Rumor: WW Movie Is Not Going To Happen

[superion]

What WW does have going for it, is name recognition, and that the film will be the origin story of a DC comics character that has been around for more than 60+ years. You think that wouldnt get attention from the general public? Especially with films based on funny books these days being hot properties with Hollywood studios these days.

I think name recognition is a bit overrated. I remember the same arguments being used about Superman Returns and X3. The Returns people claimed Superman's name recognition meant it had more fans and would translate to bigger BO. The X3 people said just because people recognize the name does not mean they are fans or have any interest in the character. Here it looks like the X3 people were right.

Another example more people probably know Mickey Mouse then any comic superhero but if Disney made a new $150 million cgi Mickey Mouse movie they would probably be pissing their money away. People know Mickey Mouse but they have no real interest in the character. People may know WW but I have the feeling most people other than comic fans just consider the character rather lame.

 

[The Shredder]

I will say that I agree with you to a certain extent. Name recognition is one thing (it's certainly not the end all, be all), but if the film is marketed good, and incorporates a in depth storyline that audiences find intriguing (unfortunately I think Superman Returns failed at this with a good number of people), as well as some sweet action scenes ala those seen in the Spidey films, then I have to believe theres a very decent chance that the film would prove to be a success. In the case of Superman Returns, I think a good portion of the general audience go to a comic book film to see dazzling action scenes. But unfortunately with SR (and The Hulk for that matter), the action scenes were indeed there, but not up to what the general audiences were expecting upon paying the price of admission to see the film. Which when word of mouth spread, the consequences of that fact no doubt ultimately hurt the films gross at the box office.

Making a multi million dollar film based on a comic book character that has been around for so many years, but has yet to have enjoyed anywhere near the amount of success of a few of her DCU contemporaries is a risky gamble. Perhaps, even riskier than the gambles that were, Superman: The Movie (which hardly anyone at the time thought would make a good movie), and Batman 1989 (which drastically strayed away from what the publics perception of Batman was).

But sometimes gambles like these do indeed pay off.

We'll see.

 

[dnno1]

I don't see it. I saw "Ultraviolet" late last year and I thought it was a great plot (a futuristic vampire flick) and some innovative action scenes (gun-kata anyone?). The character didn't have any name recognition but had Mila Jovovich , who is known for her role in the "Resident Evil" films, and it still failed horribly at the BO. Let's just face it. Right now female comicbook superheroines are doomed in a stand alone movie. I will have to agree with both of you about WW on film being a risky propostion.

 

[BloodyWolverine]

DC has fixed all this drama and possible loss of multipul movies by doinga Justice League movie. That way they can soe up all the characters they wanted to make into movies at one shot.

 

[toad376]

I don't see it. I saw "Ultraviolet" late last year and I thought it was a great plot (a futuristic vampire flick) and some innovative action scenes (gun-kata anyone?). The character didn't have any name recognition but had Mila Jovovich , who is known for her role in the "Resident Evil" films, and it still failed horribly at the BO. Let's just face it. Right now female comicbook superheroines are doomed in a stand alone movie. I will have to agree with both of you about WW on film being a risky propostion.

sorry but i highly doubt that you can compare Mila Jovovich to Wonder Woman, in any case i still am not a fan of Superheroine movies but i do feel like Wonder Woman will be the 1st succesful Female Heroine movie out there(Supergirl, Catwoman, Elektra). but i would prefer a JL movie first and think that thats the smartest step WB/DC has taken to get all these characters on the bigscreen and then decide what spinoffs they would like to do.

 

[Ben Breeck]

I don't see it. I saw "Ultraviolet" late last year and I thought it was a great plot (a futuristic vampire flick) and some innovative action scenes (gun-kata anyone?). The character didn't have any name recognition but had Mila Jovovich , who is known for her role in the "Resident Evil" films, and it still failed horribly at the BO. Let's just face it. Right now female comicbook superheroines are doomed in a stand alone movie. I will have to agree with both of you about WW on film being a risky propostion.

Ultraviolet was based on a Franch comic. It had a paint-by-numbers plot, future-tech lifted straight from Minority Report, introduced groups (outside the rebels and the government) with no real motives or significance to the plot except just to be stylish, and the final battle was lifted almost blow for blow from the end of Blade. It was trying to be the next Matrix, Underworld, or Kill Bill, and ended up being the next Supergirl.

Ultraviolet was to me a cotton candy experience that proved nothing (IMO) about making female superhero movies except that they should spend at least as much time writing and revising the script as they do designing the special effects. Using Ultraviolet to argue about female superhero movies is like using The Fifth Elelment or Battle Beyond the Stars to argue about space opera.

