All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 4

[misslane38]

I don't follow your logic. DC has been owned by WB for decades now and Marvel Studios is hardly a decade old. WB has always had way more time to make proper use of not just their female characters, but the DC library as a whole, and they haven't, with increasingly embarrassing results. So..... what point are you trying to make here?

Their lack of action has more to do with the ebbs and flows of superhero filmmaking than lack of initiative for female characters, I suspect. The DCEU has only existed for 5 years. Meanwhile, the X-Men Universe and the MCU have existed for far longer, more continuously, and more successfully, yet there hasn't been a solo X-Men female led film, like Storm, or an MCU female-led film like Captain Marvel (until now). Despite less enthusiasm for superhero films and less public support for female-centric narratives in previous decades, DC still was able to put out Supergirl and Catwoman. They weren't successful, but they did try. As soon as the DCEU was formed, Wonder Woman was a priority. Meanwhile, the MCU dragged their feet.

 

[MbJ]

Black Panther is also likely to do better than a lot of other MCU movies.

It's not the only movie that did that though. Doctor Strange and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies outgrossed Justice League, as did Thor: Ragnarok, Iron Man 3, both Captain America sequels and both Avengers movies (Spider-Man: Homecoming did as well but that's not worth remarking on since Spider-Man was already an icon).

That was the point. Marvel's made superstars of formerly B and C tier characters, while WB has so badly mishandled their DC IP that the Justice League, the greatest champions of the DC Universe, got their butt kicked by a bunch of characters who would've been considered nobodies just a few years ago. So saying "Yeah, but DC has more popular women than Marvel!" doesn't mean much, if anything anymore when we're in an age where how iconic a character was is utterly meaningless.

 

[Flint Marko]

Their lack of action has more to do with the ebbs and flows of superhero filmmaking than lack of initiative for female characters, I suspect. The DCEU has only existed for 5 years. Meanwhile, the X-Men Universe and the MCU have existed for far longer, more continuously, and more successfully, yet there hasn't been a solo X-Men female led film, like Storm, or an MCU female-led film like Captain Marvel (until now). Despite less enthusiasm for superhero films and less public support for female-centric narratives in previous decades, DC still was able to put out Supergirl and Catwoman. They weren't successful, but they did try. As soon as the DCEU was formed, Wonder Woman was a priority. Meanwhile, the MCU dragged their feet.

I'm stuck on you labelling Ike Perlmutter's bigotry as an "excuse" when it's the actual, confirmed answer to the question you yourself asked:

If they are guaranteed success, why haven't they taken more risks in terms of doing female led films? Why drag their feet with women or any less represented groups and let DC take the lead?

So again, how is that answer an excuse? Perlmutter was so terrible in so many ways that Disney yanked the studio division from him. Their upcoming slate of films, and the quality of their output, has noticeably changed for the better since then so it clearly isn't just an "excuse".

Also, your explanation for this still doesn't cut it:

If I were to apply the same logic, then DC should be given just as much time to evolve, including time to feature more female characters and time to change leadership so that they can be more reliably successful in their output.

DC has had decades to evolve and be more reliably successful in their output. There's no reason to pretend that we should only be counting the past 5 years of DC films - not only does that math not add up (Man of Steel came out almost 7 years ago), but there's no reason whatsoever to exclude the DC related content that came out before the DCEU.

 

[misslane38]

It's not the only movie that did that though. Doctor Strange and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies outgrossed Justice League, as did Thor: Ragnarok, Iron Man 3, both Captain America sequels and both Avengers movies (Spider-Man: Homecoming did as well but that's not worth remarking on since Spider-Man was already an icon).

Fine, then use those movies to make that point, because contrasting BP's success to JL's doesn't get that across as successfully.

That was the point. Marvel's made superstars of formerly B and C tier characters, while WB has so badly mishandled their DC IP that the Justice League, the greatest champions of the DC Universe, got their butt kicked by a bunch of characters who would've been considered nobodies just a few years ago. So saying "Yeah, but DC has more popular women than Marvel!" doesn't mean much, if anything anymore when we're in an age where how iconic a character was is utterly meaningless.

You're missing my point, which is that DC's success has been with its female characters. Wonder Woman was critically and financially successful. Suicide Squad, starring Harley Quinn, was a box office success despite poor reviews, making more money than Doctor Strange. So, if one is making a case for the future potential of DC female characters, then history suggests that it can continue to do that. If anything, it's the weight of familiarity and expectations -- the iconic nature of Batman and Superman -- that has contributed to WB's struggles with those characters.

