Do you think WB/DC will ever make a Wonder Woman movie?

[Bullseye1]

Do you think WB/DC will ever make a WW movie? With the continued excuses put out by WB every time the subject is brought up do they even care?

If you think they won't make a movie why do you believe this? What evidence?

If you think they will make a move why do you believe this? What evidence?

 

[Chance Jackson]

Only if they think they can tap into the Catching Fire/Twilight market.

 

[metaphysician]

I'm cynical, and going to go with "no". WB is extremely reluctant about moving beyond its two established icons ( Batman and Superman ), and its a general Hollywood thing these days to avoid female-led action movies. That's not a good combo.

The only thing that could persuade them otherwise would be a big success by Wonder Woman in SvB/JLA. . . except there's a Catch 22. If those movies do great, WB might well skip to just doing more sequels, rather than any given spin-off. . . and JLA especially offers a lot of spin-off options. If WB "coincidentally" chose to do a spin-off of someone else, I would not be shocked. I'm not even sure a Ruffalo style "hit with the audience" reaction would do the job.

 

[Persistence]

I think so...once Batman vs Superman gets off the ground, there's going to be ground well support for a strong solo female hero movie. They can't let go of that demographic that has great potential. Has there even been one on the Marvel side? They have to strike while the iron is hot.

Now, whether the movie will actually be good is another question.

 

[Kryptonian Titan]

In my opinion, no. And I particularly don't think a WW movie will be successful, so I understand if they don't make it.

 

[Boy Scout]

They will. Perhaps not soon, but they will.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'm also thinking at some point, in the future. I don't think they'll ever make a big AAA tentpole Wonder Woman, but at some point I think they'll throw something out there...

 

[Lencho01]

When Hollywood is more comfortable with making big budget films with women and/or people of color as the leads, then they'll probably make it. Foriegn markets just have to prove to them that they're cool with such films.

 

[CountOrlok]

I don't understand why a WW movie hasn't been made. Supergirl, Tank Girl, Catwoman, Elektra, Barb Wire.. none of those have the same popularity or iconic status as WW (maybe Catwoman, but the movie sucked so that's a moot point).

 

[Willi Berg]

If they do, there's still a lot of waiting:

-Waiting to see the response to WW in the team up movies

-Waiting to see the response to Gal Gadot

-Waiting to see if they can find a writer and director who are passionate about making a WW film after the team up movies.

-Waiting to see if a writer and director come up with a good idea and figure out a take on WW (that Warners likes) after the team up movies.

There may be chance that some great idea comes together between the team up movies and a solo movie is made. But it's more likely that WB are satisfied that WW is appearing in the team up movies for now.

 

[Loki882]

Which is incredibly stupid btw.

 

[Rorschach2012]

If Gadot's WW is well received, start a trilogy after BvS and JL. Set Ares up as the main villain of the series, while introducing Circe, Giganta, Cheetah, and certain Olympian Gods as other villains of the series.

 

[The Guard]

I don't understand why a WW movie hasn't been made. Supergirl, Tank Girl, Catwoman, Elektra, Barb Wire.. none of those have the same popularity or iconic status as WW (maybe Catwoman, but the movie sucked so that's a moot point).

And none of these have done well at the box office, either. Partially because they weren't good movies, and partially because they just didn't draw.

And that's probably the main reason a Wonder Woman movie hasn't been made. Until quite recently, there'd been no real evidence that a female superhero movie would make money. Things are slowly changing. We'll see a WONDER WOMAN movie soon.

 

[Bullseye1]

And none of these have done well at the box office, either. Partially because they weren't good movies, and partially because they just didn't draw.

And that's probably the main reason a Wonder Woman movie hasn't been made. Until quite recently, there'd been no real evidence that a female superhero movie would make money. Things are slowly changing. We'll see a WONDER WOMAN movie soon.

More male super hero movies have done worse. Two of the female ones listed actually made a profit. It's a poor argument unless there is equal numbers of movies for both sexes.

 

[jonathancrane]

They should.

Marvel has not made one yet, which would give them an immense tactical advantage. Couple in WW's popularity and the box office success is almost guaranteed. But, no, they've opted to go for the oft-tread team superhero route. Sigh...

 

[PaulRom]

I think they will. If WB wants to do DC franchises outside of Batman, Superman and Justice League, Wonder Woman is the most obvious choice. Plus, Gadot is signed on for a solo movie, so the studio has at least some interest in making it happen.

 

[InJustice]

They should.

Marvel has not made one yet, which would give them an immense tactical advantage. Couple in WW's popularity and the box office success is almost guaranteed. But, no, they've opted to go for the oft-tread team superhero route. Sigh...

It was mentioned that Warner Brothers signed her for BvS, JL, and a WW movie. I don't see why it's such an oft-tread path, when going the "traditional" (Origin Story>???>team-up) way is just as oft-tread.

