Can "Wonder Woman" Make Its Mark in a Crowded Superhero Movie Landscape?

[Rogue Star]

No, her movie comes out before Carol's does so it's still "first superhero film with a female lead"

Lots of superhero movies have had female leads already. I'm sure I don't have to name even one before one comes to your mind. My correction is still correct.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

It just takes one hand wave of imagination to see an entire DC multiverse on screen. If you consider that every screen version of a DC character exists in a vast multiverse (going all the way back to the 1940s--and if you include Warner Brothers cartoons, the 1930s) then DC is truly deep in a multiverse. This hasn't been expressly stated yet (I have hopes for THE FLASH), but the moment it is then every DC screen version instantly becomes connected to every other screen version for their audience. There's no stopping us from already seeing it that way.

Geoff Johns noted this when discussing why DC's TV properties and movies properties were separate: Multiverse.

[Supermutant2099]

My worry is that the casting of the main character is way off to me. Then instead of taking the better approach with character like George Prez take they go with New 52 one which is way worse. I wanted to like the new book after JMS nightmare but from the start it was bad. Didn't help Johns wants his fan boy dream love with superman. Now I be excited if movies started in 40s like original comic/tv show but no the is the 20s? That's totally random. I know second will supposly go 40s but you starting off on the wrong foot already. There seems to be to many issues with the movie especially if the costume is the one we see superman/batman movie. Ugh that is ugly. Don't get me wrong I would have love to see a wonder woman movie but this one? If it continues with what supposedly it will then this going to be as bad as the FF Movie coming.

[Rogue Star]

Geoff Johns noted this when discussing why DC's TV properties and movies properties were separate: Multiverse.

Man, I'd love to see the Adam West Batman somehow cross over into The Dark Knight Rises' Gotham!

[Top Carnivore]

No, her movie comes out before Carol's does so it's still "first superhero film with a female lead"

WW is the very first superhero film featuring a female to come out of this new golden age of comic book movies started by Iron Man in 2008.

As much as I've criticized Warner for neglecting WW, she is also the second character (after SM in MOS) who'll receive the solo treatment in this new DC shared verse. Again, the second character. Marvel has had 6 yrs to do a female-led film, but it'll take exactly 10 yrs and many other solos (including Ant-man?) for the Marvel verse to get to Capt Marvel.

Also, people are kidding themselves if they don't think BvS is the most holtly anticipated film. When the geek sites like Schmoes Know look at analytics for their site, BvS related articles get monster hits compared to Avengers2 and even Star Wars 7. I should add that BvS does have to deliver or it will deflate interest in future DC movies. But when someone like Ben Affleck, an Oscar-award winning screenwriter and moviemaker, says the story will blow everyone's minds, I'm inclined to be very optimistic.

And WW is making her debut in THAT movie.

[Rogue Star]

Good on DC for being the first in this new era to announce a female led superhero film, and good on Marvel for not compromising the quality of their plans just to keep up with what another company is doing (as good as diversity is). I'd rather have them stick to a plan than be without a plan.

[Brian from Canada]

Lots of superhero movies have had female leads already. I'm sure I don't have to name even one before one comes to your mind. My correction is still correct.

Actually, your correction is wrong. Most of the superhero feature films stemming out of the "big two" have had female leads, but they are romantic interests who don't take on the role as active participant in driving the adventure forward as a hero. The only exception to this rule was Catwoman, and the less you can say about THAT disaster, the better.

X-Men starred Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman. Halle Berry only got a co-star bill, she was never the first name. Avengers starred Robert Downey Jr., not Scarlet Johansen. She's not a solo character leading the team, she's a backing character coming with.

So, in the big scheme of things, Wonder Woman IS the first superhero feature film with a solid lead female -- just as she is the first on television and in animation. Shanna The She-Devil is about the only television exception I can think of that's comic related, and Red Sonja for movies, but neither are superheroes: they are pulled in by a desire for shared universe by both comic publishers.

[Brian from Canada]

Good on DC for being the first in this new era to announce a female led superhero film, and good on Marvel for not compromising the quality of their plans just to keep up with what another company is doing (as good as diversity is). I'd rather have them stick to a plan than be without a plan.

