Natasha Romanov: Black Widow Appreciation 2021

[Alpha]

Spiderfan001 your rant is so annoying. I came here to see interesting opinions, not to have a discussion about Men's rights. I loved Red Guardian and I don't care one bit about how insulted you felt by him. He's probably going to re appear anyway, and then you'll get what you want out of him.
Get over it dude. There are a lot more interesting things to discuss here than if this movie is somehow sexist. I can't believe a Black Widow thread is getting dragged down by this topic.

It seems like people here are missing the obvious reason for why Mason is in this movie. It's to show that Natasha still has a life outside the Avengers and Shield. She doesn't have a hobby or people she can hang out with, but she has this associate with whom she can sort of keep a friendship.

[Spiderfan001]

Spiderfan001 your rant is so annoying. I came here to see interesting opinions, not to have a discussion about Men's rights. I loved red Guardian and I don't cre one bit about what you feel about him. He's probably going to re appear anyway, and then you'll get what you want out of him.
Get over it dude.

It seems like people here are missing the obvious reason for why Mason is in this movie. It's to show that Natasha still has a life outside the Avengers and Shield. She doesn't have a hobby or people she can hang out with, but she has this associate with whom she can sort of keep a friendship.

Not ranting.Proving a point about how stupid it is to think that an avenger making a cameo would overshadow her.
And my "rant" isn't remotely about men's rights.It about mistreatment about the male characters in the movie(and to show further why the cameo decision was based on gender when it's already explicitly stated).
And if it's annoying DON'T READ IT.It's a part of the movie and one that deserves to be discussed(imo).

Again we can keep Mason and have the cameo.

[Alpha]

You are repeatedly insisting on convincing others that something is wrong with this movie. That's ranting.

An Avengers cameo wouldn't overshadow Black Widow, but I don't need an Avengers cameo. I didn't come into this movie to see Captain America or Iron Man. It being solely about Black Widow's world didn't make it any less enjoyable to me. Why are you trying to make others dislike the movie for such a ridiculous reason? You've already stated how you felt about it, you can stop.

[Spiderfan001]

You are repeatedly insisting on convincing others that something is wrong with this movie. That's ranting. An Avengers cameo wouldn't overshadow Black Widow, but I don't need an Avengers cameo. I didn't come into this movie to see Captain America or Iron Man.

Again I'm not convincing anyone that there is something wrong with it.

My point was about the interview and a discussion goes both ways, if someone is blatantly ignoring something and I am saying otherwise it doesn't make me wrong.
From the other side if the other person thinks I am making a big deal about a small situation and misreading it and it doesn't make him wrong.

But the point is we both were discussing (a) need for cameo[which wasn't even my point]
(b)why the cameo didn't happen

And a rant is something that is incoherent and nonsensical.
My argument is based on what happens in the movies and direct statements from the people who made it.It's factual for the most part.
It may be long and you may not like it but it doesn't mean it's a rant/

[OOTCS]

Spiderman001, the problem is that you aren't having a discussion with the rest of us. You're just repeating talking points from YouTube videos you liked and pushing them over and over, without any kind of give or take. It's very frustrating for anyone on the other end of the conversation.

The quinjet is Avengers tech in the comics, but in the MCU it's SHIELD tech (and since the MCU Avengers were created by SHIELD, almost all of their equipment that isn't property of the individual members is from SHIELD). The idea that there's black market trade in old SHIELD tech is a solid one and has a basis in the comics (see Spider-Man/Deadpool). It's very unlikely that the quinjet would have been a gift from Tony, considering how angry he was with Natasha the last time he saw her in Civil War, and how long his grudge against Steve lasted.

It's true that Alexei doesn't come off as a great guy, although if you compare him to his comics counterpart, he's a saint. Let's keep in mind that Alexei in the comics has tried to have Natasha thrown in a Bulgarian prison out of spite, and later beheaded an illusion of her surrendering to him. In this movie, he has a genuine affection for Natasha and Yelena, although he has different values and priorities (and yes, he was bored living a domestic life in the midwestern US when he wanted to be a global celebrity).