 

[DrayvensCrow]

In a way, Toad, I agree with you in that WB may be better served in doing JLA first in order to get the best WW possible without the casting and script problems that Whedon suffered, but I think that JLA first may also be the stopsign to WW's momentum. I honestly believe that you can have a great and credible WW movie now and still have the spinoff power that JLA can and will provide. It just takes enough integrety on the Director/Writer's parts to stay true to WW and cast an actress that exudes WW and Diana without even trying. She's out there just waiting for the chance.

 

[Steelsheen]

It had at the time it was made a far larger fan base then WW currently has. That game sold millions of copies as opposed to the 20,000 to 30,000 copies of WW comics normally sold in a month. .

geezus, do we have to go back to the 1970s for you to remember that there was a highly successful TV series that starred Lynda Carter, and that it has legions of fans globally then and now? WW is more than just comic books dude, she's the most iconic superheroine ever.

i just wish that folks ignorant of her lore to quit speaking in behalf of everybody else.

 

[Hades]

The market has no room for another superhero, comic book character on film. Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Hulk, Fantastic Four, X-Men not to mention Sin City, Ghost Rider, Wolverine, and Transformers.
The entire spectrum of films as a whole has to change before anymore superhero, comic book type characters can be unleashed. No Wonder Woman, no Flash, no Green Lantern, no Capt. Marvel. They will all fail and the studios know it.
There is only one way to get these films made. Without having to wait 10-15years for the others to run their course. The main problem is that the general audience is being bombarded with Superheroes. Superheroes are good in all but the common man likes someone he/she can relate to, i.e. John McClane. This is one reason why ticket sales continue to drop and prices continue to rise.
Their are two ways to change this and maybe get those other heroes in 6-7 years. One is to stop with all the franchises. The stories are pointless and without direction. That is why Star Wars and LOTR are classics and Spiderman... is not. They knew their would be three movies, they knew the ending, parts 2 and three weren't done for financial gain but simply to finish the story. That is not likely to happen...
The second option is give the audience what they want, what they really want... DEAD CATS, DEAD RATS, THINK YOUR AN ARISTOCRAT!!!

Sorry that's my other personality coming out. The public likes BIG THINGS, they like TO BE A PART, they like to FEEL NEEDED, they like DISORDER AND CHAOS, they want SOMETHING NEW, they want the APOCALYPSE NOW, movies and America in general need this...

G.I. JOE: A Real American Hero
vs.
Satans Unholy Legions: COBRA

LETS GET READY TO
RUMBLE!!!

Wtf?

 

[superion]

geezus, do we have to go back to the 1970s for you to remember that there was a highly successful TV series that starred Lynda Carter, and that it has legions of fans globally then and now? WW is more than just comic books dude, she's the most iconic superheroine ever.

i just wish that folks ignorant of her lore to quit speaking in behalf of everybody else.

Um, that series is 30 years old now and to say it was highly successful is really stretching it. The series lasted all of three years (I don't count the first season of 3 episodes). I don't have the ratings from back then but it was hardly a Charlies Angels like hit and just how do do you know the show has legions of fans?

 

[Steelsheen]

Um, that series is 30 years old now and to say it was highly successful is really stretching it. The series lasted all of three years (I don't count the first season of 3 episodes). I don't have the ratings from back then but it was hardly a Charlies Angels like hit and just how do do you know the show has legions of fans?

i know them. i talk to them. i travel quite a bit and they are everywhere. they're like Superman fans, they dont always read the comics or wear the T-shirt but they will watch anything that has the . come to think of it i noticed that Superman fans tend to be WW fans also (moreso that Supergirl, strange). why dont you ask around?

btw, Charlie's Angels? you're actually comparing WW to Charlie's Angels? oy!

 

[superion]

i know them. i talk to them. i travel quite a bit and they are everywhere. they're like Superman fans, they dont always read the comics or wear the T-shirt but they will watch anything that has the . come to think of it i noticed that Superman fans tend to be WW fans also (moreso that Supergirl, strange). why dont you ask around?

btw, Charlie's Angels? you're actually comparing WW to Charlie's Angels? oy!

Yes I am comparing the WW TV show to the Charlies Angels show because they are pretty much the same thing. Bad 70's T&A/action shows. Though the Charlies Angel show was more successful and spawned two movies one of which was actually successful.

So you know some WW fans that means there are a legion of them out there that can support a WW movie. The people on this board just seem to love using this line of reasoning whenever they want to say this movie or that comic character is so popular.

If there are so many fans of WW out there why did it take more than 25 years before she made another appearence in a TV series and only as a supporting character in the JLA cartoon. Why isn't the WW TV show syndicated all on any cable network? The last place I remember seeing it was on the Sci-fi channel years ago.

