Month: October 2015

Adventure Log 2: The Ruined Temple

abyssal leap

As you approach the site of the warren, you can tell why the goblins chose to roost here—the trees give way to a clearing dotted with the ruins of what must’ve once been some sort of temple. Stone walls jut up from the ground, and the remnants of what must have been a grand entrance stairway are lined with crumbling pillars. The sounds of the woods give way as you near it as well—there’s only the slight whisper of a breeze echoing through the empty stone.

The roof of the temple has long since given in, letting the flora and fauna in to reclaim the area. The stone of the floor is cracked and broken—in some cases, missing entirely—and near the center of the room, you can see what must be the goblins’ customary entrance—a hole in the ground about four feet in diameter and disappearing into blackness. You can tell that the ground slopes—you’ll be able to move down it, but the size of the entrance means you won’t be standing upright.

I never got around to writing the second of these! This bodes ill for the future.

Truth told the session didn’t hold a whole lot worth discussing; it was spent entirely inside of a dungeon (the above-named Ruined Temple). The players have not yet finished it at this point, so I can’t spoil the big secret of the place, but it’s essentially the jumping point for the party to begin the larger narrative. At this point, they have found the tome sought after by the stranger in Hammersgaard. They’ve also found a palm-sized blue stone that appears to be a sapphire; both were inside of a trapped room. The trap in question was not a terribly complex one, but it’s always fun to spring on new players: when they entered the room, both exits slammed shut, and they were simply stuck there until they figured out how to escape. Their weapons would not harm the doors, nor would any form of magic enable them. It took about fifteen minutes for them to figure it out, but finally the party’s cleric tried knocking on the door, and voila: Door opens, entire party slaps their foreheads for not thinking of it sooner.

That one never gets old. It’s the dad joke of traps.

Most of the dungeon has been fairly standard fare for a level one party; enter rooms, kill goblins. I’m lucky to have a fairly competent group of players despite their inexperience–they move slowly and carefully, and they’ve thus far been able to neutralize several potential cascading situations (IE taking out goblin sentries first, so that they can ambush the rest in smaller groups rather than wading through large melees). As it stands, they’ve cleared about two thirds of the dungeon, and have acquired just about all of the major items they’ll need moving forward–in a room very near their current position, they found an old wooden staff with a carved indent that’s the exact size of the blue stone from earlier. Being the curious adventurers they are, they naturally slapped that stone right into the staff without a moment’s hesitation. Nothing has happened with it–yet.

What the party doesn’t know, and what I can spoil without revealing too much, is that the staff and the stone both are relics of the long dead Cult of the Infinite Bridge, which once had its hooks in the vast majority of the continent. More on that in future sessions–in fact, I may make a few posts just on lore of the world as I reveal it to the players–since I’ve built the entire campaign world from scratch, it’d probably be a good idea to expand it. At any rate, the party is just about ready to breach the central chamber of the temple, and we chose to break there. Next session we’ll be leading off with that–boss fight, then next chapter, essentially.

On the mechanics side, the whiteboard solution is working pretty well, but I’ve decided I’d like to have some miniatures to work with, anyway. That search has been remarkably fruitless: It is apparently impossible to just buy a large set of miniatures. They’re either small blind packs or sold individually at absurd markups. Fortunately, I’ve discovered that Paizo sells Pathfinder pawns, which are basically just flat cardboard pieces with monsters printed on either side of them. Those come in packs of 300 for like 40 bucks, so SOLD.

PARTY STATUS:

Healthy, light wounds.

CURRENT THREADS:

  • Exterminate the Goblins – 2/3rds done
  • The Mysterious Tome – Found!
  • Rivalry with the Dames

Context and Choice: Why Crimson Peak Was Great

Last night, my wife and I went to see Crimson Peak. We were pretty excited about the movie from the start; it’s a Del Toro movie, which is enough to pique our interests right away, and listening to Tom Hiddleston talk about it on the Daily Show only interested me further. I’m a complete mark for gothic films. I didn’t get to see it opening weekend, but I did see a great many reactions, and that only made it more interesting. Was it the film as it exists that people were having trouble with, or the film that people thought existed, based on the choices made in the production of the film’s trailers?

crimson-peak

Now, having seen it, I’m struck by the way choice defines this movie. It’s true in the aforementioned ad campaign, the clear sign of marketing folks who have no idea how to advertise a romance film outside of the Nicholas Sparks template. It’s true from a metanarrative perspective; Del Toro’s usage of visuals, dividing sections of the movie with thematic color choices, the several instances where a given scene fades to black by zeroing in on a focal point first. It’s in the design of the ghosts; the focus on their grisly visuals not for simple shock value, but to convey important clues. It’s in the minor visual gag during the final act of each woman reaching for a bigger knife, undercutting the tension and drama only slightly and somehow engaging the viewer even more.

