I think it is totally fair to not like Scar Jo as an actress. I don't agree with that, but that is how opinions work. I can't blame her or the character for the stunt work, fighting stance, or action shots. That is not her job to get right. Blame Joss, sure, but this conversation began with "Let's not have a Black Widow movie let's have Captain Marvel instead" and I see no reason to trust that any of the action/fighting/casting/directing decisions would be better (by your criteria) there. I dont have any faith that there will be a female superhero with a realistic physique in many many years. I have plenty of agreement with you on the let's-make-our-female-characters-more-realistic front in general but that seems to be a Marvel creative team thing, not a Black Widow Specific thing. I bet if they decided they wanted or cared about that, Scar Jo would be game to do her best, which I bet would be pretty good considering her physical limitations.

Maybe you still wouldn't like her, but at least you could blame her fairly

(I think her early casting had as much to do with her voice as her rack. It was definitely the most memorable part of her role in Ghost World, which is where I met her. And I don't remember her rack being featured in Lost in Translation, either, but gravelly voice was all there. I know that movie has its detractors, but it stands as one of my favorites and I think she is wonderful in it, so I can't think she is a bad acress.)

I think her early casting had as much to do with her voice as her rack.

I'm with you there. Perhaps even later casting! Her rack is irrelevant in Her, but her voice is fantastic.

And all those things that people pointed to in order to show she was multilayered--she got to do them because she was the chick and you can't (yet, hopefully), have your male character be that kind of vulnerable.

So, it doesn't count, then? The nuances of the character don't matter because she only got to do them because she's a girl? I don't get it. Plenty of dudebros despise the character for those same vulnerabilities that she was *allowed* to have because she's female. Dudebros aren't thinking, hey, how come my manly heroes don't get to have a vulnerable emotional moment just because they're men? They think it's a weakness she HAS to have because she's a chick and you're thinking it's a character point she GOT to have because she's a chick. Either way, she can't win, because she's a chick. No matter what Natasha or ScarJo does, both men and women are going to pull her apart for it.

There are movies I've seen just because Scarlett Johansson was in them, I've never watched anything just because SMG was in it. To me, SMG is a technically excellent actor but lacks any charisma. ScarJo is at least as good an actress as SMJ, and no worse at the action scenes, and also looks good in her clothes. If Buffy can kill vampires in a loose spaghetti-strap camisole, Natasha can fight aliens in a catsuit with the neck unzipped a bit. It's all unrealistic. I mean, I get it; I wish I didn't have to compare Hawkeye unfavorably to an animated film, but it isn't the character's fault or the actor's fault that the stunts and the action aren't done as well as they could be. And in the end, personally, I don't really care. I don't really care that Hawkeye is wearing 800 armguards - whether it's because Renner can't learn how to shoot a bow without hurting himself or because Joss thought they looked more cooler than one. I don't care if Black Widow unzips the neck of her catsuit; I would too, those things are hot, and not just in the fun way. (If they really wanted to highlight her rack, they would've put her in a push-up bra and unzipped that thing a lot further. As it was, I barely even noticed it was unzipped.) I care that Black Widow never had to be rescued (except from The Hulk, but no shame there), that she wasn't anyone's girlfriend, that she was smart as well as brave and fight-y, that she never deferred to the men or stood in the background looking pretty while the men talked and made decisions, that she had that coveted "agency" we're always talking about female characters needing. She made decisions, she moved the plot forward, in several instances. That's what matters to me, not that the stunt doubles were visible or that ScarJo wasn't taught how to pretend to fire a gun well.

I tend to notice stuff only when it's really blatant (Buffy hitting the bag in slo-mo during OMwF, ugh) and I know very little about guns. Sword-fighting flaws tend to stick out more because I have a little bit of experience there and there's a lot of really bad swordplay on film.

I rarely notice switches to doubles (again, unless really blatant) but I also don't pay a lot of attention to cinematic tricks that are used to cover this and that, so they don't ping me.

FTR, I have no problem with SJ's Widow and l liked her quite a bit in Winter Soldier.

I would love to see female warriors with more realistic physiques. One thing I love about Legend of Korra is the titular character has fairly broad shoulders and obvious development in her arms, within the art style of the show. She looks like it will hurt when she hits you.

It is weird what bothers people- I don't see any of this. At all. I never even noticed that SMG was bad.

I don't even really get bothered by historical costume wrongness as long as it is consistent within the world.

What drives me bananas is when they do "theatre" in movies and tv shows and it is all wrong.

What drives me bananas is when they do "theatre" in movies and tv shows and it is all wrong.

For me, it's the lab stuff on shows like CSI and NCIS and Bones.

I think what we can take from all this is that movies and tv do everything wrong, but only a small portion of the audience notices any of it.

I think what we can take from all this is that movies and tv do everything wrong, but only a small portion of the audience notices any of it.

Pretty much, yep!

I never notice any of the stuntspeople. I guess I am unobservant.

I think I was blinded for the whole movie by how blatantly bad the Luchkov stunt double was when Black Widow wrapped the chain around his neck and tossed him over the rail. I mean, it was an obvious-even-from-behind change in build and body language plus a frizzy Einstein fright wig that in no way resembled the actor's hair. The only character whose appearance changed more noticeably from shot to shot was gaining 800 lbs. of green muscle.

If CGI can make the Hulk's face recognizably resemble Mark Ruffalo's, why can't it make the dude doing back flips look like Scarlett Johansson?

JMS wants to reboot Babylon 5 as a film franchise.

The nuances of the character don't matter because she only got to do them because she's a girl?

No, but the importance of them do. Saying "Oh! Look at how lucky we were to get this!" seems silly to me when...they made a female superhero act like scads of females onscreen. We got it and you can like it or not, but it's no step forward and it's nothing I'd call out or defend--it's what I'd predict.

As for her fighting stance not being ScarJo's fault--this isn't me hating on ScarJo (although, ask Allyson how long it took me to teach her a fighting stance -- SMG will forever boggle me). It's that it's bad casting. They picked, IMO, a woman with no physical gravitas who either never watched a daily or can't pick up on those things.

Maria Hill looks perfectly physically competent. So did the woman from Revenge. And Gamora. And Nebula.

Will Marvel miscast again? Maybe. Will they undervalue the physicality of their female heroes again? Maybe. But I am willing to gamble that since they've already ruined one hero I'd rather see a movie of a different one. Makes fairly simple sense, IMO.

Oh, and have Justin Lin direct. He takes his shit seriously in a way I haven't seen Joss do.