Amph "On your left." - Captain America (Brave New World)

I thought her waist was a little thin in the first poster, but the possibility of it being Photoshopped didn't occur to me until all the gossip popped up. Scarlett's definitely an attractive woman; no argument there. I prefer curves to pencil sticks any day of the week.

Speaking of Scarlett, this is the shot I'd ask her to sign if I ever met her...

 

Every person on every poster for every movie is photoshopped in this day and age. Here's an example from the very same movie. Warning! Once you see this you cannot unsee.

Spoiler

 

If I met Scarlett Johansson, I would say, "Hello, I really enjoyed your work in Lost in Translation. It was nice to meet you!" Then I would shake hands and go on with my day.

The issue with Johansson's poster isn't "BUT SHE'S SO PRETTY SHE DOESN'T NEED PHOTOSHOP," it's that women do not exist to be eye candy.

 

True, true. Though we all know that the best way to market is to treat women and men as eye candy. Hence Megan Fox's popularity.

 

They don't exist solely to be eye candy, but it's totally biologically natural to be attracted to them. Hollywood knows what we like and plays to it.
But there's no reason why they can't be attractive and still fleshed out characters, after all the male characters get that. Fortunately Black Widow is both so it's OK, Megan Fox not so much

 

I hope in Avengers 2, she's sporting an afro.

 

Heck I wouldn't even go up to her or any actor/actress. They have far better things to do that meet me.

But I don't know, the whole purpose of these posters and ads is to be eye candy for us, the men on them, the women on them, the explosions, the cool stuff on them...

It's only an issue if that is the sole trait. If Black Widow or Cap weren't interesting characters but just eye candy then it's a problem. But there is nothing wrong with being visually appealing as well as appealing as a character.

 

Well, personally, I don't think Black Widow is very interesting as a character.

The poster is pretty tame when compared to other stuff out there, I will give it that. Beyond that, I'm not going to discuss more for fear of derailing the thread further.

 

I would say she has been made interesting enough in these films to warrant her own though.

 

She said "red in my ledger" like a billion times in the Avengers. That is her characterization to date.

 

I don't even recall the line once let alone a billion times. Her character includes reverse interrogation, action, a romantic interest and ScarJo acting which is good.

 

I think she said it to Loki once and then to Hawkeye again. So twice by my memory. At any rate she's the only main female character in the MCU that isn't a love interest for a male hero. And her motivations and personality are more complex than probably everyone else in the Avengers by my viewpoint at least.

 

I don't really see how Black Widow is developed that much more as a character anymore than say Maria Hill. She's just an agent of SHIELD like the rest, she just happens to hang out on the front line with the supers & Hawkeye.
She is getting a movie because Marvel feel they need to make a female hero movie, not because her character warrants one. They could have done Spider-Woman or Wasp or Ms Marvel ahead of Black Widow and it would likely be more interesting.

Sif is a better character, is she going to get her own movie?

 

What do you know about Sif? What do you know about Maria Hill? What do you know about Black Widow?

I'm fairly certain we can construct a fairly reasonable facsimile of a backstory 3x - 5x as dense as the other two ladies, just based on the movies and why Black Widow's is a) more fleshed out and b) why it would make a better film at the moment?

 

I would characterize her entire string of appearances in this franchise as an object of serial sexual desire. That's how Stark regarded her in Iron Man II, and it was the only reason he paid attention to her until after the big reveal of Shield. She opens Avengers in a short skirt and backless dress, being ogled during an "interrogation" that was suggested to have started with sexual overtones. Publicity photos for the new Captain America film have her kissing the main lead in the lips. I hope you'll excuse me for looking askance at a series that teaches boys they can be powerful and heroic, and reminds women to use their bodies if they want to achieve anything in life.

What motivations are those? What personality do you see, really? They've sort of lazily hinted that she has a "dark past," yes. But not what that is, let alone how or if it even affects the way she behaves now. All we really know about the character is that she is a sexy spy lady with from Russia.

 

Then you weren't paying attention?

 

Care to explain? As I recall, she addressed the topic exactly one, in a monologue to Loki. However, she immediately declared that the whole thing had been insincere.