But it’s most true within the context of the film itself. Every action of the film’s lead lady, Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), defines the narrative of the world around her, in a way that is almost never true of this type of film. We’re treated to so many damsels, so many victims of events that transpire that Edith herself is a revelation; a young girl and a writer who knows, even early on, what she’s up against. When she’s rejected early on in the film, she makes the choice to type her manuscript instead, so that she is judged on the content of her work, and not her gender. From the start of the movie onward, she is haunted, quite literally, and even though she shrinks in fear from these apparitions, she never lets that fear control her. She remembers, she contextualizes the information she’s given, and she acts on it.

She is deceived, true; this is a thing that happens to her rather than by choice. But this even pivotal thing is not enough to define her ; merely her location (the visceral reaction she has to Allendale’s nickname is absolutely heart-wrenching). When she moves with her new husband and his sister, the Sharpes (Tom Hiddleston and Jessica Chastain), it’s with the promise of the future, of taking the reins of something and filling it with new life. Even then, as she’s systematically manipulated and poisoned, she’s the agent of her own salvation; each haunting frightens her, as does her new sister-in-law, but she does not back down from the challenges and the mystery that they represent. She gathers clues like a true detective throughout the film; the letter, the key, the wax cylinders, and finally the gramophone. She unravels the truth alone, without assistance, relying only on her intelligence. When her doctor friend, Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam) arrives late in the film to “save” her, he’s necessary only for a moment to prevent her immediate death. In that moment, he’s horribly wounded himself, and once again Edith must stand on her own. It’s something she does, as she’s proven herself to do throughout.

Crimson Peak is a movie defined by choices, and what makes it truly great is the way it lets its heroine make her own.

Hasbro’s Problem With Women: Part Seven

Over the course of this series, I’ve really given Hasbro a hard time. What I want to stress, though, is that I’m doing so because I like what Hasbro does. I like the product they do put out–I’ve bought virtually every Marvel Legend release this year despite the problems that I’ve stated with the line. But that doesn’t mean the problems shouldn’t be stated. The gender disparity issue is real, and it is a significant problem. It’s easy to be dismissive of it: “These are just toys!”

True, they are. That’s exactly why the issue’s important. These are the things that we’re subjecting our children to. These are the lessons we’re teaching them, without saying a word. The problem is in every aisle divide, every character choice, every design choice for those characters, but it is also not solely those things. It creates a system of rules for What Boys And Girls Should Do. It does so with symbols and shapes, with color choices, reinforcing stereotypes about what’s acceptable behavior, and it does so before they’re even able to articulate what they might personally want. It’s a complex, multifaceted problem with a simple summary: Toy Companies Need To Treat Women Better.

The IAmElemental figures.

The IAmElemental figures.

That’s not to say that there aren’t good examples–Mattel unveiled a new line aimed specifically at girls this NYCC, called DC Superhero Girls. The designs mirror the big-headed aesthetic of other lines, like Monster High or Brats, but feature more athletic designs and articulation on par with action figures traditionally marketed at boys. Elsewhere, enterprising mothers have formed their own company using a Kickstarter campaign and released the IAmElemental line, with specific themes that blend emotional intelligence with Super Sentai aesthetics; like DC’s variously colored Lanterns fused with the Power Rangers (or Captain Planet), only all of them are girls, and none of them look the way DC’s female Lantern characters look.

DC's Star Sapphire and Green Lantern. While the Star Sapphire designs have gotten better in recent years, they still operate on the concept of Love as a power being the province of women, and the Star Sapphire Corps is the only one in which women are the majority

DC’s Star Sapphire and Green Lantern. While the Star Sapphire designs have gotten better in recent years, they still operate on the concept of Love as a power being the province of women, and the Star Sapphire Corps is the only one in which women are the majority. Coincidentally, they’ve also never had their own book, unlike most of the other Lantern Corps.

