Is WB simply afraid of Wonder Woman?

[AvBaur]

Kegg wrote:

---

It was by any account I've read a critical and commercial failure. Maybe some of the people with a better grasp on numbers can argue that it was a successful film, but my impression was that not even fans of the TV series rhat was based on it like it.

I don't think he was talking about Buffy, the movie.

[lurok]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

According to Box Office Mojo, Tomb Raider made 131 million domestically on a 115 million dollar production budget.

That's a very useful site. Was interesting to see Salt, which I liked, did similar figures (though presume have to adjust for inflation).

[Kegg]

AvBaur wrote:

---

I don't think he was talking about Buffy, the movie.

He mentioned it in conjunction with Tomb Raider, and when he referred to that I don't believe he was talking about the videogame. And since nobody else seemed to be addressing the movie directly I figured I'd point out its problem.

[Gaith]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Edited to add: And it looks like Tomb Raider's sequel only brought in 65 million domestically at the box office on a 90 million dollar budget.... OUCH. A good example of why they might be nervous to green light a Wonder Woman movie. Even a star like Jolie couldn't bring in people.

Actually, I think most of those two movies' business came from Jolie, rather than the name "Lara Croft", which many people have heard of, but hardly anoyone could say anything substantive about. If Jolie at her peak had vigorously lobbied for a WW movie starring herself, we might well have gotten one. But she didn't, and now she's past her action peak, and there aren't any women stars as big as she once was.

... Which is yet another reason why WW will debut in JLA. Sell the character without putting a whole movie's chips on her. That's what I'd do if it were my money on the line.

[JarodRussell]

Dream wrote:

---

The Twilight movies have an amazing 80% female audience.

Maybe Warners will try to make a Wonder Woman movie for those people?

Only 1/4 of the females managed to drag their boyfriends in?

[Professor Zoom]

Kegg wrote:

---

It was by any account I've read a critical and commercial failure. Maybe some of the people with a better grasp on numbers can argue that it was a successful film, but my impression was that not even fans of the TV series that was based on it like it.

I was talking about the show, as Ian referenced it as a success.

AvBaur wrote:

---

Again, though: a terrible movie and a sequel to a mediocre movie that people felt lukewarm about at best. Besides Jolie, the Tomb Raider movies did not have the kind of talent (and money) behind it that most of the Marvel movies or the Nolan Batman films do.

I still can't come up with a single female-led movie that was actually good, that had the kind of budget and talent behind it that most of the big superhero movies have, and failed at the box office. Making the "action movies starring women don't sell" argument on the basis of Tomb Raider 2, Elektra, and Catwoman is like making an argument against male-led superhero movies based on Ghost Rider 2 and Green Lantern.

Again, only brought up Tomb Raider because it was used as a "successful" example, and I'm refuting it

But even awful films make money (X Men Last Stand) and thus are considered successful.

[AvBaur]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

But even awful films make money (X Men Last Stand) and thus are considered successful.

Yes, awful movies make a lot of money sometimes, but that's usually because they're sequels to hugely popular movies or because they offer the kind of visual spectacle that makes less discerning moviegoers forgive bad writing/acting etc. Both is true in the case of "X-Men: The Last Stand".

[Professor Zoom]

AvBaur wrote:

---

Yes, awful movies make a lot of money sometimes, but that's usually because they're sequels to hugely popular movies or because they offer the kind of visual spectacle that makes less discerning moviegoers forgive bad writing/acting etc. Both is true in the case of "X-Men: The Last Stand".

True. But box office and quality aren't always related is my point, so saying movie X wasn't successful because its bad is besides the point. Lots of bad movies make money. Studios might be looking at the numbers of who is going to comic book movies, who the larger segment of the population is. And if its non comic book reading boys who don't want to see a woman lead, Wonder Woman ain't getting a big movie.

[JD]

Did anyone see Haywire? I know it didn't get that good of reviews, but I thought it looked pretty good, and it had a big name director (Steven Soderbergh), and some big names in the supporting cast (Micheal Fassbender, Ewan McGregor, Antonio Banderas, Micheal Douglas).