Source: http://variety.com/2014/film/news/w...ree-picture-deal-with-warner-bros-1201067961/

 

[The Guard]

More male super hero movies have done worse. Two of the female ones listed actually made a profit. It's a poor argument unless there is equal numbers of movies for both sexes.

Which ones made a profit?

There are also male superhero movies that have made quite a bit of money. It's a completely legitimate argument from a financial standpoint, from the standpoint of investors. As legitimate as it would be for a company to balk at bankrolling an unknown or lesser known superhero film.

 

[metaphysician]

They should.

Marvel has not made one yet, which would give them an immense tactical advantage. Couple in WW's popularity and the box office success is almost guaranteed. But, no, they've opted to go for the oft-tread team superhero route. Sigh...

While this is true, I suspect by the time they actually decide to do one, and given how slow they often are, Marvel will have released a female-led movie by that point.

 

[dnno1]

I don't think it will happen until after Zack Snyder finishes his Man of Steel series with the Justice League. Even then, Wonder Woman stands the chance of getting anchored to that franchise (Justice League). In any case, heres my new pick for Wonder Woman:

 

[Bullseye1]

Which ones made a profit?

There are also male superhero movies that have made quite a bit of money. It's a completely legitimate argument from a financial standpoint, from the standpoint of investors. As legitimate as it would be for a company to balk at bankrolling an unknown or lesser known superhero film.

Look at how low the budgets were yet:

Elektra made a profit
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elektra.htm

Catwoman made a profit
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm

x-Men Wolverine (arguably one of marvels most popular characters) did not set the world alight
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wolverine.htm

Hulk also relatively poor box office results
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hulk.htm

The Punisher also relatively low return
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=punisher.htm

Superman Returns (huge budget And poor box office)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

Successful female lead franchises like Hunger Games and other relatively successful like Under World and Resident Evil should be enough proof. And none of those characters are Wonder Woman.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'd give it a strong "maybe". It's probably going to be poorly timed or miss the point of the character or something, given the current route they seem to be taking with DC properties.

 

[The Guard]

Elektra made a profit
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=elektra.htm

Worldwide Elektra made $13 million. Worldwide. I'll bet once they factor in advertising costs, they weren't all that pleased with its financial performance.

Catwoman made a profit
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=catwoman.htm

It did? It cost $100 million and made $82 million worldwide. How is that making a profit? Am I missing something?

x-Men Wolverine (arguably one of marvels most popular characters) did not set the world alight
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wolverine.htm

It made $373 million on a budget of $150. A clear financial success, if anything but a box office juggernaut.

Hulk also relatively poor box office results
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hulk.htm

Perhaps, but it still made much more money than the female superhero movies did. $245 million on a $137 million budget.

The Punisher also relatively low return
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=punisher.htm

And yet it still made quite a bit of money on a relatively low budget, especially for an R-rated film.

Superman Returns (huge budget And poor box office)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=superman06.htm

It still made a lot of money. $391 million worldwide on a budget of $270 million (much of which isn't actually for this movie, but tied to the failed SUPERMAN LIVES project).

Successful female lead franchises like Hunger Games and other relatively successful like Under World and Resident Evil should be enough proof. And none of those characters are Wonder Woman.

The Hunger Games is not successful because it is a female action/hero movie. It is successful because much like HARRY POTTER, it is an existing young adult property with a massive following prior to the movie. A built in general audience fanbase. Wonder Woman, despite being a known character cannot really boast that.

I'll agree that UNDERWORLD and RESIDENT EVIL are decent examples of a female "action/superhero" franchise that has made money. But they've still been the exception to the rule. And cashing in on the vampire/horror craze doesn't hurt.

That said, I would agree that given the superhero movie's popularity, now is probably the time to launch some female superhero franchises. I don't think you could really say that until fairly recently.

 

[Loki882]

I'm sorry, but I'm still not buying that argument. I really does seem like when a female-led property does poorly, then it's held up as proof that the concept "doesn't sell." But when it does well, like THG, then people try to claim that it's due to "other factors." Sorry, but no sale. THG is a franchise FOCUSED completely around a female character. Katniss is the freaking narrator for God's sake. If she doesn't work as a character, then the entire series doesn't work. And the film's marketing was primarily focused around Jennifer Lawrence. They were selling the movie on her. I'm sorry, but that double standard gets on my nerves. If THG had failed, then you can be damn sure that it would have been held up as proof that female-led action movies "don't sell." It succeeded because it was a good movie with a great protagonist and an engaging story, period. There's no reason why WW cannot do the same thing, end of story.

 

[SuperFerret]

There's no reason Wonder Woman can't, but there are likely signs that when the time comes, she won't. The Hunger Games was a juggernaut in young adult fiction, a genre that's very popular with people making movie adaptions. Wonder Woman is a primary figure in superhero comics, another genre that's got Hollywood's attention. There's a strong similarity there, except for the fact that, while she's highly lauded by comic book fans as a good character, Wonder Woman's solo books almost always have disappointing sales.