The thing is, Hasbro is not one of those examples. Hasbro has continued marketing toys the same way, year in and year out, despite the changing attitudes in their customer base. I promised an overview of their upcoming 2016 product line, so let’s get into that. I’ve discussed already the upcoming Spider-Gwen figure; as is custom, Marvel Legends remains primarily divided into Spider-Man and Avengers series. Here’s the breakdown of announced figures so far:

The asterisk for Rogue is due to the fact that she's shown with an alternate Onslaught head, but announced as not yet slotted into a series.

The asterisk for Rogue is due to the fact that she’s shown with an alternate Onslaught head, but announced as not yet slotted into a series.

So far, that’s a 5:13 ratio, which is slightly better, although it’s still only about a third as many female characters being produced. If the Rogue figure is indeed included in the Onslaught series, that’ll be the first series since 2007 to include three female figures–and that 2007 series only counted on a technicality, as the Build-A-Figure was a female insectoid matriarch. It’s still not an especially promising look; two women for every six men to a series is incredibly unbalanced. Also of note is the presentation issue I mentioned in the last piece–of the five female characters presented, only one is a woman of color–the half-Dominican Beetle. She’s also the only one who remains entirely masked, without an alternate head. Three of the other four are white and blonde.

2016women

Left to right: Sharon Carter, Beetle, Mockingbird, Rogue, and the as-yet-unpainted Gwen Stacy unmasked head.

Now, I know the Marvel character roster has a lot of these WASPy types. Similarly, I also know that they have plenty who fall outside that category, and that they’re actively working to improve this sort of thing. So why is Hasbro, as their licensed merchandising arm, not following suit? Why is Marvel, focused on improving representation as they seem to be, not ensuring that Hasbro does this? Beetle’s one example, but why is it so hard to produce a figure of a woman of color? Why is it even harder to do so when that woman is unmasked? Where is the Kamala Khan figure? Or America Chavez? Colleen Wing? Monet St. Croix? Faiza Hussain, wielder of Excalibur? Where is Monica Rambeau, the first female Captain Marvel? Or Tamara Devoux, Captain Universe?

Given that we’re not yet through 2015, it’s understandable that Hasbro likely has plenty more product to announce for the next year; I imagine the two currently announced series will both be out before the end of the first quarter of 2016. That said, I can’t help but be a little worried for the year’s prospects. Two women to a series is not enough. It’s not adequate, fair, or even accurate, and while it might be an improvement over years past, the measurement here isn’t relative to those years, but in how they’re serving the needs of their consumer base.

Hasbro needs to do better.

Hasbro’s Problem With Women: Part Six

First, a correction: I wrote last week that the new Black Widow figure came with three pieces differentiating it from the prior release; a new head, a new left hand, and a lower torso reused from the Maria Hill figure. I was, in fact, incorrect about the head. It’s the exact same sculpt as the alternate head for the prior Widow release, which means that the only actual new part on the entire figure is the left hand. I gave Hasbro too much credit.

That said, I wrote last week that I’d be talking about the line’s 2016 offerings in this post, and what the path of the future looks like. I’m actually saving that for next week, as this weekend is the New York Comic Con. I’m not sure whether Hasbro intends on announcing more product there, but if they do, saving the 2016 piece for next week makes a lot more sense, as I’ll then be able to include that information.

Right Hand, Meet Left Hand

I said earlier that I gave Hasbro too much credit, but in actuality, I’ve given them a hard time for what may not entirely be their fault. Sure, they have control over things like the above; what parts are made for each figure, when to reuse vs when to create a new sculpt, but when it comes to character selection, Marvel itself is involved. I don’t pretend to know the organizational chain which defines what characters are made and when, but I do know that Marvel has controlling input; permutations of this arrangement have existed for decades now. Mattel similarly has a master license for DC Comics toys, but still requires approval from DC for product they put out. It’s an obvious and thoughtful measure; Marvel has a necessity to protect their brand, and so of course they would want to approve whatever product another company puts out with their license.

The trouble with this, of course, is that Marvel as an entity is not always as sensitive to these issues as it could be. It does feel like they’re getting better, at least on their publishing front. There’s been a large push lately of heroines who are front and center, who get their own space, their own books, etcetera. Kelly Sue DeConnick’s take on Carol Danvers revitalized her character, and Jamie McKelvie’s design sense gave her the long-needed makeover she deserved. Sana Amanat, G. Willow Wilson and Adrian Alphona then filled the Ms. Marvel-shaped hole in the character roster with a new creation: Kamala Khan, a 16 year old Pakistani-American turned Inhuman. Dan Slott’s Spider-Verse led to breakout hit Spider-Gwen, from an alternate universe where Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy’s roles were reversed. Gwen’s design was done by Robbi Rodriguez, and is a truly original tweak of the classic Spider-costume design.

