Is WB simply afraid of Wonder Woman?

[Ian Keldon]

I was bored and reading one of those "10" lists online and they did one called "10 Superheroes who don't need their own movie". They had WW on the list.

This is what they said about her:

When Warner Bros. turns down drafts that are as faithfully rendered as the Laeta Kalogridis draft and the Joss Whedon draft, it's time to admit that they are too scared of the overall iconography of Wonder Woman to ever successfully turn her into a standalone franchise hero. This is not a case of no one ever writing the right script. They've done that several times now. This is a case of a mythology that is inherent to the character that Warner Bros. simply can't imagine supporting a series. Wonder Woman has historically had a hard time in the comic market supporting her own title as well, and while she is definitely one of the most iconic and recognizable of DC's creations, it seems like the most successful versions are almost always defined by who she's with and how she fits into a team. We don't think it's impossible to make a good Wonder Woman movie, but if Warner is uncomfortable with everything that defines who she is and where she came from, then it's better they not make one at all than make one that redefines her so completely that she's no longer really Wonder Woman.

-Drew McWeeny

Agree? Disagree?

What would it be that they're afraid of? That she's a feminist icon? That she's heavily mixed up in Greek mythology? Hey, it worked for Hercules and Xena, so why NOT WW?

[Gotham Central]

Well I doubt very seriously that DC wants WW to in anyway be compared to Xena. They would want the character taken more seriously than that.

The real issue is that DC/WB and Marvel for that matter, are not particularly confident in the ability of ANY of their female characters to successfully carry a film franchise. DC already struggles with main characters not named Superman or Batman. The feeling in Hollywood is that female superheroes simply do not have the built in audience that the male characters have.

At this point DC REALLY does not want a Wonder Woman movie to fail.

I think that the one thing that WW has going for her that most others do not is that she is one of the few standalone female super heroes whose success or failure is not linked to a male counterpart.

Supergirl, Powergirl, Batgirl, Batwoman, Catwoman, Huntress etc are all dependent on people buying into the world created for Batman or Superman.

As to the top 10 list, I agree with most of them. The thing is that many DC characters work best as part of a team. Conner Kent/Kon-El/Superboy is one of my favorite DC characters, but he works best when he is not alone...if only because it helps to play off the fact that he feels alone. Likewise, Aquaman could wok well, but I think he'd be better off proving himself in a JL movie first.

[Kegg]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

The feeling in Hollywood is that female superheroes imply do not have the built in audience that the male characters have.

Like Iron Dude and Space Ring Guy?

Because I'd never heard of those characters before they got movies, and I'm pretty sure Iron Man's success owed a lot to having Robert Downey Jr. in the lead visibly having a good time, being sold as a fun blockbuster with a bankable cast and so on (and I still think this reflects my befuddlement over the existence of a Green Lantern movie better than anything I could actually say).

Conversely, I did know who Wonder Woman is, if only by cultural osmosis.

The logic has nothing to do with brand recognition and everything to do with the belief that people won't go see action movies starring women.

[Professor Zoom]

It might have more to do with female driven action movies don't do all that well at the box office. So, they might not be willing to risk 100 million dollars on a WW movie.

[AvBaur]

Kegg wrote:

---

The logic has nothing to do with brand recognition and everything to do with the belief that people won't go see action movies starring women.

Like The Hunger Games, the Twilight saga, or all those James Cameron movies? Yeah, nobody went to see those.

[Alidar Jarok]

Kegg wrote:

---

Like Iron Dude and Space Ring Guy?

Because I'd never heard of those characters before they got movies

You never heard of Iron Man and Green Lantern? I've probably read five comics in my life and I heard of both.

[Brolan]

AvBaur wrote:

---

Like The Hunger Games, the Twilight saga, or all those James Cameron movies? Yeah, nobody went to see those.

Those were not action movies. They were romance movies with action elements. If they can create a romance for WW they may have something.

[stonester1]

James Cameron's movies are chick flicks?

News to me.

[Greg Cox]

Brolan wrote:

---

Those were not action movies. They were romance movies with action elements. If they can create a romance for WW they may have something.

Twilight, yes, but I'm not sure I'd call The Hunger Games a romance movie. That was more of a dystopian science fiction story with the obligatory romantic subplot.

If The Hunger Games is a romance, then so is Logan's Run, Brazil, Blade Runner, and Fahrenheit 451 . . . .

