You know that movie critics aren't some kind of collective hive mind and they all haven't the same opinion on every film? I mean, just check on Rotten Tomatoes EVERY movie that isn't a perfect 0% or 100% (spoiler: the vast majority).
There are event movies that just get a big audience because people want to see them, are invested in the franchises or just think "Hey, this is a big event, everybody is going". The quality of the movie isn't exactly central to those reasons. Batman and Superman just are huge franchises with lots of fans and their clash interests people, no matter how bad the movie is. Even if the movie is bad, it's obvious that it's still huge and epic so people think they need to see it. Pretending that this says anything about its quality, is quite silly. That dumb Minions movie made a shit load of money and was hailed as the most offensively stupid blockbuster in ages. Critics hated it (for good reasons) but people still went to see it because they were all "OMG MINIONS!!!". It's a shit movie. Just like Zack Snyder's DCU movies.
But when it comes to movies like these people are going to see them no matter what. Like @Emilia said, the presence of characters like Batman and Superman have a huge amount of drawing power, big enough to counter any kind of bad word of mouth. I did not know that, although that wouldn't have prevented her from getting her own animated series. I was kind of shocked when I realized a while back that she'd never had her own solo series. It seems crazy to me that Aquaman, Shazam, and Static Shock have all gotten their own animated solo series, but not Wonder Woman.
She almost got an animated series in 1993, but it wouldn't have quite been solo. Called Wonder Woman and the Star Riders, it would've been a tie-in to a Mattel toy line for girls. Apparently there wasn't enough interest from broadcasters in a female-based superhero cartoon, big shock, so it never got off the ground. But there was a one-shot mini-comic released as a cereal-box bonus. You can read about the whole thing here.
Sounds like we didn't miss much there. I'm thinking having a villain named Purssia probably wouldn't get a very good reaction today.
Any argument form masses is silly. Arguing that the movie is good because a lot of people saw it is silly. Arguing that "most people" don't like it is equally silly, you can say that people went to see it just because the were tricked or because it was an event or whatever and then speculate that most hate it because some people very loudly hate them on the interwebs, but then "hated" BvS sold about as many home media copies as "beloved" Civil War... what conclusion can we draw from that? That about the same number of people liked each of those movies enough to buy them on bluray. What does it say about the rest of the people who've seen those movies? Not a god damn thing. So instead of trying to speculate what others think of these movies and trying to convince people that more people are "on your side", just like what you like, dislike what you don't, and try to be respectful to differing opinions, it's really not that hard
I've been wondering, how are potential sequels going to handle the supporting cast? If things play out the way BvS set up, then Diana will go back home at the end and never have anything to do with the outside world until BvS. It seems kind of weird to me to only give us one appearance from Steve Trevor and Etta Candy, who tend to be some of her biggest supporting characters in the comics.
How did the comics handle Etta Candy when they moved from WWII to "current day?" I know Trevor became a descendant of the original...
Do you know of anywhere that documents that? I can't find anything referencing it and the new movie stymies any attempt at "google fu" to uncover it.
Option 1: Focus on their lookalike descendants in the modern age, like with Lyle Waggoner in the '70s show. Option 2: Steve and Etta get frozen in the Arctic ice... But seriously, I think I've heard that if there's a sequel, it might be another period piece. No, it's just what I picked up online. But it's consistent with the evidence: between 1988 and 2010, Wonder Woman never appeared in any official production in which she wasn't a lead character. There were Justice League productions, her solo animated movie, and that was it, even though she would've been a natural for Superman: TAS, and even though the rest of the core JL all did Static Shock appearances. (I forgot that she had a guest role in Superman/Batman: Apocalypse in 2010, the year before her B&tB guest appearance. The Adrienne Palicki pilot was in 2011, so it's after the period in question.)
It's kind of like the rumor that Doctor Who must include the Daleks every season which is thought to be true by many and it holds up until it doesn't but I don't think has ever been officially confirmed or denied. I did find this (unable to cross-reference it beyond this one link) but there doesn't seem to be much else. http://jl.toonzone.net/wonder/wonder.htm Paul Dini on Wonder Woman (circa 2000): “There’s kind of a licensing problem: if we wanted to do Wonder Woman as a series, we could do that, [but] if it was a guest-shot, it was a little more problematic. I don’t really understand it—it just turned out to be easier all the way around [to use Big Barda in the Batman Beyond episode 'The Call'...] we love Wonder Woman—Bruce [Timm] did that great design of her, which is now a maquette at the Warner Bros. store. At some point, we’ll do Wonder Woman…we just need to fight that battle when we get to it (courtesy of [website name removed]).”
That was for the TV series. The newer incarnations of the characters were rebooted to the present day. For Candy, the comics routinely made her a soldier or an intelligence officer sometimes who worked for Trevor (who was non-existent for a whole chunk of the post-Crisis Wonder Woman). The current version of Etta Candy is an African American working for the DC version of SHIELD.
Do you mean the TV show? Etta only appears in Season One. In the comics, Etta stops appearing around 1951 and doesn't reappear until 1960. She's dropped again in the mid 1960's and doesn't reappear until the WW book shifts to WWII and Earth 2 in an attempt to tie into the TV show in the 70's.
The great thing about Diana being long-lived (as opposed to being frozen until modern times) is that they can do sequels set whenever they want. Another period piece, one set after BvS, one set in modern times but before BvS....it's all on the table. (Depending on how WW ends of course, but they'd be silly to make it in a way that completely rules out more period material.)
Diana is, but Steve and Etta aren't. Patty hinted that she'd like to work with this cast on another one, so odds are it would be set in the late 20s or 30s.
What I mean is, Diana isn't frozen in ice or anything like that at the end of her first film, so there's little that stands in the way of doing more WW1 period stuff.
i suppose a whole movie is too much to ask but I hope one of these movies manages to give us a flashback to a gloriously 70s Wonder Woman at some point. I mean a 40s Superman, a 60s Fantastic Four, a 70s Wonder Woman and Luke Cage and Iron Fist. Is this so much to ask?