Designs for the modern Ms. Marvel, Kamala Khan, and Spider-Gwen.

Designs for the modern Ms. Marvel, Kamala Khan, and Spider-Gwen.

Similarly, Kris Anka took the old Spider-Woman design, which could best be characterized as “body paint with a crotch arrow,” and turned it into something modern, fashionable and functional. What we’re left with is a wealth of new designs that are begging for more exposure.

Spider-Woman comparison

Left: Spider-Woman’s old costume apparently defied the laws of physics, both individually highlighting her breasts and her belly button. Right: Kris Anka’s newer, more functional design for the character.

The thing is, I know the Marvel offices aren’t that populated. Marvel editorial understands that these are changes that need to happen. The folks they answer to must also at least understand that these changes stand to earn them a decent amount of money as well. It’s widely reported that Ms. Marvel has been a huge digital hit for them, although numbers have not been released, and Spider-Gwen has also been immensely successful, earning a second #1, despite being born of a crossover, existing as a solo title for five issues, then heading into another crossover (because comics). So, if the money handlers understand that these pushes for representation and diversity enable them to handle more money, then why is that policy not applied to their other merchandizing lines?

There’s an argument to be made for turnaround; it may be possible that these figures are planned! The design, creation, production, and distribution of a toy takes more time than the process of a comic book, and it costs more too. Comics are able to recoup some of their print production costs in digital release; while those releases are typically cheaper over time, they’re generally the same price at release (some will cite the cost of server space and bandwidth fees, but I assure you as someone with an IT background that those are nothing compared to the cost of print production and distribution). A notable example of this is the Mattel production of Blackest Night figures for their DCUC line a full two years after that story occurred in the comics. Mattel claims that fans clamored for them while the story was ongoing, only to ignore them on shelves when they were released.

That turnaround argument falls flat though, in the face of details; first, it’s entirely possible to plan ahead of time. It can be risky, sure, but if the design process for figures is begun in advance of the character’s first appearance in fiction, then it’s possible to mitigate some of the delay time between that appearance and the existence of a figure in stores. The other risk of this is that, if design changes occur late in the character process (as they frequently do), the eventual figure may not accurately reflect the character.

The argument for turnaround falls especially flat in one specific instance, though: Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel. By all accounts a very successful book with a wide audience and a ton of reach, Ms. Marvel has still inspired almost zero merchandising, despite her initial appearance being in 2013 and an ongoing series that began in early 2014. By contrast, Spider-Gwen, the other recent breakout character, didn’t appear until late 2014, didn’t get a series until 2015. Guess which of those two characters is getting a figure in 2016?

Spider Gwen

The 2016 Marvel Legends Spider-Gwen figure. Now shown: This figure will feature an alternate, unmasked head.

If you guessed the blonde girl, you win a prize. It’s troubling because, in a situation where there already aren’t enough women being featured, the inclusion characters of color ends up even more of a secondary choice. This year, Hasbro released a Misty Knight figure. That figure is one of only two women of color to be released under the Marvel Legends banner in 2015–the other, White Tiger, is dressed head to toe, her ethnicity completely hidden. Now, as I said, NYCC is this coming weekend, and it’s possible that Hasbro may announce information that will render this point invalid (I really, really hope they do), but as it stands, in an industry where women, and women of color specifically, are sidelined, to see the way that carries down to merchandising is troubling.

There are, as of this writing, no women of color yet announced for 2016. Again, Ms. Marvel is a hugely popular character and title. People want more of her. So why has this not happened? Why is there no Colleen Wing to go along with Misty Knight? Why do masked women of color not get variant heads that show off their faces, as is planned for Spider-Gwen? Of the men of color that have appeared this past year, why first are there only three, and why are two of those the likenesses of actors? Why is the only other one a limited exclusive, away from general retail?

I feel like I’ve asked that last question before.

Part Seven wraps up the series.

Hasbro’s Problem With Women: Part Five

I’ve put a lot of thought into how I’ve structured this series. I was worried, for instance, that three straight weeks of interviews along a similar subject line would feel too repetitive. In the end, though, I went with it, because I wanted to establish the impact of what I’m discussing. It’s easy to point at a line of figures and say, “more of those need to be women.” It’s a simple, casual, and even correct observation. However, it’s also ineffective.

