Jump to content
Outsiders

Kevin Feige Reveals That Marvel's First Transgender Character Will Be Introduced Soon

Recommended Posts

Marvel Studios President and Chief Creative Officer Kevin Feige revealed Wednesday during a New York Film Academy Q&A event that Marvel is looking to introduce its first transgender big-screen character and it will be in one of the feature films that has already begin filming.  This answer came about when he was asked by an audience member asked if a transgender character would ever take flight in a Marvel Cinematic Universe adventure.

“Yes, absolutely yes,” Feige responded. “And very soon. In a movie we’re shooting right now.” That could mean a film as soon as Black Widow this May or as far off as the first Black Panther sequel in May 2022.

Black Widow is in post-production but the studio has been known of major last-moment additions.  Other projects now shooting include The Eternals and lined up for next year: Destin Daniel Cretton’s Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, Scott Derrikson’s Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Taika Waititi’s Thor: Love & Thunder.

You can see the watch the Q&A session below:

Source:  Deadline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah so do me a favor and lets keep the topic civil, id appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this will be another "blink and you'll miss it" deal like the Russo appearance in Endgame or the lesbian kiss in ROTS.  Whether it amounts to that or something more substantial, conservatives will get their hackles up and foreign censors will be likely to try and excise this content.   Meanwhile unless its a full-on supporting or main character, disney will probably catch some flak from some transgender individuals and their allies for not going far enough.  I doubt for most people the inclusion or lack of transgender individuals in the mcu affects their viewing decisions but i think disney is right to at least take a small step in the right direction. its not like we're going to see a characters private parts or get into what bathroom they're using anyhow so it seems hard to believe it will be anything anyone could be offended by but i'm sure some people will somehow find a way to get upset about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Variety has updated their site stating that Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige did not intend to confirm that a transgender character will appear in an upcoming film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Variety is reporting that Feige was asked if the studio has any plans “on bringing more LGBT+ characters into the MCU, specifically the T, trans characters.”

“Yes — absolutely, yes,” Feige said. “And very soon. In a movie that we’re shooting right now.”

The Marvel Studios President's answer appeared to respond to the specific question about a trans character, two sources close to the studio tell Variety that Feige only intended to respond to the first part about LGBT+ characters, and he did not mean to imply that a trans character will be coming to the MCU “very soon.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a verrry touchy subject and as such I must, of course, put my two cents in. On this subject it's almost a no win situation for the self-appointed social police we call Disney. They feel that they have a responsibility to touch these subjects but, as we've seen from their attempts in the past, some groups will see it as "too much" and some will see it as "not enough". I've heard from both sides. I've heard outrage from people that don't believe in the lifestyle(s), which is ridiculous as the fact that it exists means that one must believe that it does, and I've heard from people in the community that it is never given proper representation, which is also ridiculous because by pure numbers it is still a very small percentage of the population the fact that it represented as much as it is in TV and movies (and comics, honestly) tends to be above average per capita.

I can't believe I'm doing it but I'm about to defend Big Daddy Disney and, by extension Mighty Marvel, and I'm doing it by pure numbers and math. The fact is that the percentage of the world population that actually identify as LGBT has been consistently estimated as 3-5 percent for about 3 decades and when you specify down to actual transgender identifiers it lowers to around .6 percent. That mean for every 100 people up to 5 of them are LGBT and 1 in every 200 is transgender.

To properly apply these numbers to the MCU one has to look at the amount of characters Marvel has introduced into the movies and the sad fact is that no one is gonna be happy. Firstly, has the MCU introduced 100 or more major characters into its projects? If not yet, it will have soon enough at which point it would be totally expected that 3 to 5 of them to be LGBT, even leaving out the specific figures involving transgenders. Here's where it gets really hairy though. Who are they going to apply it to? Are they gonna give it to a supporting character at which point there will be anger that it wasn't given to one of the main hero characters, or are they going to force the issue by applying it to a main character that didn't previously identify as such also causing anger from the more "traditional" groups? Either way they are going to offend a certain part of the fan base, but in all honesty they risk offending a larger part of it by applying it to a main character that had never been so as part of their history before, meaning Marvel has yet to create or spotlight a transgender even in the comics and to retcon the history of an existing character to make it applicable would probably anger more people than not introducing one at all.