I've never understood what the problems are with female lead action movies. Is it just sexism or is there more to it? Personally, I love kick ass women and would be one of the first people in line for a good Ms. Marvel, or Wonder Woman movie.

[Ian Keldon]

Kegg wrote:

---

He mentioned it in conjunction with Tomb Raider, and when he referred to that I don't believe he was talking about the videogame. And since nobody else seemed to be addressing the movie directly I figured I'd point out its problem.

I did point out in my post that I was addressing Buffy as a TV property, not the movie.

[Gaith]

JD wrote:

---

I've never understood what the problems are with female lead action movies. Is it just sexism or is there more to it?

I think a big part of the appeal of action movies in general is protagonist identification and wish fulfillment: when I see and Iron Man or a Bond movie, I get to pretend/wish I was the guy, beating up baddies, wielding awesome gadgets and getting the girls. But as rich and badass as, say, Jolie's Lara Croft is, I don't at any level, even a subconscious one, want to be her, because I'm fine with being a dude. And, if she gets in a romance with a dude... well, I don't want to be her then, either. Whereas when Bond asks Agent Fields to help him find the hotel stationery... that's a different story.


Now, I enjoy watching dramas, comedies, and other genres with leading female roles just fine. I loved Prometheus a I dug Hanna. But...

JD wrote:

---

Personally, I love kick ass women and would be one of the first people in line for a good Ms. Marvel, or Wonder Woman movie.

I like strong female characters as much as anyone, but am not super-nuts about seeing superwomen kick and toss men around. Call that sexism if you like, I guess. I'd happily see a WW movie if the reviews were good enough, but I'm not clamoring for one.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Gaith wrote:

---

But as rich and badass as, say, Jolie's Lara Croft is, I don't at any level, even a subconscious one, want to be her, because I'm fine with being a dude.

I don't want to be British or a spy either, so why would I identify with James Bond, according to that logic?

[mswood]

Dream wrote:

---

The Twilight movies have an amazing 80% female audience.

Maybe Warners will try to make a Wonder Woman movie for those people?

Yeah there are a few films that have had large success but they are few and far between and usually start on the extremely cheap side of film making.

You have a film like Momma Mia (very heavily female driven) that did major box office WW yet it was made fairly cheap.

Twilight and HUnger Games both (like Potter) were large successful and fairly recent book titles, and even so Twilight was made on an extremely low budget. Extremely low, and it felt like it. It felt like a TV movie not a motion picture.

Hunger Games was able to benefit from the huge success of Twilight, and get a descent but still not huge budget. But again that was not due to the concept but from the fact that they saw the huge amounts of money Twilight made, and they hoped it would be the next literary female driven series.

Wonder Women in written form has never even come close.

Like I said Perez's Wonder Women most likely only had its success due to his huge popularity and his hugely successful runs (by comics standards) of Teen Titans and Crisis. The current WW book which sales are good, though not great, certainly got a huge push from the restart of the DC.

But still a huge issue is who is WW? And very few in the business agree on it, let alone fans.

With the Twilight and Hunger Games series you have one voice telling us who the character is and that has been embraced by a large number of people.

Its makes a gamble a little easier to take. But even beloved books are a big gamble at the box office.

[AvBaur]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

True. But box office and quality aren't always related is my point, so saying movie X wasn't successful because its bad is besides the point. Lots of bad movies make money.

What I'm saying, though, is that there's usually a good reason why awful movies make lots of money, and it's usually one (or both) of the two I've named. None of the many failed female-led action movies had either of those things going for them.


Do you guys seriously think Catwoman would have still flopped had it been as good as The Dark Knight, with the same kind of marketing push?

[Gaith]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I don't want to be British or a spy either, so why would I identify with James Bond, according to that logic?

I fear you're over-literalizing. Movies are more akin to dreams/daydreams than reality. And when I dream, I prefer to be Indy than Lara; Bond than Bristow.