The point of part one was to identify a current practice as it was occurring; that piece published the same day that the Rescue figure was announced. Parts two three, and four were even more important; they establish the impact of that practice. As I said, it’s easy to point at a line, but that pointing doesn’t establish why the change needs to happen. It needs to happen because it affects people. It affects grown women, who look at something like a Play Arts figure or a Bishoujo statue and see, both clearly and immediately, that their desires, their concerns, and their opinions were not considered. This is, arguably, worse than having those desires and opinions dismissed; dismissal at least requires the chance to raise those things first. No, in this situation, those things are not even on the table. It’s as though they’re not worthy of wasting an iota of thought on, and women get to see that on display every time they walk down those store aisles.

A final caveat: Like in the first four parts, I’ll be confining my explorations largely to the 6″ scale Marvel Legends line. While Hasbro has other offerings in many scales with many other franchises, I quite frankly only have the money to spend on one of them. Also, those other lines would only marginally skew the numbers I’m working with here–in many cases, they’re actually worse than Marvel Legends.

Case in point: This small-scale Avengers Vs. Ultron 9-pack went to great lengths to include a large number of characters, but still managed to not include either of the two women featured in the film, despite the fact that the majority of the characters chosen are easily available outside of this pack.

Case in point: This small-scale Avengers Vs. Ultron 9-pack went to great lengths to include a large number of characters, but still managed to not include either of the two women featured in the film, despite the fact that the majority of the characters chosen are easily available outside of this pack.

The Widow Parallel

I discussed in part one the way that Rescue was initially planned for retail release in 2013, only to finally be announced again two years later as an incentive bonus. The path of the Black Widow figure is not identical, but it is markedly similar. In 2012, The Avengers hit theaters. Hasbro, smartly, used the film as a springboard to restart the Marvel Legends line. The line had been having some trouble that ran pretty parallel with the overall economic troubles the US had been experiencing. Having licensed figures of a smash hit film was exactly what they needed, and so they released a six figure line: Captain America, Hawkeye, Hulk, Iron Man, Loki, and Thor.

You’ll note a character missing from that roster.

It’s worth noting that, despite the rarity of villains from the MCU getting figures, Loki got precedence over Black Widow (and this despite the fact that her best scene in the film consists of playing him like a fiddle). Going back over the timeline, Black Widow’s first MCU appearance was in 2010’s Iron Man 2, which means that she was a part of the franchise before Captain America, Thor and Hawkeye. Still—no figure.

In fact, Widow wouldn’t get a figure for her appearance in Avengers until—you guessed it—two years later. This figure came out as part of a series tied with Captain America: The Winter Soldier—what would be her third appearance in the franchise. Even then, that figure was primarily a Winter Soldier figure in terms of costume design—it just had an alternate head featuring her haircut from the Avengers film. Her release for Avengers: Age of Ultron, part of the oft-discussed Amazon Box Set: a retooled version of the earlier release. The only differences are a new head, a slightly retooled abdomen, and the left hand.

The new Age of Ultron figure on the left, the previous figure on the right. Green circles indicate changes.

The new Age of Ultron figure on the left, the previous figure on the right. Green circles indicate changes. Scowls indicate dissatisfaction with flash photography.

For contrast, Hasbro has released a six-inch figure of every single suit of armor that Tony Stark has worn onscreen in the MCU save only two: The Mark 7, which appeared in the climax of Avengers, and the Mark 45, which appeared in the climax of Age of Ultron. The only repaints in that run are the Mark 3 and the Mark 43, which were repaints of the iteration directly before them in the film as well. Captain America has had four figures (one for each film appearance), Hulk four (two from the Avengers movies, one Norton Hulk and one Banner). Black Widow, who changed costumes for each of her four appearances to date, has only had one costume appear in figure form, and furthermore as an afterthought in both appearances.

It’s what makes the #WeWantWidow campaign an even more egregious oversight on Hasbro’s part—they’ve literally already been called out on this exact subject. The reason Widow came with an Avengers-styled head for her Winter Soldier release was because of how glaring her absence was during that earlier film’s marketing. One such oversight might be considered an easy mistake. Two becomes more suspicious.