At any rate Disney will do what Disney does and commence it's finger wagging whether to it's own benefit or it's detriment. They've got enough capital to take a risk and adjust at a later time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying again. This should not have a important impact on the movie. If they keep this of focusing the SJWs agenda on the movies will be another Captain Marvel disaster. Who cares if it got a "billion dollars" (I don't really believe that as a fact), the movie is awful and merchandise does not sell.  How many Marel Selects Captain Marvel I have seen around. Just filling out space.  Marvel Legends wave went on sale less than a month from they were released and you can still fund those for 5 bucks.  To name a couple of things. Black Widow on the other hand will probably be a great movie. 

Black Panther was a fun movie, yes it put some social subjects there but that didn't ruin the movie.  

To conclude, whoever this is and I have heard rumors on which character it will be and which movie, this person does a good job and doesn't just stand there because that will not change much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, FASVB said:

Who cares if it got a "billion dollars" (I don't really believe that as a fact)

lmao please leave the tin foil hat at the door next time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ADour said:

lmao please leave the tin foil hat at the door next time

I have seen reports and I also saw almost sold out movie rooms with less than half the sits filled. That is not to be discarded, plus the movie was plain awful.  It is not possible that you actually liked that crap.

Tell me one good things about it.

Seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FASVB said:

I have seen reports and I also saw almost sold out movie rooms with less than half the sits filled. That is not to be discarded, plus the movie was plain awful.  It is not possible that you actually liked that crap.

Tell me one good things about it.

Seriously. 

You really think I'm gonna dignify you with a debate?

I have better things to do than humor somebody that sounds like what you get when you put a flat-earther and a comicsgater in a blender. Did this months-old movie really hurt you that bad that you feel the need to hijack a thread to bash it? Did Brie Larson personally travel to your house to murder your family, torture your dog and turn your toilet roll upside down?

Holy heck, when you think there's only one with such unwarranted hateboner for this movie in this forum another one pops up and one ups him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for more LGBT characters to appear, but they shouldn't need to make a big deal about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FASVB said:

Just saying again. This should not have a important impact on the movie. If they keep this of focusing the SJWs agenda on the movies will be another Captain Marvel disaster. Who cares if it got a "billion dollars" (I don't really believe that as a fact), the movie is awful and merchandise does not sell.  How many Marel Selects Captain Marvel I have seen around. Just filling out space.  Marvel Legends wave went on sale less than a month from they were released and you can still fund those for 5 bucks.  To name a couple of things. Black Widow on the other hand will probably be a great movie. 

What exactly was the "SJW agenda" of Captain Marvel? The movie itself was a buddy cop super hero movie with seemingly no political agenda beyond starring a white woman and a black man. And Brie Larson made one comment about wanting to see more women involved in press for the film, which sent the incel and MRA crowd into a frenzy, leading them to orchestrate an online misinformation campaign that was very successful in convincing conservative-leaning moderates who didn't delve too deeply for actual information that Brie Larson was some sort of rabid man-hating scourge who couldn't be reasoned with. Actual reviews for the movie were largely solid, because it was a decent film. It wasn't life-changing or terribly innovative, but it was good.

The Marvel Select Captain Marvel figures look terrible, so no surprise those aren't selling, but your memory of how quickly the Legends figures went on sale seems coloured by your opinion of the movie. It wasn't a terribly interesting wave, and it did go on sale relatively early, but it was not less than a month from the time it went on sale. The wave released in February and didn't really end up on sale anywhere until mid-to-late summer. Regurgitating phrases like SJW along with conspiracy theories cooked up by bad faith MRA trolls, and then using extreme hyperbole to support your flimsy position, makes you seem unbelievably ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another piece of trash for the garbage bin that the MCU has become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I thought I was the tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist around these parts.

I can tell you three facts about Disney and the AMAZING Captain Marvel starring the glorious goddess.

1. I work for one of the largest avionics companies, part of one of the larger commercial conglomerates in the world with many thousands of employees around the world. As a promotion we were being given free passes for this masterpiece, no limits per person. I'll admit I have no idea how many people actually used them but regardless, those are paid tickets bought at discounted prices but counted as tickets sold by the bean counters in the industry. I know of several other companies and other government contractors not just in my area but across several states who ran the same promotion as well.