 

[Steelsheen]

Yes I am comparing the WW TV show to the Charlies Angels show because they are pretty much the same thing. Bad 70's T&A/action shows. Though the Charlies Angel show was more successful and spawned two movies one of which was actually successful.

the WW producers tried to keep WW from turning into a T&A show, there were several attempts where they tried to make her current (a sitcom, a solo charlie's angel type agent) and never got off the ground. its only when they went back to her roots (maintained the costume, adapted her comic book supporting characters) that it became a success.

So you know some WW fans that means there are a legion of them out there that can support a WW movie. The people on this board just seem to love using this line of reasoning whenever they want to say this movie or that comic character is so popular.

If there are so many fans of WW out there why did it take more than 25 years before she made another appearence in a TV series and only as a supporting character in the JLA cartoon. Why isn't the WW TV show syndicated all on any cable network? The last place I remember seeing it was on the Sci-fi channel years ago.

you know with your way of thinking then the 1989 Batman should never have been made or Spiderman for that matter. using your standard they both had cheesy and substandard TV series too didnt they? but someone with the passion for these characters went out there and made a film the way that gives respect to its lore and its fans but at the same time engaged the general movie going public.

also, what makes you think that a less popular (in your views) character/ comic book title doesnt deserve to be made into a film? Constatine, V4Vendetta, Hellboy, Sin City and 300 were never heard of by the general public either, but they did pretty good at the Box Office. as always the trick is to get the public engaged in your movie, in your character. turning WW into a movie is halfway towards that goal: the public knows who WW is, the next step is make the right decisions with the casting, scriptwriting and filming.

 

[superion]

the WW producers tried to keep WW from turning into a T&A show, there were several attempts where they tried to make her current (a sitcom, a solo charlie's angel type agent) and never got off the ground. its only when they went back to her roots (maintained the costume, adapted her comic book supporting characters) that it became a success.




you know with your way of thinking then the 1989 Batman should never have been made or Spiderman for that matter. using your standard they both had cheesy and substandard TV series too didnt they? but someone with the passion for these characters went out there and made a film the way that gives respect to its lore and its fans but at the same time engaged the general movie going public.

also, what makes you think that a less popular (in your views) character/ comic book title doesnt deserve to be made into a film? Constatine, V4Vendetta, Hellboy, Sin City and 300 were never heard of by the general public either, but they did pretty good at the Box Office. as always the trick is to get the public engaged in your movie, in your character. turning WW into a movie is halfway towards that goal: the public knows who WW is, the next step is make the right decisions with the casting, scriptwriting and filming.

I never stated that the quality of a TV show should determine whether a film should be made. I just disagreed with the idea that the WW TV was some kind of big success and that it proved her movie could succeed. The Hulk TV series was a quantum leap better than the Spiderman TV series in quality and popularity but it had no bearing on the quality of the respective movies or there success.

The reasons a WW movie is a long shot to succeed is as stated previously in this thread is the lack of success of female superhero movies and female action movies in general. The lack of real fans that WW has and not just people who are familiar with the character's name and look.

I wouldn't put Sin City and 300 in the same category as your typical comic superhero stories. One is a crime story and the other a historical epic altered to resemble a Lord of the Rings type world. The only thing they have in common with SM, BM, SpM and WW is that they appeared in a comic book format. Off topic it looks like 300 will be a huge hit. Can't wait to see it.

Of the other movies mentioned V, Hellboy and Constantine. V and Constatine are also not your standard superhero fare. Constantine is more a supernatural thriller and V is mainly a political movie there was very little superhero action in it. Only Hellboy could be considered a real superhero movie.

If they do make a WW movie its not going to be a big budget $100 to $150 million dollar movie. It'll probably be on scale of the V, Constatine, Blade, Underworld and Resident movies. Whether it can do as well as those movies is a open question as most of those movies are as much supernatural horror movies (Zombies, Vampires etc) as superhero movies.

 

[Jordacar]

Using Ultraviolet to argue about female superhero movies is like using The Fifth Elelment or Battle Beyond the Stars to argue about space opera.

Hey, I liked Fifth Element. But I agree with everything else you said. t:

 

[dnno1]

sorry but i highly doubt that you can compare Mila Jovovich to Wonder Woman, in any case i still am not a fan of Superheroine movies but i do feel like Wonder Woman will be the 1st succesful Female Heroine movie out there(Supergirl, Catwoman, Elektra). but i would prefer a JL movie first and think that thats the smartest step WB/DC has taken to get all these characters on the bigscreen and then decide what spinoffs they would like to do.

Yeah, I guess you can't. Mila Jovovich has already established herself as a female action heroine with her string of "Resident Evil" films (she's involved in a third one coming out this year). According to Wikipedia, VH1 has refered to her as the "reigning queen of kick-but" and Paul S. Anderson (director of the "Resident Evil" films) has called her a "rare combination of a good actress who could kick ass and look beautiful doing it." Wonder Woman (though a cultural icon) has yet to establish her self as a blocbuster on the big screen, so I guess there is no comparison.