[Spiderfan001]

Spiderman001, the problem is that you aren't having a discussion with the rest of us. You're just repeating talking points from YouTube videos you liked and pushing them over and over, without any kind of give or take. It's very frustrating for anyone on the other end of the conversation.

The quinjet is Avengers tech in the comics, but in the MCU it's SHIELD tech (and since the MCU Avengers were created by SHIELD, almost all of their equipment that isn't property of the individual members is from SHIELD). The idea that there's black market trade in old SHIELD tech is a solid one and has a basis in the comics (see Spider-Man/Deadpool). It's very unlikely that the quinjet would have been a gift from Tony, considering how angry he was with Natasha the last time he saw her in Civil War, and how long his grudge against Steve lasted.

It's true that Alexei doesn't come off as a great guy, although if you compare him to his comics counterpart, he's a saint. Let's keep in mind that Alexei in the comics has tried to have Natasha thrown in a Bulgarian prison out of spite, and later beheaded an illusion of her surrendering to him. In this movie, he has a genuine affection for Natasha and Yelena, although he has different values and priorities (and yes, he was bored living a domestic life in the midwestern US when he wanted to be a global celebrity).

I mean so is the other guy.I'm not just talking to myself but since you don't agree with my view you say this just to me.
And my points are my own unless stated otherwise.Having the same (semi-popular/popular)opinion doesn't mean it from someone else.
It's also very frustrating when someone will blatantly ignore explicit statements and say you are wrong.

I agree.The model shown wasn't made by SHIELD and couldn't possibly be since SHIELD already got destroyed.
And Tony had no major grudge against Cap or Nat at the moment.He let Cap break the others out in CW.And Nat got out of Ross's custody unexplained.I wouldn't be surprised if he had something to do with that.
The grudge only surfaced in Endgame when they lost.

Understatement, he comes of as a egotistical good for nothing maniac in the start.It is not all he is though.
Again I never said that they did him bad in the start, it made sense and was great.The problem was there was no arc.Not even a moment of redemption.
And they could have at least let him do some decent fighting.Not really familiar with him in comics but can he not fight at all?
And is he dumb enough to stand in open fire(the tranqs scene) .I mean any common person much less a soldier knows better.

And I apologize, I hope you see where I am coming from.

[chicago_bastard]

Yeah Mason is basically an ex-machina machine to make the plot fluid instead of giving it good structure in in of itself.
And pretty easy to give movie structure without him as well;-
1)Nat could have arranged for the hideout by herself, her being a super spy with resources and all no one would doubt that she did that.Specially since tensions were high.Hell she would have stuff like that set up all over the globe.

2)The chopper could have been stolen.The act of breaking can be quick, or we don't need to see the action, just like how we don't see Cap break those people out of jail.Would show their stealth capabilities more.And they could use those face masks to just walk in.

3)Cap shows up in the quinjet after Nat called her.Much better than Mason and most people would agree.(You may not but keep a poll of who people would prefer to see and you'll know, and no overshadowing will happen.It's a 1 second appearance)

And a Quinjet isn't shield tech.It's Avengers tech.

I see no point in discussing your fanfiction.

And Quinjets existed in the MCU before the Avengers were even formed. Natasha flew one as an Agent of SHIELD when Cap faced Loki in Germany and there were multiple quinjets seen on the SHIELD helicarrier so it's pretty clear they were SHIELD tech.

Again it's not just the cameo.It's the reason behind why it never happened.

You keep picking apart small things yet will ignore what is explicitly stated.They state gender was the reason.
And the movie doesn't do any male character justice or even tries to.In fact it goes out of it's way to make them terrible.

