>Black Widow will never get the spy series she deserves, because Johansson is too expensive
>Black Widow will never get a decent movie, because Johansson has the emotional range of a blow up doll
Isn't TV in general the superior medium for live adaptions of ongoing comics, due to both mediums having a serialized format?
I mean, I know an Iron Man, or in this age of everything having to be CGI, Hulk series isn't feasible on a network budget, but I've enjoyed all of Marvel's shows more than the movies.
Everything past the age of her being 18 (in fact, some even before) has just her cast for DUDE BOOBS LMAO.
She's cast for her looks. Which I know most actresses are, but at least there are a few of them who are able to act.
The Marvel TV shows are all pretty much Vikings tier, i.e. watchable but with a lot of faults and very much hampered by their budgets.
I find it a lot easier to watch the Marvel movies than the TV shows but just in general for me a movie is better to watch than a show. If Marvel only did shows I probably wouldn't be watching any of them, or I'd make it through like the first season and give up like I do with most TV. From a story perspective I'd probably argue that any hero whose origin is also a complete story arc works better with a movie intro than a show but realistically you can do either well in either.
>Everything past the age of her being 18 (in fact, some even before) has just her cast for DUDE BOOBS LMAO.
Please read what I linked! TY in advance for being considerate enough to do so.
If you haven't seen any of those movies listed after 2003 it's okay to admit it rather than pretending to sincerely argue something objectively wrong.
I'm not sure you've seen them m8.
Besides, what I'm saying is objective. I happen to think Scarlet isn't a good actor and is only casted for her looks. If you think she's good, that's you're opinion and you're entitled to have one.
But I never buy her in any role.
Good Marvel movies:
Captain America: the First Avenger, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man
Bad Marvel movies:
Thor, Thor 2, Iron Man 3, Avengers: Age of Ultron
Good Marvel series:
Bad Marvel series:
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter
About the same IMO. There are a lot less shows but as more come out I expect them to hit the 'aiming for average' style of the movies.
Yes and no.
Succinct story telling via movies works for characters that aren't that interesting to begin with. There not much more to Captain America or Iron Man than what you see in the movies.
People like Daredevil though survive as 'human' characters because of the minutia of their everyday lives and there arguably isn't enough spectacle to the character to fill the seats of a theater for a 2 hour movie, but I sure as fuck don't want to watch a 13 episode version of Iron Man 3. So the serialized format leans to the more grounded characters with a lot of details.
I definitely haven't seen all of them but I have seen several and that's critical to my argument that she can act rather than just be pure eye candy. It is (or should be) critical to your argument that she CAN'T act too, especially as you brought up the "past the age of her being 18" point, but you're being very cagey in confirming whether you've actually seen any of those that aren't cape movies.
I'm not an expert on acting, and I doubt you are either. Like I said, personal opinion. If you think she's good, that's great, many people do. But I don't and frequently get that feeling of her being cast for looks. It's completely subjective.
>Everything past the age of her being 18 (in fact, some even before) has just her cast for DUDE BOOBS LMAO
This is retarded, you are retarded. The person you're describing is Megan Fox and Jessica Alba.
For her age, and for being an American born white girl, her career thus far has been mostly anomalous.
She's not an amazing actor by any comparison, but in terms of roles the most stereotypical 'leading hollywood girl look at meee!' role she's taken thus far has been Lucy, and it was awful compared to everything she's ever done.
If neither of us are an expert on acting that's fantastic, because it means we're arguing on equal grounds and we're likely to understand each other's arguments.
The question is really, really simple but you keep avoiding it. Have you seen any of the Scarlet Johansson's movies, that weren't superhero movies, released from 2003 onwards?
You must agree this is fundamental to any opinion on what she is usually cast in a movie for. Please note I didn't call your subjective opinion on whether she is a good actress or not wrong, I only said that you were objectively wrong in her always being cast for her looks.