Marvel's "plan," though, was haphazard at best. The post-credits scene in Iron Man and Incredible Hulk were a way of tying the two films together, but they were an experiment to see if the audience wanted more of a connected universe -- many people forget that if Iron Man bombed, Marvel would lose all cinematic rights to the character as a result of the contract they signed with Paramount/Manhattan Chase.

When Marvel did have an idea they were heading to Avengers, they still didn't have a plot set in stone. Hence why Iron Man 2 is so disjointed: Whedon was still undecided as to what was happening, and Favreau had to leave things open. With Avengers 2, they are not connecting any of the solo films because the plan is to now hit other corners in case they become too much of a rut.

In WB's case, the plan was to first get out of Nolan's contract, since Nolan had the exclusive rights to Batman on film and would not allow Batman to be shared with other heroes (The Dark Knight was not a world of wonders). Man Of Steel was made because the lawsuit against the heirs required them to show active process on the character.

Batman vs Superman is the FIRST film in the plan, and they are keeping the Man Of Steel cast because it did well enough at the box office to warrant them staying in those characters.

But when it comes to Wonder Woman, expect Batman v Superman to ignite interest in her and the others in much the same way that Iron Man did for Thor and Captain America. Thor in particular was a hard sell beforehand, given his one TV live action appearance.

The entertainment press are focused on Marvel because Marvel has nothing else OTHER than hero films at the moment, the last being box office winner, the next an animated film this month, and the one after that the big film of summer 2015 as WB still hasn't advertised its summer films -- WB has The Hobbit to deal with first, and there's also Harry Potter to deal with.

Expect things to change drastically as we get to SDCC 2015 and the first footage of Batman v Superman kicks the WB machine into gear. WB has a LOT of marketing power we haven't seen yet, while Marvel's already at full steam and about to get surpassed.

[Rogue Star]

. .. The only exception to this rule was Catwoman, and the less you can say about THAT disaster, the better...

So, in the big scheme of things, Wonder Woman IS the first superhero feature film with a solid lead female -- just as she is the first on television and in animation...

Solid or not, that really wasn't the point being made. Catwoman and Supergirl already have movies that they have headlined. That's the point. I don't mean to take anything away from Wonder Woman - I like her - but she's not the first female to lead a superhero movie. Now, ig you want to argue that she's the first solid or good one, you can but you shouldn't because the movie has yet to be seen.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

"... her movie will be the first superhero film [in the DC cinematic universe] with a female lead."

There. That's much better.

Solid or not, that really wasn't the point being made. Catwoman and Supergirl already have movies that they have headlined. That's the point. I don't mean to take anything away from Wonder Woman - I like her - but she's not the first female to lead a superhero movie. Now, ig you want to argue that she's the first solid or good one, you can but you shouldn't because the movie has yet to be seen.

Okay, how about this, she's the first in both the DC and Marvel Cinematic universes to get her own film.

She's also the first female superhero, whose origin isn't tied to or wholly dependent on a male character/counterpart, to get her own movie. Hell, even Captain Marvel can't claim that right. I don't really count Supergirl (1984), Catwoman (2004), or Elektra (2005) because those characters are derivations or supporting characters of male characters that came before them: Supergirl for Superman, Catwoman for Batman, and Elektra for Daredevil. Going to see those movies, people mostly thought of the male characters they came from. Plus, they all bombed.

So, yes, Wonder Woman is the first to really get her own moment in the spotlight.

Also, she is the first female character to get the solo treatment in today's modern age of superhero movies. All other female characters that have appeared in movies like Fantastic Four, Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy are either only part of an ensemble cast or have no other role but to puff up the main male lead.

[Jim Kelly]

"Breaking up is like knocking over a Coke machine. You can't do it in one push. You gotta rock it back and forth a few times, and then it goes over."
- Jerry, in "The Voice," SEINFELD

I would say the same principle applies to comic book movies. You can't expect the first one of its kind to be the big success. It may take a few tries. You gotta rock it back and forth. Whatever succcess DC or Marvel may have is owing to the Coke machine being rocked a few times.

[Rogue Star]

Marvel's "plan," though, was haphazard at best. The post-credits scene in Iron Man and Incredible Hulk were a way of tying the two films together, but they were an experiment to see if the audience wanted more of a connected universe -- many people forget that if Iron Man bombed, Marvel would lose all cinematic rights to the character as a result of the contract they signed with Paramount/Manhattan Chase.