1)Red Guardian->Punching bag through and through, no redemption for even a moment, utterly clueless and useless

2)Drakov->I understand that they went with the vile 1-note villain(a shred of moral ambiguity would be welcome, Winter soldier gave a genocide causing maniac some) but he was utterly incompetent and immediately lost his cool on some very mild taunting.They have us believe he's some mastermind and then do this, it doesn't add up.

3)Taskmaster->Well not a man, even though the I'm pretty sure there's man in the suit with a cgi head of the actress(again I'm not saying this is fact, please let me know if I'm wrong:Character assasination the likes of which have only been seen before in deadpool in wolverine: origins, heck there is a compelling argument to be made that it's worse.
The character mimic never comes into play, and her existence absolves Nat from killing the daughter.
And she's just a mindless drone of a character for most of it.

If a male lead movie did all this to female characters in this era there would be outrage.I don't think we have a movie in the past 20 years that has done this to this extent.

Well, "thank you for your cooperation"

You just proved my earlier point. It's not about Taskmaster, you are offended by this movie's supposed hostility towards men.

Last time I checked Mason was a male character and he is shown in a positive light. Also Red Guardian got redeemed in the end by acknowledging his errors and his "family", that was the whole point of his arc.

Who cares about his fighting feats? Were you offended when Natasha got thrashed by the Winter Soldier and had to be rescued by Cap? Were you insulted when she got thrashed by Crossbones and Cap beat him immediately afterwards? Were you insulted that Natasha and Sharon got thrashed by the Winter Soldier and had to be rescued by TChalla?

So for ten years a female character was mainly there to fight nameless fodder and get thrashed by the bigger foes so that the male heroes could shine in comparison, and now that one movie reverses this trope and uses a male side character to make his female protagonist more awesome you get offended? Just get over it.

[Spiderfan001]

I see no point in discussing your fanfiction.

And Quinjets existed in the MCU before the Avengers were even formed. Natasha flew one as an Agent of SHIELD when Cap faced Loki in Germany and there were multiple quinjets seen on the SHIELD helicarrier so it's pretty clear they were SHIELD tech.



Well, "thank you for your cooperation"

You just proved my earlier point. It's not about Taskmaster, you are offended by this movie's supposed hostility towards men.

Last time I checked Mason was a male character and he is shown in a positive light. Also Red Guardian got redeemed in the end by acknowledging his errors and his "family", that was the whole point of his arc.

Who cares about his fighting feats? Were you offended when Natasha got thrashed by the Winter Soldier and had to be rescued by Cap? Were you insulted when she got thrashed by Crossbones and Cap beat him immediately afterwards? Were you insulted that Natasha and Sharon got thrashed by the Winter Soldier and had to be rescued by TChalla?

So for ten years a female character was mainly there to fight nameless fodder and get thrashed by the bigger foes so that the male heroes could shine in comparison, and now that one movie reverses this trope and uses a male side character to make his female protagonist more awesome you get offended? Just get over it.

Just an alternate to show how Mason is pretty irrelevant to plot.

And I explained in a post above about how that version of Quinjet would not be available to SHIELD.

And why can't both be problems.

I already made posts and many others have said why this movie does Taskmaster dirty besides the gender-bending.
My recent post was about how it treated male characters solely to back up that the quote from the interview was indeed about gender when you tried to brush it off.

And lets' see about your fighting feats:-

1)Nat vs Bucky:Bucky wasn't holding back, Nat was.They clearly had history.That and the fact that Bucky is physically stronger as well.And has a lethal robot arm.He took out Many others including Falcon and Cap and no suit Panther.

2)Nat vs Crossbones:Crossbones wan't affected by her stingers and again superior physical strength.And Cap is a much better fighter than Nat.

You can't ignore context whenever you feel like it.

And also it's not just fighting feats.He standing is an open line of fire when he already got shot and it takes him out of the fight.He's a soldier.It common sense to take cover.If they have a clean shot what is stopping them from using lethal force, if I can think of this when watching the seasoned soldier who has fought in the armies should be able too.