It means she has a sexy voice and she was only cast for having a sexy voice. Like how all cartoons cast voice actors who have voices immutably and exactly like the characters they are voicing, and like how when a character is in pain they actually torture the VA so it's authentic? You know. That kind of stuff.
Is this another American thing, that you can't be cast in a role to both be sexy and to give a good performance?
ScarJo in Don Jon is explicitly cast to be sexy but she's also cast because she's really good at acting the role. What the fuck is it with Americans and boxing away sex and sexuality into this containment fucking shelter where it can't be allowed to interact or be associated with anyone else?
Not the bloke you're talking to, but I've watched Lost in Translation, Girl with Pearl Earring, The Island, The Other Boleyn Girl, The Prestige, Her and Under the Skin.
In each and every one of these, she's static and emotionless, barely showing any expression, either on her face or on her body language. In the Boleyn movie she was cast because she had bigger tits than Portman; in Her she was cast because she has a sexy voice as others pointed out; in Under the Skin she was cast because they needed someone this robotic.
She's a terrible actress, a female equivalent to Keanu. A cardboard cutout, with balloons on front.
Black Widow is just a boring-ass character. A spy with gadgets in a world of people who can toss cars around and bend reality. That red-headed werewolf chick with the scottish accent working at the church 3 blocks from here is more interesting.
>That red-headed werewolf chick with the scottish accent working at the church 3 blocks from here is more interesting.
Wolfsbane seems like a shitty character too
pretty much agree actually but I also don't think one-note but effective performances should be held against an actor: that's practically Jon Hamm's entire career. January Jones is also robotic as hell but (IMO) it works well with her character in X-Men: First Class and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. I'm not 100% convinced that Scarlet Johansson is actually a completely robotic one-note actress, her performance in Don Jon was a lot more down-to-earth and I think it worked really well - I think some of her coming across like that is down to the roles she's cast in. She can be successful in a well-chosen robotic role but she was also pretty good in something very different to her usual choice of roles and I'd like to see her try more of that.
I'll hold her lack of range against her, and I'll do the same against Keanu, Jon Hamm, Jennifer Lawrence and whomever else does that.
Yeah they get typecast, but it's their choice to take the roles and not try to make some improvements.
They do it because it's comfortable and easy.
And stop squirming around it, Johansson gets roles because of her looks, not her acting. Sure, they're not pleb porn-tier roles like Alba or Fox, but that doesn't make it any less true.
>Johansson gets roles because of her looks, not her acting
Every woman in movies/TV gets roles because of their looks, retard. Because that's what sells.
The fact remains that Johannson has had good roles, which you were implying she didn't at the beginning of the thread now suddenly it's a moot point now that people have told you how wrong you are.
Black Widow's problem in the MCU is that she is rarely ever used to do movie spy stuff. Only in IM2 and Cap2 is she doing anything resembling what a spy should be doing. The rest of the time she is just a generic Badass Normal.
Again, not the guy you were talking to earlier.
I'm saying she's a terrible actress, and she's completely wooden in all of her roles, regardless of how "good" they may be.
Plenty of actresses got the looks but also the skills. Johansson doesn't.
Girl With A Pearl Earring. She's practically in a habit that entire film.
Also Lucy was too weird for anyone to get a boner, and she's genuinely good in the role.
>inb4 hurr she's playing an emotionless robot so tough
>Plenty of actresses got the looks but also the skills.
I would ask you to name some but I'm sure it will just be your waifus and have very little to do with acting ability.
Anyway no one in their right mind thinks ScarJo is Meryl Streep, and she was an awful choice to play Widow, but she's a decent actress.
>Scarjo is too expensive.
bullshit. this is disney we're talking about, they can easily afford to pay scarjo for a full length movie. if they can pay rdj for three iron mans, they can pay scarjo for one black widow.
>she has no emotional range
this i agree with. she plays the same sultry character but her and jenn lawrence are the only two action girl typecasts in hollywood so we're kind of stuck with them. no different than how chris pratt is everywhere right now.