2. It is easily searchable on the world wide intraweb for pictures of half empty to mostly empty theatres screening the movie after the initial opening day rush. Many of them while the movie was running. I sat in one about half full myself about 2 days after the premiere, which in itself is not that unusual, UNLESS it's being blasted across all media that it's blowing out box offices and breaking attendances records and selling out theatres EVERYWHERE. My little hick town might be a little piece of the Old West stuck in time, but we are still part of EVERYWHERE.

3. Yes, the movie reviewed well with all the critics, and you know they're ALWAYS on the level and they have NO bias and it's totally NOT their jobs to polish the right knobs in the industry. But, regardless of how much you trust in the industry critics I do know that when they turn off the ability to post comments on sites like Rotten Tomatoes, Fandango and Cinema Blend, it's to tamp down the reviews and opinions of the "regular" folks that actually watch the damn thing.

As far as the SJW agenda that may or may not be perceived, I'm not gonna touch it cuz it has been touched upon ad nauseam on these forums. No need to beat a dead horse. No one's changing anyone's minds. If you thought you saw it you can never unsee it, and if you never saw it to begin with you probably never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙄 This world is so PC I'm gonna puke. How Disney thinks getting behind transgenderism is good thing is beyond me. I'm not against transgender' but I am against exposing children that have no idea what they are watching. That is my stance, but it's not up to me and it's not my company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Benn said:

What exactly was the "SJW agenda" of Captain Marvel? The movie itself was a buddy cop super hero movie with seemingly no political agenda beyond starring a white woman and a black man. And Brie Larson made one comment about wanting to see more women involved in press for the film, which sent the incel and MRA crowd into a frenzy, leading them to orchestrate an online misinformation campaign that was very successful in convincing conservative-leaning moderates who didn't delve too deeply for actual information that Brie Larson was some sort of rabid man-hating scourge who couldn't be reasoned with. Actual reviews for the movie were largely solid, because it was a decent film. It wasn't life-changing or terribly innovative, but it was good.

The Marvel Select Captain Marvel figures look terrible, so no surprise those aren't selling, but your memory of how quickly the Legends figures went on sale seems coloured by your opinion of the movie. It wasn't a terribly interesting wave, and it did go on sale relatively early, but it was not less than a month from the time it went on sale. The wave released in February and didn't really end up on sale anywhere until mid-to-late summer. Regurgitating phrases like SJW along with conspiracy theories cooked up by bad faith MRA trolls, and then using extreme hyperbole to support your flimsy position, makes you seem unbelievably ignorant.

All the captain marvel figures looked terrible, with the possible exception of binary Captain Marvel. The movie was rather weak in comparison to the other MCU films. Even against Iron Man 3, It was rather unimpressive. And just because a movie makes a lot of money at the theatre does not make it a good movie. A large percentage of that profit was most likely people riding the MCU wave that have no idea who captain marvel was and assuming its the next best movie marvel made. I can get behind strong independent women, but the script and they over powered her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna avoid both the "Agenda" angle, and my own personal beliefs on LGBQ and related subjects because neither is germane in this instance.

MCU films are first and foremost family films. As such, they aren't a fit platform for such heady, to say nothing of important, subjects such as sexual identity or orientation. No movie or TV show is. These subjects require real, intelligent, sincere discussion in the REAL WORLD.

Tossing in an LGBQ character for tokenism's sake, or worse, to indoctrinate impressionable minds to your "cause" is cheap, sleazy, unfair to all involved, and undermines the exploration of what has become one of the major issues of the modern world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, mako said:

I'm gonna avoid both the "Agenda" angle, and my own personal beliefs on LGBQ and related subjects because neither is germane in this instance.

MCU films are first and foremost family films. As such, they aren't a fit platform for such heady, to say nothing of important, subjects such as sexual identity or orientation. No movie or TV show is. These subjects require real, intelligent, sincere discussion in the REAL WORLD.

Tossing in an LGBQ character for tokenism's sake, or worse, to indoctrinate impressionable minds to your "cause" is cheap, sleazy, unfair to all involved, and undermines the exploration of what has become one of the major issues of the modern world.

I agree completely on them having to be discussed in the real world, and that tossing characters for tokenism is terrible. On the other hand, maybe entertainment is the right way to place these subjects into the discussions. If they don't reflect the current state of the world or question the way we perceive these subjects, then they are truly devoid of value and as hollow entertainment as can be. 