Nat is a spy, not a soldier.She isn't a physical combat powerhouse when you compare her to the best of the best.Hawkeye even said so.

And she owned Hawkeye in the first Avengers movie.Is he nameless fodder?

And the entire point of moving forward and feminism is equality.It is getting rid of these tropes, not using them but just reversing gender.That's still harmful and backwards thinking.

That's like saying women get assaulted by men so when it happens men just STFU and deal with it.(exaggeration but you don't get the subtle points so maybe this will help get the point across)

Your double standards are showing.

You need to realize you can't just assume moral high ground and tell people to get over themselves when you are straight up ignorant and biased.

[Spiderfan001]

Also just checked to confirm and Andy Lister is the lead stunt double for Taskmaster.Wonder why that is...

Marvel really gender-swapping a masked male character to a female but getting a male actor to play "her" while wearing the mask.They couldn't even find a female stunt double for Taskmaster, they even made a video on their main channel of Nat's stunt double showing how great she was smh.

[chicago_bastard]

And lets' see about your fighting feats:-

1)Nat vs Bucky:Bucky wasn't holding back, Nat was.They clearly had history.That and the fact that Bucky is physically stronger as well.And has a lethal robot arm.He took out Many others including Falcon and Cap and no suit Panther.

2)Nat vs Crossbones:Crossbones wan't affected by her stingers and again superior physical strength.And Cap is a much better fighter than Nat.

You can't ignore context whenever you feel like it.

Context is only what the writers choose to happen. Her Widow's Bite didn't work on Crossbones because the writers decided it wouldn't. They could have decided differently. She isn't able to compete physically with Winter Soldier and Crossbones because the writers chose to make her a normal human instead of having a variant of the super soldier serum like in the comics. In the comics she can easily hold her own against Bucky and outright defeated Crossbones the only time they fought. So how come it doesn't bother you that MCU Widow isn't as formidable as her comic book counterpart when you are so concerned about an accurate depiction of Red Guardian in th MCU? Double standard?

And if you want context for Red Guardian, that guy was rotting in prison for 20 years and obviously didn't work out as can be seen when he puts his suit on. He is old and clearly not in shape, so there you have your context for him getting his ass kicked by Taskmaster. Double standard?

Nat is a spy, not a soldier.She isn't a physical combat powerhouse when you compare her to the best of the best.Hawkeye even said so.

Seems you didn't get what the line was supposed to say. Not being a soldier has nothing to do with not being formidable in physical combat. Shang-Chi also isn't a soldier so I guess that guy isn't all that in physical combat, too?

And also it's not just fighting feats.He standing is an open line of fire when he already got shot and it takes him out of the fight.He's a soldier.It common sense to take cover.If they have a clean shot what is stopping them from using lethal force, if I can think of this when watching the seasoned soldier who has fought in the armies should be able too.

I get the feeling you are having trouble to see through writer's intent. This scene was clearly meant to show how arrogant and delusional he is. He didn't take cover because he thought the darts couldn't harm him.

And the entire point of moving forward and feminism is equality.It is getting rid of these tropes, not using them but just reversing gender.That's still harmful and backwards thinking.

That's like saying women get assaulted by men so when it happens men just STFU and deal with it.(exaggeration but you don't get the subtle points so maybe this will help get the point across)

Your double standards are showing.

The difference between you and me is that I don't base my judgement of movies on how they treat characters I like. I think Widow is getting sidelined and relegated to a negligible role on par with a d-lister like Mantis in Infinity War, yet I still say it is a top 5 MCU movie. I still think Captain America: Winter Soldier is a very good movie even though Widow gets nerfed as hell in it just to make the boyscout look better. She isn't the protagonist in either of these movies so it isn't essential for the movie's quality if she's treated accurately in them. Same goes for Red Guardian and Taskmaster in Black Widow.