Of course, even then, it’s only two if you restrict this criteria to Black Widow only. When you look at the merchandising for the MCU as a whole, you’ll note that only three women have had the action figure treatment: Black Widow, S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Maria Hill, and Gamora from Guardians of the Galaxy. That means: No Sif, no Jane Foster, no Pepper Potts (her upcoming Rescue figure is not an MCU version, remember), no Agent Carter, no Hope van Dyne, and no Scarlet Witch, despite what is again a very prominent role in Marvel’s biggest movie of the year. Furthermore, of the three that were made, Black Widow and Maria Hill share retooled versions of the same sculpt (the abdomen on the new Black Widow actually first appeared on the Maria Hill figure). While retooling and reuse is a long tradition in toylines, the decision to use the same sculpt a total of three times in a sub-line where there are only four female figures total is…questionable.

At any rate, that’s the parallel I mentioned earlier in the series–two female figures, sidelined and finally slated for release two years after the fact, while their male counterparts received multiple releases in the interim.

Hasbro’s 2015 Track Record

Now, I don’t want to ignore the progress that Hasbro has made in this regard. 2015 has been a banner year for the Marvel Legends line. This year they’ve put out over seventy three figures in the six-inch scale, up from 2014’s thirty-seven. Of those thirty-seven in 2014, only eight were female characters. To their credit, they’ve gone from being able to count their female characters per year on one’s fingers to releasing sixteen this year alone. Sixteen female characters in 2015, double the previous year’s! That’s great!

Until you start crunching the numbers. If you do, you’ll realize that, in this same year, they’ve released fifty seven male characters in the same toy line—more male characters than the entirety of releases for 2014—and that number climbs to sixty if you count interchangeable parts for some of those characters.

ML2015

A spreadsheet of Hasbro’s Marvel Legends releases for 2015.

That’s a ratio of more than seven-to-two, for those keeping track. For those keeping even more track, you’ll note that seven-to-two ratio applies to both years. That’s where the numbers really stand out: When doubling product for 2015, Hasbro doubled the numbers of male and female characters released almost exactly. Even so, it’s possible to chalk that up to coincidence–which is why I crunched the numbers on Marvel Legends for every year since Hasbro acquired the license. There was one year–2009–where the ratio is the same, and two where the ratios are better (one of those years had no general retail releases). Every other year has been worseThe ratio isn’t accidental. It’s deliberate.

And sure, with a number that high, we’ve gotten a lot of new, obscure characters out of that mix! However, we’ve also gotten:

  • Five Hank Pyms
  • Four Ant-Mans
  • Four Spider-Men
  • Four Iron Men
  • Three Hulks (or two and one Bruce Banner, if you want to split hairs)
  • Three Thors
  • Two Captains America
  • Two Groots
  • Two Hawkeyes
  • Two Daredevils
  • Two Ultrons
  • Two Visions

Again, to contrast: Of the sixteen female characters released in 2015, only three of them qualify (loosely) as duplicates: Spider-Woman, Ultimate Spider-Woman, and Spider-Girl are all separate characters who share similar monikers, as opposed to the list above, where we’re literally looking at duplicates of the same characters over and over. This point is actually good for the sake of female characters! Hasbro is at least releasing different characters, instead of the same couple over and over.

So—female characters are being made at a rate of two for every seven male characters. Not only are the male characters getting a massive precedence in the production rates, but several of those characters are getting multiple figures, when those slots could be budgeted for, say, a Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel, aka Marvel’s breakout hit of the last couple of years.

To highlight the glaring difference we’re talking about, let’s go back to Scarlet Witch. Scarlet Witch debuted alongside her brother in 1964 as an X-Men villain, then from there did a heel/face turn and joined the Avengers in 1965. Like Pepper Potts, this means that Scarlet Witch has been around for quite some time. She and her brother have been around long enough and are popular enough that they’ve appeared in both X-Men: Days of Future Past and Avengers: Age of Ultron despite those movies not sharing continuity. And yet—there is no action figure of Scarlet Witch’s film appearance (for Age of Ultron, she was a small child in Days of Future Past, so we can probably let that one slide). There is an action figure of her as she appears in comic books—sort of. That figure is the first Scarlet Witch figure in the Marvel Legends line in eleven years–and the previous one was from before Hasbro acquired the license.

Again: Five Hank Pyms, one year. Two Scarlet Witches, more than a decade and two different companies. This is what I mean when I say that Hasbro has a problem with women. As much as I’d like to believe that problem is getting better, it’s going to take more than two years of a slightly less dismal ratio in order to convince me.

Next week, I’ll tackle the topic of upcoming figures for 2016, and how these decisions are carrying into the future of the line.