I honestly can't care enough if they do or don't add LGBT characters, because it doesn't affect ME. That doesn't mean it could be a good thing for someone else, or to improve how we deal with these subjects outside the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, memocromatico said:

I agree completely on them having to be discussed in the real world, and that tossing characters for tokenism is terrible. On the other hand, maybe entertainment is the right way to place these subjects into the discussions. If they don't reflect the current state of the world or question the way we perceive these subjects, then they are truly devoid of value and as hollow entertainment as can be. 

I honestly can't care enough if they do or don't add LGBT characters, because it doesn't affect ME. That doesn't mean it could be a good thing for someone else, or to improve how we deal with these subjects outside the film.

No one would care if an indie film or "R-rated" films got this treatment. The reason I can't get on board with this, is because these movies are geared towards children. And I very often see children far younger than the suggested age group recommendation of (13). People say Agenda, because it affects a storyline that it shouldn't. They are literally placing it here for no other reason other than they want to push their agenda. They could make a character LGBT and not draw any attention to it. For all we know Loki could be LGBT.  His acting is just that ambiguous. On screen romance is not necessary for comic book movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But who will think of the children?!?" -- People in the 21st Century for no good reason (when it comes to this particular subject).

Get real folks.  Setting aside the clarification we've already gotten from Disney/Marvel (It's not going to be a "T" it's probably going to be an "LG" and it's already been heavily rumored for The Eternals), even if Marvel WAS going to introduce a transsexual character it's not like they're going to show the person naked to confirm their biological gender or go into graphic detail on the medical procedures they had to make them into the gender they felt suited them.  It'll be as matter-of-fact and casual as the Russo brother appearance in Endgame:  A throwaway line or two that most children that are "too young to be exposed to such things" won't even pick up on, anyway.

The existence of LGBT individuals in real-life or entertainment is no threat to the sanity of children, or even to their own sexual orientations, and acting like it is plays into some extremely negative stereotypes that have been used to justify abuse, oppression, and even the outright murder of LGBT individuals around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EUPHORICVIKING said:

No one would care if an indie film or "R-rated" films got this treatment. The reason I can't get on board with this, is because these movies are geared towards children. And I very often see children far younger than the suggested age group recommendation of (13). People say Agenda, because it affects a storyline that it shouldn't. They are literally placing it here for no other reason other than they want to push their agenda. They could make a character LGBT and not draw any attention to it. For all we know Loki could be LGBT.  His acting is just that ambiguous. On screen romance is not necessary for comic book movies.

Agree, on-screen romance is not necessary, but it's not prohibited either. We see Cap kiss Margaery Tyrell, Peggy, Sharon and Black Widow and no one bats an eye. In Iron Man, Tony Stark mentions sleeping around with at least 12 women, and is shown on the way to sex with a reporter he just met. Quill tells of his adventures and even proposes to with that Ayeesha chick. There have always been romantic interests in every film, or sexual. Why is it ok for heterosexual romance, but wrong for every other? We don't even know how or if it affects a story. If attention is drawn to the sexuality of a character, it's because of how certain sexualities are still "unacceptable"when it shouldn't. 

The day people stop being harassed and murdered for being who they are is the day the sexuality, gender and race of a character will  stop drawing attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, memocromatico said:

Agree, on-screen romance is not necessary, but it's not prohibited either. We see Cap kiss Margaery Tyrell, Peggy, Sharon and Black Widow and no one bats an eye. In Iron Man, Tony Stark mentions sleeping around with at least 12 women, and is shown on the way to sex with a reporter he just met. Quill tells of his adventures and even proposes to with that Ayeesha chick. There have always been romantic interests in every film, or sexual. Why is it ok for heterosexual romance, but wrong for every other? We don't even know how or if it affects a story. If attention is drawn to the sexuality of a character, it's because of how certain sexualities are still "unacceptable"when it shouldn't. 

The day people stop being harassed and murdered for being who they are is the day the sexuality, gender and race of a character will  stop drawing attention. 