When Marvel did have an idea they were heading to Avengers, they still didn't have a plot set in stone. Hence why Iron Man 2 is so disjointed: Whedon was still undecided as to what was happening, and Favreau had to leave things open. With Avengers 2, they are not connecting any of the solo films because the plan is to now hit other corners in case they become too much of a rut.

In WB's case, the plan was to first get out of Nolan's contract, since Nolan had the exclusive rights to Batman on film and would not allow Batman to be shared with other heroes (The Dark Knight was not a world of wonders). Man Of Steel was made because the lawsuit against the heirs required them to show active process on the character.

Batman vs Superman is the FIRST film in the plan, and they are keeping the Man Of Steel cast because it did well enough at the box office to warrant them staying in those characters.

But when it comes to Wonder Woman, expect Batman v Superman to ignite interest in her and the others in much the same way that Iron Man did for Thor and Captain America. Thor in particular was a hard sell beforehand, given his one TV live action appearance.

The entertainment press are focused on Marvel because Marvel has nothing else OTHER than hero films at the moment, the last being box office winner, the next an animated film this month, and the one after that the big film of summer 2015 as WB still hasn't advertised its summer films -- WB has The Hobbit to deal with first, and there's also Harry Potter to deal with.

Expect things to change drastically as we get to SDCC 2015 and the first footage of Batman v Superman kicks the WB machine into gear. WB has a LOT of marketing power we haven't seen yet, while Marvel's already at full steam and about to get surpassed.

I was praising Marvel for sticking to their plan even after the WB/DC announced their plans, rather than being pressured to change course, like say... SONY. All that other stuff is beyond my concern.

[Rogue Star]

Double post. Well played CBR forums. Well played.

[Rogue Star]

Okay, how about this, she's the first in both the DC and Marvel Cinematic universes to get her own film.

She's also the first female superhero, whose origin isn't tied to or wholly dependent on a male character/counterpart, to get her own movie. Hell, even Captain Marvel can't claim that right. I don't really count Supergirl (1984), Catwoman (2004), or Elektra (2005) because those characters are derivations or supporting characters of male characters that came before them: Supergirl for Superman, Catwoman for Batman, and Elektra for Daredevil. Going to see those movies, people mostly thought of the male characters they came from. Plus, they all bombed.

So, yes, Wonder Woman is the first to really get her own moment in the spotlight.

Also, she is the first female character to get the solo treatment in today's modern age of superhero movies. All other female characters that have appeared in movies like Fantastic Four, Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy are either only part of an ensemble cast or have no other role but to puff up the main male lead.

If we're talking about this new era, yes, she is the first. (by the way, I don't like ignoring all the movies that came before Iron Man in 2008. It's so unfair to a lot of good movies. That's what the world is doing though, so... moving on.) What really baffles me is that people are pulling this whole thing out like it's some sort of trump card. Does this undo all of Marvel's achievements? Or is this some sort of race for second place? I'm trying to understand why it is so important that Wonder Woman is the first something.

[Shimbo]

I was praising Marvel for sticking to their plan even after the WB/DC announced their plans, rather than being pressured to change course, like say... SONY. All that other stuff is beyond my concern.

The difference is that it'll take over 10 movies with straight white male leads and 10 years since Iron Man in 2008 to get to Carol Danvers. If Marvel wanted to make a Captain Marvel movie earlier, they could have. There was no preordained order of what properties had to be chosen and in what order. Marvel decided they would start with Iron Man and then they did Hulk. The Hulk made less money than predicted, so guess what? Iron Man 2! No way! And they decided they would pick Cap and Thor to be the other flagship franchises. But it didn't have to be Iron Man, Cap, and Thor who all happened to be relatively unknown to the general audience. Marvel could easily have replaced Thor with Captain Marvel and decided she would be one of their flagship franchises, but they didn't. I'm not saying they necessarily should have, but I think people like to **** on WB and DC (and often for the right reasons) while praising Marvel as if they couldn't be more perfect. But as part of this shared cinematic universe that is starting with BvS, Wonder Woman will be the second solo film it will be coming out a year after BvS is released. While WB/DC have had difficulty in handling and marketing Diana, they seem to be confident in a Wonder Woman movie. And hopefully the movie will be amazing and I'll cry joyous tears before, during, and after the movie and then proceed to watch it 10 times. But I'll give WB props for the effort, even if they end up making a shitty movie. I truly hope not though.