[Kegg]

AvBaur wrote:

---

You never heard of Iron Man and Green Lantern? I've probably read five comics in my life and I heard of both.

Did you know Tintin and Asterix though?

'cause they're huge over here.

Brolan wrote:

---

Those were not action movies. They were romance movies with action elements. If they can create a romance for WW they may have something.

Well he's right at least Cameron has made action films starring women... decades ago. But I'm not talking about whether or not successful action films with female leads exist (because there are) but that Hollywood believes they would not make the money they want on those pictures.

[Gaith]

Hollywood is afraid of movies starring women in general. Take a look at the domestic 2011 top twelve flicks: none primarily star a woman, and only one, the Twilight movie, primarily co-stars a woman (I'm not counting Hermione as a primary star here, as she's one part of a trio at most, and Harry really is the primary star, so it's not an even trio, either). You have to go to #13-14 for The Help and Bridesmaids. 2010 is a little better in that regard, with Alice in Wonderland at #2 and Twilight and Tangled at #4 and #10, but after Alice you have to go all the way down to #22 for another movie primarily starring a woman (Salt). 2012 so far has Hunger Games and Brave at #2 and #5, and Twilight at #10. In other words, primarily women-powered movies make up about a fifth of the top ten on a good year. It's also worth noting that, Bridesmaids and part of The Help side, pretty much all of the "women" in question are teenage girls rather than mature adult ladies.

San Francisco Chronicle critic Mick Lasalle often talks about a sociological reason for this imbalance: women in relationships are more likely to want to "get out of the house and do something" than men, so they often defer to men on movie choices, who tend to pick male-centric flicks, which is why you see considerably more women-centric TV shows than films.

As for Wonder Woman, I've argued before that superpowered women in primary leading roles present a particular challenge to writers in terms of crafting compelling emotional arcs. The most badass leading ladies, such as Sarah Connor in T2, Ripley in Aliens and even Katniss in Hunger Games tend to be strongly defined by maternal/familial protective instincts. The Underworld and Resident Evil series have been notable exceptions, but the field remains a risky one.

[M'rk, son of Mogh]

Is it possible to make a WW movie without a HUGE budget? (Remember District 9? Chronicle? What the heck is wrong with Hollywood, learn to stop wasting money!!!!!)

I think that's a bigger problem than anything. Cut the budget and make a good movie. They might be surprised or, at the very least if it doesn't perform up to whatever stupid expectations WB has, it won't kill their finances.

Movies DON'T need a budget of 150 million!

[AvBaur]

Kegg wrote:

---

But I'm not talking about whether or not successful action films with female leads exist (because there are) but that Hollywood believes they would not make the money they want on those pictures.

It's baffling, though, how Hollywood executives still seem to remember the failures of Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, and the like, but manage to ignore the successes of numerous female-led genre movies.

[Gaith]

Kegg wrote:

---

It's baffling, though, how Hollywood executives still seem to remember the failures of Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, and the like, but manage to ignore the successes of numerous female-led genre movies.

Not really. From Catwoman to Elektra to Columbiana, there've been as many if not more flops as modest successes, and none have been massive breakout hits a la Iron Man or Thor. The Resident Evil series has been chugging along decently, but it started out as a gamer-backed flick, and few female stars are as willing as Milla to become known as a primarily action/genre star. The Underwold series is another notable exception, but it too is very much a genre product, with little crossover/mainstream appeal.

Even if modestly budgeted along those lines, however, a Wonder Woman movie would attract a whole lot of free publicity/public interest, thereby creating significant pressure for it to do not just okay, but great. A WW movie doing Resident Evil-style business would almost certainly be seen as a disappointment.

Anyhow, if the JLA movie actually happens, WW is sure to be in it, so look to her reception there for prospects for any solo outing.

[Takeru]

Gaith wrote:

---

Not really. From Catwoman to Elektra to Columbiana, there've been as many if not more flops as modest successes, and none have been massive breakout hits a la Iron Man or Thor.

None of them were nearly as good as Iron Man and Thor.

If they don't trust Wonder Woman to make Avengers money they really should give it a lower budget, just look at Arrow, it's a CW show so it probably has a budget of 20 dollars and a box of bubblegum for special effects.

Just put a few columns on a beach and in a park in California and pretend it's Themiscyra, the rest of the movie can be filmed in Vancouver. They could probably do a decent Wonder Woman movie for 60 million.