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

[Crimson Knight]

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

Out of interest, did Huffington Post write that stuff complaining about Cyborg and stuff therein, out of interest?

Bit uncomfortable imagery, all the same, but get what you mean.

And, I'm up for them all - ESPECIALLY symbiote movies.

[Crimson Knight]

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.

Wonder Woman is the first in the DC Cinematic Universe, while Captain Marvel is the first in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Both equal therein, and WW is the first of the current wave of hero films, female lead wise. 2018 for Carol, 2017 for Diana.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

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.

The article begs the simple question: what makes this movie unique? Um, that's what we're telling you. Its the first superhero movie in a long time, and the first in either of these two universes, where the lead role is going to belong to a woman. The "crowded superhero landscape" the article is referring to is the landscape that was created in 2008 with the first Iron Man movie and one that, up until now, has been almost exclusively about male characters.

This movie is also the first superhero movie ever about a female character who has owned her identity from the very start. Unlike Supergirl or Catwoman or Elektra or even Captain Marvel, Diana was never a legacy or supporting character of a male character before being able to move out on her own. She started out on her own writers built her own corner of the DC Universe that wasn't in the shadow of the company's male characters.

This isn't about discounting Marvel's accomplishments, its about the fact that this is the first movie, from either DC or Marvel, since the beginning of their official "universes" to have a female lead will allow it to make a statement and give it its own identity. And, you know, it really is right that Diana's is the first of the official canon universe movies to be about a female character. Wonder Woman is THE superheroine of comics. She's the most recognizable and easily the most influential female character in comics (maybe even all of pop culture).

[Brian from Canada]

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.

Supergirl is a spinoff film created because Chris Reeve and Margot Kidder were in the middle of negotiations for higher salaries. But I will grant that it was a female superhero film. Catwoman I discount because the connections between comic character and film are stretched quite far.

[Brian from Canada]

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.

Sony's plan was never set in stone. They have Garfield signed to three films, and that was always the goal. However, the idea of the Sinister Six didn't show up until midway through the production of Amazing Spider-Man 2, at which point it looked clear that was where they were headed. Since Venom doesn't fit in — and someone at Sony has a hard on for the symbiote, given the way it was pushed on Raimi as well — they started floating the idea of a solo film. Then, most likely, they looked at what Marvel was doing with Spider-Woman, Silk and Black Cat and figured they could turn in a film that connected with the social media craze for calling on comics to be less misogynistic.

However, all that said, none of the dates have specific films. Amazing Spider-Man 3 lost its director and got shifted to the next date, so a later film is going to be likely shuffled in first — though they have no idea who is writing or directing or starring in it as of yet.

It's the same with Fox. Fox's original plan going into Days of Future Past was that X-Force would come first, then Apocalypse. Now, the films are reversed and a Deadpool solo film got slotted in.

NEITHER studio is being talked about as having a plan like WB or Marvel. Marvel started the whole idea of cycles, and that's their only system. WB had to copy the system in order to gain momentum, but they prefer playing things more cautiously because they know from experience how much a single film can trip up a cycle. That's why Harry Potter only got set release dates near the end; if one failed, the whole series would stop right there.

(In Marvel's case, of course, big failure would shut the whole division down.)

[Brian from Canada]

The article begs the simple question: what makes this movie unique? Um, that's what we're telling you. Its the first superhero movie in a long time, and the first in either of these two universes, where the lead role is going to belong to a woman. The "crowded superhero landscape" the article is referring to is the landscape that was created in 2008 with the first Iron Man movie and one that, up until now, has been exclusively about male characters.

See, here I disagree. As much as people want to go on about the gender of the character, what makes Wonder Woman unique in the crowded superhero landscape is the same thing that Aquaman and The Flash will do as well — bring a key icon of comicdom to feature films at long last.

For all that some writers are going on about the higher buzz for Captain Marvel, they fail to realize three things about that buzz: first and foremost, Marvel's market presence at the moment, especially at a time when the entertainment mass media really can't understand why Superman v Batman is being delayed to 2016 when it could be rushed to 2015 like Marvel's Fox movies or anything else Marvel does; second, that Wonder Woman has never gotten further than the script stage and they don't expect it to by experience; and, lastly, with Marvel succeeding at B-level heroes now that the A-listers are done, there are a number of critics who are delving into the Marvel stable for good suggestions at a time when WB is getting the same thing done on television on a weekly basis.

It makes a huge difference when general entertainment websites are running whole articles about how Bobbi Morse differs in the comics from Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D., but doesn't touch on (say) Ra's Al Ghul, Firestorm — or even The Flash — over at CW because it's a 'pseudo-network' that's not got enough viewership to matter. Even though Arrow and The Flash are getting good reviews all around.

But, as I noted above, Batman v Superman has the backing of one of the biggest entertainment conglomerates in the world, and will have the added buzz of being the first time that the two biggest icons in comics (no offence, zombies, but they are) go into the same film together. Affleck as Batman, right after an Oscar and rave reviews of his other performances (like Gone, Girl) is enough to pique critical interest. The buzz factor on WB's DC holdings will be huge next summer onwards.

Until then, WB has to deal with The Hobbit and Man From U.N.C.L.E. — and they have a new Harry Potter prequel getting attention too. We'll see super hype for Star Wars: Rise Of The Force. And don't forget that Craig's second-last Bond is due soon, Mission: Impossible 5 is filming now, and 2016 is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Just because Wonder Woman isn't making the water cooler rounds doesn't mean it's not going to join those tentpole pictures either.

[Calighoula]

Sony's plan was never set in stone. They have Garfield signed to three films, and that was always the goal. However, the idea of the Sinister Six didn't show up until midway through the production of Amazing Spider-Man 2, at which point it looked clear that was where they were headed. Since Venom doesn't fit in — and someone at Sony has a hard on for the symbiote, given the way it was pushed on Raimi as well —

Arad wasn't shy about insisting Venom be shoehorned into Spider-Man 3. He even thought Fantastic Four was going to kick ass.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

See, here I disagree. As much as people want to go on about the gender of the character, what makes Wonder Woman unique in the crowded superhero landscape is the same thing that Aquaman and The Flash will do as well — bring a key icon of comicdom to feature films at long last.

Come on. You can't deny that the fact that she is comics' feminist superhero icon, pretty much the precursor of all other female heroines to come afterwards, has at least a little something to do with it.

[Rogue Star]

See, here I disagree. As much as people want to go on about the gender of the character, what makes Wonder Woman unique in the crowded superhero landscape is the same thing that Aquaman and The Flash will do as well — bring a key icon of comicdom to feature films at long last.

I agree with this. I don't think it can be argued that Captain Marvel is anywhere near Wonder Woman in terms of notoriety. Not only that but Captain America, the Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man are all more known among the general public than Captain Marvel is (they have even been in multiple fighting game crossovers with Street Fighter characters). As much as I would have loved to see a superpowered female on the first Avengers team, I understand why Marvel made the choices that they did, even in phase 2. The same can't be said for DC - they absolutely had to include Wonder Woman on the Justice League because of how popular she is. Marvel did not have a character to compete with Wonder Woman so why do we slam them for not bringing in Captain Marvel sooner? If you want to argue that they could have had a person of color on the first Avenger's team, hey, I'd probably be with you. But concerning the DC fans who praise DC for "being the first to have a female led superhero movie," it was not a fight that Marvel could win to begin with. Even if Marvel did release Captain Marvel first, or had an Avengers team with Wasp on it, people would probably still give DC a pat on the back for producing a movie with a "better" female super-heroine. So, my confusion about how DC is one upping still exists. There is no need to treat this as a competition of the super-heroines.

[Brian from Canada]

Even if Marvel did release Captain Marvel first, or had an Avengers team with Wasp on it, people would probably still give DC a pat on the back for producing a movie with a "better" female super-heroine. So, my confusion about how DC is one upping still exists. There is no need to treat this as a competition of the super-heroines.

The competition for super-heroines was always about solo films. Go back a year, right before the pronouncement that Wonder Woman was going to be in Superman v Batman and the central push amongst commentators was that WB was behind because it looked like Marvel would beat them to a solo film for a female hero in its cinematic universe (with that heroine expected to be Black Widow). Had Marvel beaten WB to the first female-centric solo film, then little praise could be made for WB following suit — especially when it was with an icon who should have been there at the beginning.

As far as nearly everyone was concerned, Wonder Woman was a regularly missed opportunity. Whedon's script — which was never finished, and rewrites never done to satisfaction — is still talked about as the great "it could have" moment in WB films… and she should have been out there on her own BEFORE Green Lantern for most.

And that's, perhaps, why media entertainment critics have a hate on for DC at the moment. From the start, WB has seemed to neglect the DC stable in favour of Batman and Superman, leaving other heroes to languish such as Wonder Woman and The Flash. Even Green Lantern's failure was being treated with a "hope they do better on the next non-Bat/Super" hero out of the stable. While, in contrast, Marvel's two biggest icons at this moment, Wolverine & Spider-Man, had full going franchises already and they were now moving into the top of the B-team with Iron Man, Captain America and Hulk. (Thor, for all that people push him as being a central pillar of the Marvel Universe, was not a key part of their marketing platform in the 70s and 80s in the way that those five I mentioned were; Silver Surfer got more exposure.)

Add in the negative social media press about how DC screwed the universe up with New 52 and the (false) accusations they are racist/sexist/fill-in-the-blank-ist and the hate increases. Marvel has been able to deflect the criticisms by turning the attention away with waves of new press releases, something DC at the moment isn't doing because DC is focusing on in-house issues rather than out-house.

So Marvel was expected to win the race, and now WB will be doing it. Marvel is getting more buzz, though, because the WB franchise hasn't been seen and there's a general belief that Man Of Steel and Green Lantern are the norm for WB — bad movies — as opposed to Marvel. If WB gets it done right, as they defied critics on television by lasting ten years on Smallville, and doing it again with Arrow and The Flash in terms of proof of quality, then that will change.

But everyone will be curious about Wonder Woman when it comes out, especially if Gadot is passable in the prequel. Until then, WB has to focus its attention on other movies — non-superhero movies — a luxury that Marvel can't afford. Marvel has no Hobbit or Man From U.N.C.L.E. coming to abut its output the way WB has, and so is only going to keep the message on its 4 hero movies per year.

[Mike Steele]

You're assuming that audiences aren't into movies about Greek myth. Um...how many movies have there been about Greek gods, again? Clash of the Titans (both original and remake), the Percy Jackson movies, Troy (2004), Immortals (the one Henry Cavill starred in), Hercules (the one Dwayne Johnson just starred in), etc.

And, oh my god, Feige said something he heard from a bunch of comic fans. Oh, of course everyone knows that comic fans are representative of the larger movie audience......

Plus, there is the little fact that Wonder Woman IS America's feminist icon. People all over the country know who she is. Whenever you ask little girls who their favorite superhero is, a lot of them will say Wonder Woman, because she's the only superheroine that is incredibly familiar to them.

Not many people know Captain Marvel at all. That'll probably change with the movie, but as of now, people will prob recognize Diana over Carol. When Carol is on the cover of Ms. Magazine, then we'll talk.

EDIT: Also, I love this argument you make about people not being able to relate to the daughter of the king of the Greek gods. Meanwhile, we have the son of the king of Norse gods running around in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, fighting alongside a bunch of mere mortals. Yeah, that's so much more believable.

I didn't say that people won't be able to relate to Wonder Woman, just that they may be able to relate to Captain Marvel more easily. I think that Thor was a tough sell also, but that Marvel did a fantastic job of pulling it off. We'll see if DC can do the same. Wonder Woman does have the advantage of a wider public knowledge of her (possibly undermined by the fact that her appearance isn't that similar to the costume the public is familiar with), and Captain Marvel has the advantage of being tied to the hugely successful Marvel Cinematic Universe (and I suspect being a key movie connecting to Avengers: Infinity War). I suspect Captain Marvel may be more successful at the Box Office, but that is just a hunch. It will largely depend on the quality of both movies, and probably the comparative success of the Cinematic Universes at that time.

[Mike Steele]

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.

I just don't understand why some people are not counting Superhero movies like Elektra, Catwoman, and Supergirl. Neither Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel are remotely in the running for being the first female lead in a Superhero movie. Just because those movies weren't part of a connected Cinematic Universe or were made before 2008 doesn't discount them. And really, you could say they were part of cinematic universes, since Elektra was tied to the Daredevil movie and I think Supergirl was connected vaguely to the Superman movies. Catwoman was clearly in it's own continuity though.

[Ben K.]

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.

I don't understand giving them props for efforts. As you've said, we've already seen several female led super hero films. They should get props for it actually being the first good one, not for being the first in ten years.

[Jim Kelly]

I just don't understand why some people are not counting Superhero movies like Elektra, Catwoman, and Supergirl. Neither Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel are remotely in the running for being the first female lead in a Superhero movie. Just because those movies weren't part of a connected Cinematic Universe or were made before 2008 doesn't discount them. And really, you could say they were part of cinematic universes, since Elektra was tied to the Daredevil movie and I think Supergirl was connected vaguely to the Superman movies. Catwoman was clearly in it's own continuity though.

It's just some arbitrary rule that fans have invented that allows them to play this game of "Who is First." When it comes to the public, no one is going to buy into that logic. They will remember Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra. They will also remember TV's Wonder Woman and the Bionic Woman. But some fans don't want to think about that, they just want to play their game--so let 'em. It doesn't matter.

[superfictious]

Not that I buy into the "being the first" argument any more than you, Rogue Star, but let's look at it this way: all things being equal, Marvel's always had the advantage in putting out a solo superheroine movie at any time the last 7 years, so DC deserves a bit of credit for beating them to it.

Now, hear me out. The advantage lies in a number of points:

1. Marvel's always (sometimes fraudulently, imo) received credit for its diversity among comics characters in comparison to DC. In particular, its Avengers and X-Men properties is known for having strong, interesting women.

2. While known for diversity of gender and sex, Marvel's never been "burdened" with a truly iconic minority character on the level of Wonder Woman at DC.

3. Marvel Studios has been able to write its own ticket for the last 5 years years. It could've made any movie it wanted starring any character it wanted and its vocal, sometimes annoyingly and excessively loyal, fanbase would've drowned out any criticism.

4. Marvel Studios has Joss friggin' Whedon on its payroll, feminist icon and creator of Buffy the friggin' Vampire Slayer.

Now, how do these points give Marvel an advantage in the "first" (snicker...no I'm not the type to discount Supergirl, Elecktra, and Catwoman just because the majority male fanbase like to gleefully point out they sucked) solo superheroine movie? Marvel had a larger stable of "good" minority characters to choose from in comparison to DC (at least that's how fandom portrays it), Marvel never had to deal with the external social pressure and potential backlash if its superheroine movie 'failed' (and I use that term loosely since most fans can't agree on what the hell 'fail' means) since, hey, it's not like they'd have failed at putting an icon like Wonder Woman on the screen (and I'm sure the Zombies would've blamed the failure on the character itself, as it did with Edgar Wright, Terrance Howard, the underpaid interns, etc., but never Marvel), Marvel Studios success (and Fox X-Men franchise's success too) put it in a position to make any movie it wanted starring any of it's "good" female or minority characters (and don't tell me Marvel couldn't have nudged Fox to follow through on that purported Storm movie, and Marvel had the perfect (well, for a dude) feminist director to pull it all off.

All the stars were aligned to do it at any time, yet WB/DC will beat them to the punch with a character that's the 8 million pound gorilla in the room. Not to mention their stable of movies will star not only white dudes, but people of different ethnicities and nationalities. It's fair to say that WB/DC should rightfully win the PR battle here.

Of course, it won't be worth spit if the movies all suck.