was made by a special-effects man and first-time director. I know for a fact that fanboys - perfectly heterosexual, red-blooded American fanboys - stayed away from Catwoman in droves simply because they heard about how far it deviated from the comics. The fact that Halle Berry was wearing next to nothing was not even a consideration.
2) I never thought I'd see the day when Sue Storm is held up as the vanguard of feminism in superheroines. The woman who was the epitome of the girl hostage through the 60's who evolved into a stay-home mommy who just happened to be one of the most powerful superbeings on the planet?
And lest I be misunderstood on this point, let me say this. I do believe feminism is about choice. You can choose to have kids and stay at home with them just as easily as you can choose to focus on your career. It doesn't make you any less of a woman or a womyn to want to devote your life to raising a family.
It's just that the idea of Susan Storm as a feminist icon - after all the insane and undignified and stereotypical things that have happened to her because of her gender over the years... the Eskimo said to the air-conditioner salesman, "I'm not buying it!"
3) Fantastic Four is also an established franchise, so it's doing so well probably had more to do with that than their being a female character in a body-covering costume. And let's not forget - that costume is TIGHT. And tight is just as bad as skimpy.
I dunno. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?