DC's cinematic success has been with its female characters, and in terms of their roster or bench of characters, they have a lot that are either individuals or all-female teams that could serve as the subject of an upcoming film. Marvel has more reliability on its side, yet until now it's been hesitant to take chances with their female characters. I think there's strong potential for both companies, and that's something that excites me if people, including those in charge, continue to champion these characters and take chances on them.

 

[MbJ]

Fine, then use those movies to make that point, because contrasting BP's success to JL's doesn't get that across as successfully.

Sure it does. If you'd told people even a few years ago that a movie about a C-tier character like Black Panther would beat the crap out of an iconic, A-list property like the Justice League at the box office, you'd have looked insane. Just like you would've if you'd told them that same Black Panther movie would also have a bigger opening weekend than a Batman vs. Superman movie. That it just so happens to not be the only Marvel film to best the League does not really matter as much, since you could swap in "Doctor Strange" or "Guardians of the Galaxy" when comparing it to JL and get the same point.

You're missing my point, which is that DC's success has been with its female characters. Wonder Woman was critically and financially successful. Suicide Squad, starring Harley Quinn, was a box office success despite poor reviews, making more money than Doctor Strange. So, if one is making a case for the future potential of DC female characters, then history suggests that it can continue to do that. If anything, it's the weight of familiarity and expectations -- the iconic nature of Batman and Superman -- that has contributed to WB's struggles with those characters.

And I disagree. I think WB's struggles with Batman and Superman of late have less to do with the iconic nature of those characters and more that they just haven't been able to produce movies that were all that great, with the major exception of Wonder Woman. That was my initial point. Saying "WB has more iconic women than Marvel!" is true, but it's also meaningless to this argument when they've bungled their icons time and time again, and when Marvel has swooped in and had far more success with a bunch of formerly obscure heroe.

But with some of the old guard gone and people like Hamada taking over, I do think WB has a chance to turn a corner with the DCEU soon. If Aquaman and Shazam are hits like I'm hoping they are, the franchise can be saved. I hope it is.

 

[misslane38]

I'm stuck on you labelling Ike Perlmutter's bigotry as an "excuse" when it's the actual, confirmed answer to the question you yourself asked:

It's an excuse because it speaks to the nature of the company and the length of time it took for it to change. It doesn't speak well of the company, not to mention the fact that there were plenty of people in the audience who didn't do enough to challenge that status quo, for Marvel to have taken so long to get on track. I believe Perlmutter had less influence on Feige as far back as 2015, which is plenty of time to get Captain Marvel done. Why were other films prioritized? What about Fox? They could have done something with Storm yet didn't. It also speaks to nature of the issue in general. DC has had the incompetence of WB to deal with, yet it was still able to make a competent WW film.

DC has had decades to evolve and be more reliably successful in their output. There's no reason to pretend that we should only be counting the past 5 years of DC films - not only does that math not add up (Man of Steel came out almost 7 years ago), but there's no reason whatsoever to exclude the DC related content that came out before the DCEU.

I am including stuff from DC's early years; hence why I mentioned Supergirl and Catwoman. That's more than Marvel can speak of even in its heyday. And I do think it's valid to bring up the fact that superhero films weren't always as trendy. The fact that Marvel had trends and their own success on their side and still, even with Perlmutter gone, are still behind the curve (WW2 will release very close to Captain Marvel; they're both filming this year) doesn't exactly cover them in glory. Man of Steel came out in 2013. It's 2018. I believe my math is correct. It's been 5 years. How are you getting 7 years?

 

[semper]

Why on earth are you retroactively giving all (or even most) of the credit for Suicide Squad's box office to Harley Quinn? That's ridiculous.

Margot Robbie got great reviews for her performance, but so did Will Smith...you remember Will Smith right? An A-lister that's been one of the biggest box office draws on the planet for over 20 years. His box office appeal may be more inconsistent than at his peak, but he's still a major draw, particularly in a sardonic action hero role like Deadshot that fits right into his wheelhouse. Cinemascore exit polls for Suicide Squad had Smith as the biggest draw for audiences to the movie.

Joker was also a factor. Critics may have been very mixed on Jared Leto's performance, but he's still far more iconic a character than Harley Quinn, and audiences would have turned up for him alone. He was all over the marketing for a reason, despite maybe have 10 minutes of screentime total.