 

My problem with the photoshopped posters are that they're so poorly done. Who ever did them should be fired. I would not pay someone for tripe like that, my dad and sister are both artists and if I payed them to photoshop something for me and it came out like that I would tell them to do it again. And this is MARVEL, one of the biggest companies in the world. Its beyond ridiculous.

I read somewhere that poorly photoshopped posters are more appealing to the general audience for some reason? I don't understand how they could come to that conclusion.

 

She was recruited extraordinarily young as a spy (young child, as per India scene with Banner)
She was trained by the Russians and developed quite the reputation (reverse interrogation scene with Russians)
She then left and sold her services to the highest bidder, accumulating quite a bit of red in her ledger (reverse interrogation scene with Loki)
Her reputation led SHIELD to send Hawkeye after her to kill her and he ended up convincing her to join up.
She's then worked up many serious operations for SHIELD (and Hawkeye), while apparently still having the same reputation with the Russians, meaning she's done it on the down-low.
She prefers being a spy, not fighting wars -- but she feels strongly enough to take the fight to Loki.

I mean, really, that's plenty enough for a movie. Cross La Femme Nikita with just about anything else and there you go. But there's way more to her backstory than "dark past," including when/how she was taken and trained, how she left those Russians and ended up working for the highest bidder, why Hawkeye didn't kill her, etc.

 

Then your missing the point of her character. She uses the sexual desire element to help in her work, but it's not her only advantage, it's one of many. Stark and Happy though she was just some pretty lady and she mopped the floor with Happy. Stark just thought she was a bimbo and let her into his life and confided in her, he even said he couldn't get a read on her she was that good in hiding her intentions. In Avengers she's in the black dress and makes the Russians think she's just a pretty spy girl before she beats them all while tied to a chair. She uses what assets she has available to get the job done, she happens to be very attractive and expects people to see that as her only trait as you have. Then she beats the crap out of said person for underestimating her.

And the publicity photos of them kissing are clearly the cliche 'kiss to avoid suspicion and maintain undercover as the people looking for us walk by as they know we aren't a couple and therefore would never kiss'

And your complaining about Black Widow using her body in a movie where the main hero's power IS HIS BODY?

As for her motivations and personality. We know she has a dark past and did some bad things, Hawkeye apparently helped bring her in to SHIELD and she sees her work there a s type of atonement of sorts. As to her personality it's rather interesting as I'm not sure we've ever actually seen it. She seems to take on whatever role or personality works for the mission. In Iron Man 2 she was a mysterious woman then a quiet super spy. In Avengers a cold professional. And from Cap 2 trailers she seems to be Caps best friend and battle buddy. Are any of those her actual personality or is she just acting in a way that best accomplishes her mission? Is she really Caps new best friend who cares about his love life? Or is she just acting that way as it makes his mission performance better?

 

This.

Clearly I am exaggerating when I say "two billion times," as well. She gets a neat little phrase that hints at more without actually developing any of it.

As to Scarlett Johansson's performance...eh. She's quite good at dull surprise. I really enjoyed her in Lost in Translation, but most of what I've seen of her work since has been really uninspired. It's cool if she's going to be an action star thanks to Marvel, though, because we need more women in those roles. I just don't see her performance of an underdeveloped character as anything truly exemplary. Maybe this movies will change that, though.

 

I'd like to see a Black Widow movie. It would be a spy thriller kind of movie like TWS, except instead of a goody goody two shoes adapting to the times it would be about a more morally ambiguous spy and her past coming back to haunt her.

 

If you are simply arguing she has enough character history to produce a movie, basically all comic book characters do. I never would have disagreed with that. What I took issue with is the notion that she's somehow well-rounded or has a nuanced personality at this point. Could she? Sure, I guess. Again, all of them could. But being good at espionage isn't a personality trait, it's a skill set. Likewise, "I used to work for the bad guys" doesn't add depth to the character. It's just a factoid, like saying she was born on Tuesday. What matters is exploring how a character's biography influences them, or getting an understanding of how they as a human being interact with their world. The Marvel films have almost never done that, and certainly not with Black Widow to date.

 

Cap's and Iron Man did, so did Punisher, Spider Man...have you seen any Marvel films or just being contrary?