[Tien Long]

For the comments regarding previous the shows of sexism in previous Black Widow outings, I read this Times article: https://time.com/6077666/black-widow...ett-johansson/

That's where I found the quote regarding the pose and its possible intent. There were other quotes like this:

Black Widow, due July 9 in theaters and on Disney+ Premier Access, is a repudiation of the character’s retrograde origin story. After suffering countless indignities in nine preceding films—written as a seductress, an ogled object, a love interest, a self-described “monster” due to her infertility—Black Widow now headlines a movie that grapples directly with the very things that once oppressed her: sexism, objectification, even human trafficking.

All those other films there were "countless indignities" against Nat? That made me wince. I always felt that Natasha was respected in those films. Her role as a key member of the Avengers, that she was a "badass" spy who could take down any of these heroes, these qualities were never in doubt. At least not for me. I disagreed with those comments. HOWEVER, I can see where they come from. Yes Natasha has been strong. But has she been the focus? That's why I can accept the decisions in the Black Widow movie. They highlight her and not detract from the male Avengers. Again, we all know the difference between Captain America and General Dreykov.

I haven't read these statements but judging from what the movie shows us I didn't get the feeling Yelena's poking of the pose was mainly about sexualization. I mean the movie shows Nat doing the pose a full three times after Yelena called her out on it so if they thought it were sexist why would they show Nat still doing it? So I had the same impression as you that it was just Yelena making fun of her cool but rather impractical posing.

I just found a quote of Florence Pugh explaining how they came up with the pose scene. Makes it even more hilarious

"When we were in rehearsals, I remember the stunt team was like, 'So Florence, what are we going to do about your pose?' And I was like, 'Oh God, I have to think about a pose!?'" Pugh told THR. "And they were like, 'Yeah, because you know Scarlett's is this." And I was like, 'I know! Who would actually land like that? That's ridiculous!'"

According to Pugh, the stunt team agreed and told her that if her superspy sister actually landed like that in real life, she would break her spine. That got Pugh teasing Johansson about how silly it was. "Eric [Pearson], the writer, was on set and was like, 'Yep, that's going in the script!'" said Pugh.

Yo, thanks for this quote bro. Lots of humor behind that. Love it.

[Tien Long]

Hey all. Comicbook.com has interviews with the writer of the Black Widow movie. Here is a link regarding the decision to change the identity of Taskmaster. Turns out, it was originally going to be Tony Masters!:

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/bl...-eric-pearson/

Here are the writer's thoughts on the post-credits scene:

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/bl...ter-interview/

[Panic]

Saw it today, and enjoyed it. I had a good time and I was never bored, the movie moved along at a brisk pace and kept me with it. I though Scarlett Johansson, Florence Pugh, and David Harbour had great chemistry together; Rachel Weis was perhaps a little underused, but her character was used to move the plot along rather than be entertaining, so it's understandable. Overall I thought it was neither one of my favourite Marvel films, nor in the least favourite category, but somewhere around the middle. I think Marvel do a pretty good job at keeping these movies to a certain standard, and this one is no exception.

I'm trying to think what my favourite action sequence was, and I think it was probably the prison-break. Lots of great action sprinkled with humour.

[Spider-Chan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVxocz5bCms

Love these, so funny

I never realized how many times she survives the impossible.Specially all the high heights falling and car flipping.All this stuff she survived and then dies from fall damage(which she seems resistant too).

And the deadpool thing is on point.

It's almost like she purposely didn't put a effort in surviving because if she survived then their mission would have failed.....

[Spiderfan001]

It's almost like she purposely didn't put a effort in surviving because if she survived then their mission would have failed.....

Bruh what effort do you think she was putting when her car got flipped 20 times by a RPG.And an exploding arrow that threw her car far and then into a subway terminal.
Or when she dropped from a high tower onto solid objects.

She doesn't have actual superpowers y'know....