I have no doubt that Harley is a popular character, and could probably help carry a movie (maybe a risk by herself. The wackiness would get grating, if there was no one else to balance it. But paired with other characters like Poison Ivy. Warners seems to realise this as none of the proposed Harley movies are solo). But Suicide Squad's box office was not down to her (Smith, Joker, then maybe Harley).

 

[misslane38]

Sure it does. If you'd told people even a few years ago that a movie about a C-tier character like Black Panther would beat the crap out of an iconic, A-list property like the Justice League at the box office, you'd have looked insane. Just like you would've if you'd told them that same Black Panther movie would also have a bigger opening weekend than a Batman vs. Superman movie. That it just so happens to not be the only Marvel film to best the League does not really matter as much, since you could swap in "Doctor Strange" or "Guardians of the Galaxy" when comparing it to JL and get the same point.

Yet, with all of that success and built-in potential, the MCU still is letting DC lead the way with female-led films.

And I disagree. I think WB's struggles with Batman and Superman of late have less to do with the iconic nature of those characters and more that they just haven't been able to produce movies that were all that great, with the major exception of Wonder Woman. That was my initial point.

If you don't think expectations for Batman and Superman have played a role in the audience's and critics' assessments of the quality, success, and audience reception of DC films, then I think you are mistaken.

Saying "WB has more iconic women than Marvel!" is true, but it's also meaningless to this argument when they've bungled their icons time and time again, and when Marvel has swooped in and had far more success with a bunch of formerly obscure heroe.

DC has bungled its icons, at least in terms of reception and box office, but that doesn't apply to its female heroes. Whereas the MCU, according to you, has heaps of advantages and still is letting DC lead the way and corner that niche market.

But with some of the old guard gone and people like Hamada taking over, I do think WB has a chance to turn a corner with the DCEU soon. If Aquaman and Shazam are hits like I'm hoping they are, the franchise can be saved. I hope it is.

I'm not really speaking to the health of the DC franchise as a whole, but rather to the strength of DC's female characters and the company's ability to capitalize on those characters relative to the MCU.

 

[misslane38]

Why on earth are you retroactively giving all (or even most) of the credit for Suicide Squad's box office to Harley Quinn? That's ridiculous.

Margot Robbie got great reviews for her performance, but so did Will Smith...you remember Will Smith right? An A-lister that's been one of the biggest box office draws on the planet for over 20 years. His box office appeal may be more inconsistent than at his peak, but he's still a major draw, particularly in a sardonic action hero role like Deadshot that fits right into his wheelhouse. Cinemascore exit polls for Suicide Squad had Smith as the biggest draw for audiences to the movie.

Joker was also a factor. Critics may have been very mixed on Jared Let's performance, but he's still far more iconic a character than Harley Quinn, and audiences would have turned up for him alone.

I have no doubt that Harley is a popular character, and could probably help carry a movie (maybe a risk by herself. The wackiness would get grating, if there was no one else to balance it. But paired with other characters like Poison Ivy. Warners seems to realise this as none of the proposed Harley movies are solo). But Suicide Squad's box office was not down to her (Smith, Joker, then maybe Harley).

I'm giving her a lot of credit because Margot Robbie wasn't as big of a name as Will Smith, but her Harley emerged out of the film with just as much popularity and more film prospects. It is Robbie who is producing a female-led Harley film and not Smith's Deadshot.

 

[semper]

I'm giving her a lot of credit because Margot Robbie wasn't as big of a name as Will Smith, but her Harley emerged out of the film with just as much popularity and more film prospects. It is Robbie who is producing a female-led Harley film and not Smith's Deadshot.

Doesn't change the fact that Smith and Joker were primary factors in SS's box office success. Harley was a breakout character (that was already far more iconic to comic book and video game fans than Deadshot, a generic mercenary. But Smith was still the big draw to movie audiences). Great. But let her carry her own movie, and claim that success for herself. Selling it as some sort of "female led DC box office success" is false advertising in the extreme.

Smith has half a dozen projects for his own company in development (like Hancock 2, Bad Boys 4 etc). Smith is up to his neck in franchises. He doesn't need to wangle a solo Deadshot franchise. Robbie has been pushing Warners hard to produce Harley spin-offs, and they seem agreeable. This may be Robbie's only shot at leading a franchise compared to Smith. Though with the state of the DCEU, who knows if any of them will actually happen.

 

[MbJ]

If you don't think expectations for Batman and Superman have played a role in the audience's and critics' assessments of the quality, success, and audience reception of DC films, then I think you are mistaken.

We've had this song and dance before, and I don't agree. Snyder's track record is a long list of films that were critically panned or at best met with mixed receptions, with the only two exceptions being Dawn of the Dead and 300. The idea that a director who has a history of making movies that many people dislike made another movie a lot of people disliked isn't really that shocking.

DC has bungled its icons, at least in terms of reception and box office, but that doesn't apply to its female heroes. Whereas the MCU, according to you, has heaps of advantages and still is letting DC lead the way and corner that niche market.

I haven't given Marvel any praise for its handling of female characters either. I'm saying that "iconic" when describing a superhero today is utterly meaningless, so saying WB has the advantage because its women are more iconic doesn't mean much. A better argument would be the one about Wonder Woman's success, but that has little to do with whether or not she's iconic, and much more to do with the fact that the franchise produced a significantly better movie than its usually known for.

 

[Flint Marko]

Man of Steel came out in 2013. It's 2018. I believe my math is correct. It's been 5 years. How are you getting 7 years?

Brainfart - for some reason I thought MoS came out in 2011.

It's an excuse because it speaks to the nature of the company and the length of time it took for it to change.

Nope. I think you need a refresher on what an "excuse" actually is.

We've had this song and dance before, and I don't agree. Snyder's track record is a long list of films that were critically panned or at best met with mixed receptions, with the only two exceptions being Dawn of the Dead and 300. The idea that a director who has a history of making movies that many people dislike made another movie a lot of people disliked isn't really that shocking.

Preach. WB handed the keys to a guy who spent his entire career making divisive films that largely disappointed critically and financially. He does it again with the DC stable, but all of a sudden now it's due to "expectations and pre-conceptions".

Now that, misslane, is what we call an excuse.

 

[The Batman]

Preach. WB handed the keys to a guy who spent his entire career making divisive films that largely disappointed critically and financially. He does it again with the DC stable, but all of a sudden now it's due to "expectations and pre-conceptions".

Now that, misslane, is what we call an excuse.

LOL, these guys peddle out the same half assed rationales, all to escape the obvious, logical conclusion.

 

[Juan1193]

Honestly, quite a lot of "big" DC female heroes, are just female replicas of their male characters. That's why they may seem more "iconic". Powergirl and Supergirl are just female Superman. Hawkgirl is Hawkman. Batgirl and Batwoman are just Batman.

Marvel has those too (Spider-Woman, She-Hulk etc) but they seem to have far more great female heroes whose identity doesn't rest upon being the exact counterpart of a male character. Jean Grey, Rogue, Storm, Jubilee, Kitty Pryde, Invisible Woman, Jessica Jones, Elektra, Black Widow, Misty Knight and many more.

Marvel has better female characters, but not as many of them rely on the power of a male namesake.

For the record Hawkgirl is more popular than Hawkman and DC does have their own popular females that aren't just female counterparts of male heroes. Catwoman, Zatanna, Black Canary, Vixen, Jessica Cruz, Katana, Raven, Starfire, Bumblebee, Fire, Renee Montoya, Big Barda, Saturn Girl, Dawnstar...etc

Throw in female villains/anti heroes like Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Killer Frost, Cheetah, Amanda Waller, Terra, Cheshire ...etc and the gap widens even more!

 

[semper]

For the record Hawkgirl is more popular than Hawkman and DC does have their own popular females that aren't just female counterparts of male heroes. Catwoman, Zatanna, Black Canary, Vixen, Jessica Cruz, Katana, Raven, Starfire, Bumblebee, Fire, Renee Montoya, Big Barda, Saturn Girl, Dawnstar...etc

Throw in female villains/anti heroes like Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Killer Frost, Cheetah, Amanda Waller, Terra, Cheshire ...etc and the gap widens even more!

Marvel just took a female villain no one outside a Thor comic reader had ever heard of, and made her iconic (Hela).

It''s a losing argument. marvel have tonnes and tonnes of great women characters. The X-Men franchise alone could probably rival the whole of DC for amazing female characters (mostly misused or underused by Fox, but that should change as they revert back to Marvel). Aside from the ones already mentioned, Emma Frost, Psylocke, Mystique, Madeylne Pryor, Callisto, Lilandra, Deathbird, Magik, Wolfsbane, Danielle Moonstar, Polaris, Lady Deathstrike, Monet St Claire, Dazzler, Domino, Destiny, Selene, Cecilia Reyes, Yukio, Blink, Cassandra Nova, Moira Mctaggert.

And that's just X-Men related female characters. All distinctive and intresting. I genuinely think Marvel has the edge with women.

 

[jmc]

Their lack of action has more to do with the ebbs and flows of superhero filmmaking than lack of initiative for female characters, I suspect. The DCEU has only existed for 5 years. Meanwhile, the X-Men Universe and the MCU have existed for far longer, more continuously, and more successfully, yet there hasn't been a solo X-Men female led film, like Storm, or an MCU female-led film like Captain Marvel (until now). Despite less enthusiasm for superhero films and less public support for female-centric narratives in previous decades, DC still was able to put out Supergirl and Catwoman. They weren't successful, but they did try. As soon as the DCEU was formed, Wonder Woman was a priority. Meanwhile, the MCU dragged their feet.

I've never understood the complaint about Marvel dragging its feet about female characters. They didn't have the roster of female characters to dive into like WB could, all their most well known female characters where with either Fox or Sony at the time. All they really had was Black Widow, which no-one was really clamouring for, and Captain Marvel which we are getting now.

 

[Jekecy]

I've never understood the complaint about Marvel dragging its feet about female characters. They didn't have the roster of female characters to dive into like WB could, all their most well known female characters where with either Fox or Sony at the time. All they really had was Black Widow, which no-one was really clamouring for, and Captain Marvel which we are getting now.

Why is that an argument when that's precisely the circumstance which enabled the MCU to flourish? Pretty much all the big-names of the MCU now, were B and C-listers at best with their debuts.

 

[jmc]

Why is that an argument when that's precisely the circumstance which enabled the MCU to flourish? Pretty much all the big-names of the MCU now, were B and C-listers at best with their debuts.

Which female characters then? It's pretty easy to point to Captain America, Thor and Hulk as being obvious choices given the material you have to work with.

 

[Jekecy]

Which female characters then? It's pretty easy to point to Captain America, Thor and Hulk as being obvious choices given the material you have to work with.

Not really for me to say. I'm not one of the brilliants minds under Feige's reign which catapulted nobodies into the stars of this generation and the next.

"No well-known characters" argument cannot be applied to the MCU. Not unless you want to specifically delineate it to females, and that's one helluva slippery slope.

 

[jmc]

Not really for me to say. I'm not one of the brilliants minds under Feige's reign which catapulted nobodies into the stars of this generation and the next.

"No well-known characters" argument cannot be applied to the MCU. Not unless you want to specifically delineate it to females, and that's one helluva slippery slope.

But think about it from a practical perspective. You're setting up a cinematic universe, all your top male and female characters are with other companies. You look at the roster you have available to see what's the best way to launch your idea. You're going to look at the most marketable characters and one with the most potential first, for them it was easy Cap, Hulk were the most iconic characters they had, with Thor being known due to Norse mythology. Iron Man probably the only genuine outsider of the 4.

Keep in mind Phase two was mostly sequels to phase one characters with Guardians thrown in for something new, most of which was planned before Avengers came out. Which makes sense from a business perspective, you're going to want to build off the back of those characters that were first successful. It's once you build those foundations that you can finally expand your reach including Ant Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel, which is what we're getting now in phase 3. There really was no easily identifiable female character Marvel had at their disposal for phase one, so its a bit ridiculous to me that people are lambasting them for not doing something sooner when they didn't have the brand recognition or money to gamble on something like that.

 

[Zarex]

Yet, with all of that success and built-in potential, the MCU still is letting DC lead the way with female-led films.

The thing that stood out to me with Wondy's success last year was how truly unique Diana is in the pantheon of female heroes. What other female character 1) was created as a star in her own book, b) has her own unique origin and back story, c) is neither a legacy nor a counterpart to a male hero and d)has a 40 plus year publishing history? The question of "Who's DC's Black Panther?" has the same answer as "Who's Marvel's Wonder Woman? ". They don't exist.

Their success reveals the historic lack of investment by the big two in unique, stand alone heroes who are female and people of color.

 

[Flint Marko]

There really was no easily identifiable female character Marvel had at their disposal for phase one, so its a bit ridiculous to me that people are lambasting them for not doing something sooner when they didn't have the brand recognition or money to gamble on something like that.

I think it was just a matter of the game plan they laid down at the beginning - build up the most recognizable heroes they had at their disposable who were founding Avengers, and then go from there. These all happened to be white men, because the Marvel universe as it was built in the early 60's was founded largely on characters who were white men. That weirdly almost never comes up in these conversations, but I think it's an important point to make.

Should they have had a female solo movie sooner than Captain Marvel? Yes, but again, Ike Perlmutter was never going to let that happen and it isn't like Marvel had one major female character at their disposal who was long overdue for a solo film like Wonder Woman. It still amazes me how long it took for WB/DC to finally make that movie. I mean, Green Lantern and Jonah Hex before Wonder Woman? Really?

LOL, these guys peddle out the same half assed rationales, all to escape the obvious, logical conclusion.

It never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Juan1193]

Marvel just took a female villain no one outside a Thor comic reader had ever heard of, and made her iconic (Hela).

It''s a losing argument. marvel have tonnes and tonnes of great women characters. The X-Men franchise alone could probably rival the whole of DC for amazing female characters (mostly misused or underused by Fox, but that should change as they revert back to Marvel). Aside from the ones already mentioned, Emma Frost, Psylocke, Mystique, Madeylne Pryor, Callisto, Lilandra, Deathbird, Magik, Wolfsbane, Danielle Moonstar, Polaris, Lady Deathstrike, Monet St Claire, Dazzler, Domino, Destiny, Selene, Cecilia Reyes, Yukio, Blink, Cassandra Nova, Moira Mctaggert.

And that's just X-Men related female characters. All distinctive and intresting. I genuinely think Marvel has the edge with women.

And DC has the remaining Legion females to add to Saturn Girl and Dawnstar (ie Phantom Girl, Shrinking Violet, Triad, Dream Girl, Shadowlass, XS, Kid Quantum..etc). They also have other lady Titans like Traci 13, Pantha, Argent, Solstice..etc and more female villains (ie Talia Al Ghul, Circe, Giganta, Blackfire, Livewire...etc).

Not to mention a successful all female team with 200+ issues in Birds of Prey. Plus a billion dollar franchise in Super Hero Girls that has it's own animated series, webisodes, action figures, dolls, clothes, graphic novels, animated dtv's and a Lego spinoff.

Point is, DC has the momentum and the advantage in regards to female characters at the moment. How long that'll last is anyone's guess...

 

[BaronZemo]

I see misslane still tries to only bring the DCEU in the conversation despite the fact that are 25 live action DC films made by the same studio and as i said they have dropped the ball with female characters on most of them.

WW being good doesn't erase the fact that most people here would struggle to make a top 5 of the best DC live-action female characters. It's not about quality fellas, it;s also about quantity.

I can't accept any claim that DC fares better than Marvel IN LIVE-ACTION FEMALE HEROES. This is simply not supported by either studios track record.

Marvel isn't perfect in that area but they sure as hell have more good female characters on live-action films and tv than DC.

 

[misslane38]

I see misslane still tries to only bring the DCEU in the conversation despite the fact that are 25 live action DC films made by the same studio and as i said they have dropped the ball with female characters on most of them.

DC has had three female led superhero films out of the 25. Marvel has had none. Marvel's X-Men universe and the MCU have produced at least 28 films and none of them have starred women, including X-Men: Days of Future Past that swapped out a comic storyline featuring Kitty Pryde for Wolverine.

WW being good doesn't erase the fact that most people here would struggle to make a top 5 of the best DC live-action female characters. It's not about quality fellas, it;s also about quantity.

Top Five from DC Films: Wonder Woman, Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Supergirl, and Mera.

Top Five from DCTV: Supergirl, Black Canary, Vixen, Hawkgirl, Killer Frost.

Top Five from animation: Wonder Woman, Harley Quinn, Batgirl, Hawkgirl, Vixen, Starfire.

I can't accept any claim that DC fares better than Marvel IN LIVE-ACTION FEMALE HEROES. This is simply not supported by either studios track record.

Marvel isn't perfect in that area but they sure as hell have more good female characters on live-action films and tv than DC.

It's funny because that has nothing to do with this conversation or the argument I am making. This discussion is about potential, and which company has the greatest potential to promote female characters in live action, particularly in leading roles.

DC, in my opinion, is better position because it has better source material, has a stronger foundation in animation and television to familiarize the audience with its female characters over decades, and has shown more interest in investing in female characters in live action.

DC has led the way when it comes to female characters starting in the 70s with the Wonder Woman television show and its amazing success with DC Superhero girls. Since the 80s, DC has produced more female-led films than Marvel despite Marvel making more films than DC.

I don't think your claims are supported.