The romance done by Marvel at Paramount was a little more risky than when Marvel was Sold to Disney. In most of the movies, we barely get more than and on-screen kiss. A reference to a Jackson Pollock painting is hardly recognizable to children.  All of the romantic side-plots are done well enough. Again it's not my company and I will probably see the movie anyway. But my stance is that depending on how display the content/if at all,  this could be extremely confusing for children who haven't even figured out algebra yet or just found out about puberty. And I never said it was wrong. I personally don't think it belong in a movie where young children are the main audience. Being LGBT is well represented here in Chicago and we are very accommodating. Everyone should be able to be who they want and maybe the kids wouldn't even notice it. But I am allowed my opinion if  someone thinks I am wrong, ok...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, EUPHORICVIKING said:

The romance done by Marvel at Paramount was a little more risky than when Marvel was Sold to Disney. In most of the movies, we barely get more than and on-screen kiss. A reference to a Jackson Pollock painting is hardly recognizable to children.  All of the romantic side-plots are done well enough. Again it's not my company and I will probably see the movie anyway. But my stance is that depending on how display the content/if at all,  this could be extremely confusing for children who haven't even figured out algebra yet or just found out about puberty. And I never said it was wrong. I personally don't think it belong in a movie where young children are the main audience. Being LGBT is well represented here in Chicago and we are very accommodating. Everyone should be able to be who they want and maybe the kids wouldn't even notice it. But I am allowed my opinion if  someone thinks I am wrong, ok...

Pretty sure I was aware of the existence of LGBT folks before I was taking algebra.  May not have outright seen any of it but I was aware that there were men that liked other men and women that liked other women and people that sometimes dressed and acted like they were the opposite gender.

I think there's an argument to be made that a little confusion, if handled well can be a learning experience that makes things a lot LESS confusing if it so happens that child grows up and realizes they are LGBT or starts meeting other teens/young adults who are.  Hiding it away only emphasizes the stigma.  It's a "dirty little secret."

I mean, just as a hypothetical what if a kid has a LGBT family member?  Assuming they haven't been ostracized (which still often occurs, even in the US), is that family member not allowed to be around kids?  Or not be around kids while with their consenting adult partner/spouse?

Not meaning to come down on you or anything, just posing some reasons why "protect the kids sensitive eyes at all costs" may not be the best approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, EUPHORICVIKING said:

The romance done by Marvel at Paramount was a little more risky than when Marvel was Sold to Disney. In most of the movies, we barely get more than and on-screen kiss. A reference to a Jackson Pollock painting is hardly recognizable to children.  All of the romantic side-plots are done well enough. Again it's not my company and I will probably see the movie anyway. But my stance is that depending on how display the content/if at all,  this could be extremely confusing for children who haven't even figured out algebra yet or just found out about puberty. And I never said it was wrong. I personally don't think it belong in a movie where young children are the main audience. Being LGBT is well represented here in Chicago and we are very accommodating. Everyone should be able to be who they want and maybe the kids wouldn't even notice it. But I am allowed my opinion if  someone thinks I am wrong, ok...

Yeah, exactly. Depending on how the content is displayed should be the audience who sees it, I agree. But I think that representing LGBT romance on the same degree as heterosexual shouldn't be an issue. Parents need to be able to answer their children's confusion on a perfectly natural subject. Death is probably more confusing and we're able to talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well damn. I stopped reading one of my favorite comics several years ago when this kind of thing started. They turned a well known character into suddenly gay. I wish they would just leave the MCU alone and let it be what it is. If people want to see LGBT they make their own movies. In the 70's they had the so called Blaxploitation films to show case some of the black Hollywood talent. Then before long it faded out and everybody all acted in movies together. My opinion is don't force personal agendas down peoples throats Hollywierd. Nothing good lasts forever and I would hate to see the MCU fall prey to political erosion trying to please a few people. I don't like or dislike a person because of their sexual preference. If the LGBT community want to see their agenda in movies, make your own super hero. And to clarify, I am not comparing the LGBT agenda to blacks or the civil rights in no way. I am black and hate when the two subjects are compared like its the same thing. No it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, memocromatico said:

Yeah, exactly. Depending on how the content is displayed should be the audience who sees it, I agree. But I think that representing LGBT romance on the same degree as heterosexual shouldn't be an issue. Parents need to be able to answer their children's confusion on a perfectly natural subject. Death is probably more confusing and we're able to talk about it.

I don't think death is as confusing. We all live, we all die. Death is certain and generally has a cause. Cancer, Aids, shot, etc. I don't mind talking about LGBT. It's good to have open format discussions about things like this. My biggest problem with LGBT is the fact that they need to announce it. Like "look at us, we are doing something". we don't or shouldn't need a warning.  if it's in a movie that will be viewed by children, just make it age-appropriate. 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...







Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE