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

[Mike Steele]

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.

Actually, while Marvel has had some strong female characters in team books and occasional solo books, DC has had the advantage in female characters that have been able to hold solo titles for long periods of time. Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Batgirl have been much more successful in solo titles than any Marvel characters. Marvel is really making an effort now to change that, but for most of history DC has had the most successful solo female titles (led of course by Wonder Woman).

I'm not sure why you would see an iconic character like Wonder Woman as a burden. DC should have a huge advantage in making a Wonder Woman movie given her longevity and popularity, and the goodwill earned through the TV series. No matter how large Marvel's fanbase is (and DC certainly has its own passionate fanbase), that doesn't outweigh the branding with the general population that Wonder Woman already has.

[superfictious]

Actually, while Marvel has had some strong female characters in team books and occasional solo books, DC has had the advantage in female characters that have been able to hold solo titles for long periods of time. Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Batgirl have been much more successful in solo titles than any Marvel characters. Marvel is really making an effort now to change that, but for most of history DC has had the most successful solo female titles (led of course by Wonder Woman).

I'm not sure why you would see an iconic character like Wonder Woman as a burden. DC should have a huge advantage in making a Wonder Woman movie given her longevity and popularity, and the goodwill earned through the TV series. No matter how large Marvel's fanbase is (and DC certainly has its own passionate fanbase), that doesn't outweigh the branding with the general population that Wonder Woman already has.

I actually agree with you on that. The burdensome part always stemmed from the perception that Wonder Woman is the one icon WB/DC absolutely cannot screw up. Crappy Batman and Superman movies? We can deal with that. We can laugh at GL's yellow turd monster and Bat-nipples and Superman snapping mofo's necks and feeling up Lois Lane in the aftermath, even if that laughter is only to drown out our silent fanboy sobs.

But messing up Woman Woman on the big screen? Ho Ly Sheet. A bad Wonder Woman movie, in this Tumblr day and age, will end all things. Tectonic plates will shift. Birds will fall from the sky. Fetuses will commit suicide in a display of pre-birth feminist angst.

At least that's how the meat-factory execs see it. I'm sure the truth is a lot more tame, but among the DC pantheon Wonder Woman is the only superficial representative of The Other (well, since J'onn's been demoted and John Stewart isn't the default GL in the majority's eyes). WB did itself a favor with the hiring of Rock, Mamoa, and by elevating Cyborg to elite status, but Diana is still the only member of the Holy Trinity that's not the "default". She's not only a woman, but she's exotic, and she was raised by what's possibly a society of multicultural gender-queer butt-kicking warrior chicks who worship non-Christian/Muslim/Judaic gods. A lot of groups have a lot of personal feeling riding on her success.

Yes, WB should've been confident enough to make a WW movie by now. This should've been done a decade ago. But I get the hesitation, even if I don't agree with it.

[Lady Warp Spasm]

The kind that Marvel is handing out I bet.

LOL. I'll skip that dope. I will see Wonder Woman instead of Captain Marvel (I'm one of those very few who would gladly see a Sif or Black Widow movie instead.)

Wonder Woman and Aquaman are the two DC films I am really looking forward to.

[Legato]

LOL. I'll skip that dope. I will see Wonder Woman instead of Captain Marvel (I'm one of those very few who would gladly see a Sif or Black Widow movie instead.)

Wonder Woman and Aquaman are the two DC films I am really looking forward to.

For me it's Wonder Woman and currently Suicide Squad. I'd probably still see Captain Marvel, not going with the stupid Shazam name, in support of my man The Rock as Black Adam.

[Crimson Knight]

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.

I agree about sorting out the in house, if true, because of you don't focus on the inside of your house, then things on the outside could go very badly indeed, and stuff like PR, press, BIG changes and announcement stuff might not ultimately matter.

And, sure, who knows? Let them simmer enough, and they might, but probably wouldn't, end up, eventually, with a bankruptcy situation, as Marvel neared around the 90s if I'm not mistaken. Something which ultimately led to Sub-Mariner at Universal, Spider-Man and Ghost Rider at Sony, Punisher at Lionsgate, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and X-Men at Fox, at Iron Man and other respective properties in either one of the aforementioned places, or others.

And, though that ultimately worked out, financially, survival wise, and with rights reversions like possibly Namor, and then Blade, or DD, Punisher, Iron Man and probably others.

So, might be better to get the ol' house in order, or better order, as it were, than to shuffle on, and push forward announcements that might go somewhere, at risk of larger losses, or ultimately not going anywhere, as some likely don't.

And, when you say prequel there, do you mean the Wonder Woman film itself? As, that MAY be a prequel, set in 1920s, sequel in World War II and 3rd film in modern times, but it's not for definite, as far as I know.

