Let me be blunt I believe any comic book character can do well at the box office; some more then others. However it has to be done right. More to the point it has to be done with respect. I think if you respect the source material the rest will follow.
And from WB's decisions it seems like they're having respect for the money they can get instead of respect for the characters.
The key to making a successful Wonder-Woman is not to put her in her normal outfit. If you saw the short film by Rainfall the outfit in that is perfect. She is in an outfit that both makes her look like a warrior but also still makes her look sexy. If you don't know what I'm talking about here is a link to the short film by Rainfall Films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XATiV3gmy-Q
I know that well, and i never though she should have the original costume, in fact i think that something like this is the best way to go:
And i don't understand that things about her having to look sexy besides being a warrior, when i look at Katniss doing what she does best i don't think she's being sexy, she definitelly looks atractive, but most of all, her sex doesn't interfere with the way you look at her, i'm not thinking "how hot", i'm way too immersed in the story and the way the film is done fortunatelly doesn't sexualize her, that's what a WW movie should do.
From that short film once thing i wouldn't do is WW flying, i just think it doesn't fit her Amazonian fighting style very much, but that's besides the point.
You need a good solid script that is both story driven and character driven. You can't get away with a Man of Steel where you it's all action and very little character development. Showing that Wonder-Woman is more then some goddess sex symbol. That she is a warrior that has a lot of dept. This is in my opinion really important. If it's all action and no story and character development then people are going to walk out see her as nothing more then sex symbol. Again draw from the comics and show that she is more then what she appears.
So, how does that go against her getting a film instead of a cameo?
The next is advertising and this is big one. You have to push this character out there in the front of peoples minds. Show trailers that make people go "damn that's going to be awesome." yet at the same time not give to much away.
Once again, even more reasons to make the film, Marvel Studios for example handled their properties well, and they were not as known as DC's.
Last but not least you need an actress who can act. You can't just slap some hot chicken there and hope that she can pull it off. What is really going to sale the film and more importantly the character is not the action but the acting. You can take any one and sale an action or fight scene "That's what stunt doubles are for". However to sell the character you need some one who can actually act.
For the record no Gal Gadot can not act. She is fine as long as she is a supporting character but she not good enough to be a lead.
Then don't cast Gale Gadot, cast an actress who can pull this off. There were a lot of suggestions of actresses who could do that, both in this forum and around the internet.
Yes I do believe Wonder-Woman could be a top grossing movie. However it doesn't have to be a top grossing movie. I think Thor is a perfect example of what this. Thor cost 150 million dollars to make. If I am not mistaken Thor made almost 200 million dollars. So it made it's money and then some.
If it did that it would have lost money and we wouldn't have gotten a sequel due to the fact that Marketing also costs a lot and cinemas keep a percentage of the profit, nowadays films have to make around twice of what they cost. And Thor was a success, grossing some 400 million
However box don't matter unless the studio don't make there money back. As long as the studio makes there money back then what really effects whether or not a sequel is made is DVD and Blu-ray sells. Kevin Smith actually talked about this in one if his stand up shows.
Your point being?
So if Wonder-Woman cost 150 million to make and world wide it makes 200 million the studio made there money back and then some. Hitting 200 million is easy now days because of ticket prices. However where it will really count is on blu-ray and DVD. If the people that saw it loved it they will buy it. Then people rent it or borrow a copy from some one watch it an love it and thus they go out and buy it. So again as long as the movie was good and enough people loved it then it will do well on blu-ray and DVD and will branch out to more people who didn't see it at theater.
If a WW movie made as much as Thor it would be a success, and considering this is Wonder Woman, that is very likelly as long as the film was decent and entertaining.
I also don't agree with the idea you need a big name to play these rolls.
Huh? Are you talking about me? I never said that you needed a big name to play these roles
What you need is some one who can acting and will respect the character. It's up to the producers, Director and what not to sell the film. This is done through trailers and what not. Chris Hemsworth was not a big name when he made Thor. Most people probably didn't even know who this guy was till he made Thor. So the idea that you have to have a major actor is not true.
I agree, so once again i don't know where you got the need to say it since i don't anybody here thinking the characters needs to be portrayed by an A-list actress.
Unfortunately we don't have any female Super heroes that have been given a chance at the box office. However I think they can sell just as easily as the male super heroes if done right and you don't need a big name to play those female characters.
As Jaymes_e06 said:
The Heat
Hunger Games
Gravity
Hell, this is Wonder Woman, the name almost sells itself.
Marvel probably didn't make much money from Thor or Captain America though. They also are not movies with a female lead. Would WB really be keen on making another WW movie if the first only made 449 million world wide on what I would assume to be a $150 million budget at least?
Probably, yeah. Expecially since after Justice League's success they would be interested in seeing what more money Wonder Woman 2 could bring.
I am just saying that because they put WW in this movie it does not mean that WB is rushing anything. Instead they are giving WW a better chance to succeed. WW fans don't get that though and think she should have a movie before she gets introduced in a cameo. Somehow cameos are below wonder woman.
Uhm, Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are DC's big trinity. They are some of the World's most popular and known heroes of all time, SUperman's great film début was a blockbuster starring a top actor who has since become the image for the character, Batman got his oun major blockbuster too with an A-list for a villain, Wonder Woman is getting her début as a cameo in the Superman vs Batman movie, portrayed by an actress that not only doesn't have the body type of the character, but she doesn't have that much experience either and not very talented from what we've seen thus far.
Yes, Wonder Woman deserved much better than that. And since this is her début, yes, a cameo is below her.