Or, do you mean the film that precedes the WW film, Dawn of Justice? Also, very pedantic of me, sorry, and I know what you mean, and apologise if this annoys you, but DOJ is Batman v Superman, rather than the reverse, though for all I know, that's a preference on your part, and will leave that be then.

[devil leonx]

Actually, while Marvel has had some strong female characters in team books and occasional solo books, DC has had the advantage in female characters that have been able to hold solo titles for long periods of time. Wonder Woman, Catwoman, and Batgirl have been much more successful in solo titles than any Marvel characters. Marvel is really making an effort now to change that, but for most of history DC has had the most successful solo female titles (led of course by Wonder Woman).

I'm not sure why you would see an iconic character like Wonder Woman as a burden. DC should have a huge advantage in making a Wonder Woman movie given her longevity and popularity, and the goodwill earned through the TV series. No matter how large Marvel's fanbase is (and DC certainly has its own passionate fanbase), that doesn't outweigh the branding with the general population that Wonder Woman already has.

That is quite true actually, I think if they just give her great character development plus some good fantasy action we have not seen before she will be just fine and might stand out in a good way .

[Nick Miller]

If you dont think WW is going to destroy the box office you are crazy

1 Billion easy

[Randumbz]

If you dont think WW is going to destroy the box office you are crazy

1 Billion easy

What are you basing this insane claim on?

[PretenderNX01]

I'll be happy if Wonder Woman does better than Wolverine. That way we can at least say there are guys who earn less at the box office.

Maybe it'll make Man of Steel money, I doubt it will do Dark Knight money. It could equal Thor or some of Marvel's other 200 million dollar movies. Not everything Marvel does make GotG dough either.

It has the benefit of being different. People don't just want the same thing over and over, just having a woman doing the heroics might be enough to seem different to potential audiences looking for more. Plus Wonder Woman has the name recognition as a character, she doesn't need a name actor to get publicity.

Iron Man needed a Robert Downey Jr, Batman and Superman could use That Guy Who's In That Thing. Wonder Woman can also use That One Lady Who Was In That Movie.

[Triple J]

I'll be happy if Wonder Woman does better than Wolverine. That way we can at least say there are guys who earn less at the box office.

Maybe it'll make Man of Steel money, I doubt it will do Dark Knight money. It could equal Thor or some of Marvel's other 200 million dollar movies. Not everything Marvel does make GotG dough either.

It has the benefit of being different. People don't just want the same thing over and over, just having a woman doing the heroics might be enough to seem different to potential audiences looking for more. Plus Wonder Woman has the name recognition as a character, she doesn't need a name actor to get publicity.

Iron Man needed a Robert Downey Jr, Batman and Superman could use That Guy Who's In That Thing. Wonder Woman can also use That One Lady Who Was In That Movie.

That might be a disadvantage too...Look at Watchmen.

Radically different from any other CBMs...so, not so well accepted among general audience (doesn't mean it was a bad movie. I liked it. Sure, it had its flaws, but it was one of the best CBMs out there, based on one of the best graphic novels).

Of course, Watchmen was too different. That might not be the case with WW.

[devil leonx]

That might be a disadvantage too...Look at Watchmen.

Radically different from any other CBMs...so, not so well accepted among general audience (doesn't mean it was a bad movie. I liked it. Sure, it had its flaws, but it was one of the best CBMs out there, based on one of the best graphic novels).

Of course, Watchmen was too different. That might not be the case with WW.

I also think Watchmen was a bit too long and complicated for the average viewer...not saying I change anything I would leave it as is! Well maybe put the squid back...but as is its fine too.

[PretenderNX01]

Of course, Watchmen was too different. That might not be the case with WW.

Watchmen was dark and kinda talky and maybe too weird. It's a dark and talky, weird comic.
Kind of like Sin City.

Wonder Woman is different but not too different. Like Wolverine is different from Batman who is different from Spider-Man who should be more different than Superman although I like Man of Steel. I don't think WW's differences will be too much. It'll be a pretty straight up hero's journey but with a mythic element and lead by a woman.

[Nick Miller]

What are you basing this insane claim on?

World wide.

Iconic superhero. First woman lead. And I feel it's the right time. Also we will have a female President when it comes out.

[Rogue Star]

World wide.

Iconic superhero. First woman lead. And I feel it's the right time. Also we will have a female President when it comes out.

What do you mean by first woman lead? And don't mistake notoriety for popularity.

[LoganAlpha30X33]

I wonder how they'll play the island of women part, you could put your mind in the gutter and figure out what I mean, though they could use that to their advantage as well...wonder if someone would ask WW what her orientation was given all of that. I don't think that the movie has to do well but if it were to do badly that could derail a lot of things, like that terrible Green Lantern movie. Also the outfit would be debated for years regardless of which version they went with...and who would be her romantic interest, Steve Trevor, Superman, Batman...