I am sure that every one concered with the production of a Wonder Woman film is trying their best to come up with a formula that can produce a hit film, but with the track record that (specifically comicbook) female heroine films have had over the last 40 years (going back to "Barbarella") there is no data to indicate that a film with Wonder Woman (a female superheroine) in it as the star would fair any better. Female heroines in general seem to do better in ensemble casts ("Charlies Angels", "X-Men", "Aliens") and exploiting that fact in a "Justice League" or "Doom Patrol" might be a great idea, so I will agree with you on that one.

 

[dnno1]

Ultraviolet was based on a Franch comic. It had a paint-by-numbers plot, future-tech lifted straight from Minority Report, introduced groups (outside the rebels and the government) with no real motives or significance to the plot except just to be stylish, and the final battle was lifted almost blow for blow from the end of Blade. It was trying to be the next Matrix, Underworld, or Kill Bill, and ended up being the next Supergirl.

Ultraviolet was to me a cotton candy experience that proved nothing (IMO) about making female superhero movies except that they should spend at least as much time writing and revising the script as they do designing the special effects. Using Ultraviolet to argue about female superhero movies is like using The Fifth Elelment or Battle Beyond the Stars to argue about space opera.

This is all rhetoric to me. Ultraviolet was a (vampire) genre film that used the basic premise of the Academy Award winning film, "Gloria" (1980), a story about a young woman and a boy on the run from the mafia. The story was transposed to take place in a futuristic setting where mutated hemophages fight a war against a totalitarian government -- the heroine and the boy are on the run from both the government and her fellow hemophages. Some comparisons of the film can be made with the 1998 British TV series "UltraViolet" and the 2002 Kurt Wimmer film, "Equilibrium", which stared Christian Bale. The film may have seemed to parallel other films as you mentioned, but that is not unique. "The Matrix" films paralleled the anime movie, "Ghost in the Shell" and was still a hit. I found "Ulraviolet" to be an interesting film that introduced some concepts that were quite innovative to Sci-Fi (Gun-Kata, Dimensional Compression, and printed cellphone technology). Calling the film another "Supergirl" is an understatement, since it had far more action and a much better plot. Get a real review. I think the film did poorly because there was a female in the lead role and that just doesn't sit well with society.

 

[dnno1]

Yes I am comparing the WW TV show to the Charlies Angels show because they are pretty much the same thing. Bad 70's T&A/action shows. Though the Charlies Angel show was more successful and spawned two movies one of which was actually successful.

So you know some WW fans that means there are a legion of them out there that can support a WW movie. The people on this board just seem to love using this line of reasoning whenever they want to say this movie or that comic character is so popular.

If there are so many fans of WW out there why did it take more than 25 years before she made another appearence in a TV series and only as a supporting character in the JLA cartoon. Why isn't the WW TV show syndicated all on any cable network? The last place I remember seeing it was on the Sci-fi channel years ago.

I have to agree with you here, superion. There may be legions out there but not enough to pay for a $200 million plus film like "Wonder Woman" has to be. BTW a legion is approximately 3000-6000 strong. If there are legions out there it must imply that there are more than one (maybe three or four or even five). In that case, that would literally mean there are about 15,000 to 30,000 fans (about the number who buy the comic each month), and that is not enough to pay for a $10 million film let alone $200 million.

 

[Steelsheen]

I never stated that the quality of a TV show should determine whether a film should be made. I just disagreed with the idea that the WW TV was some kind of big success and that it proved her movie could succeed. The Hulk TV series was a quantum leap better than the Spiderman TV series in quality and popularity but it had no bearing on the quality of the respective movies or there success.

you sure sounded like it from your previous posts dude. and The Hulk had problems with pacing among other things, but not so much with story quality (if anything, they overdid it).

The reasons a WW movie is a long shot to succeed is as stated previously in this thread is the lack of success of female superhero movies and female action movies in general. The lack of real fans that WW has and not just people who are familiar with the character's name and look.

and for this reason you want to abandon the female superhero genre? well if that's how you think it. i believe they just havent perfected the formula on female superhero movies yet but they're getting there, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil can attest to that. btw, a good female superhero movie will create its own fanbase. the clincher is always on the execution.

i think in general you just dont like female-led action movies that doesnt objectify them. admit it. from your previous posts, you seem to be the type of fellow who's like that anyway.

 

[superion]

you sure sounded like it from your previous posts dude. and The Hulk had problems with pacing among other things, but not so much with story quality (if anything, they overdid it).


and for this reason you want to abandon the female superhero genre? well if that's how you think it. i believe they just havent perfected the formula on female superhero movies yet but they're getting there, Tomb Raider and Resident Evil can attest to that. btw, a good female superhero movie will create its own fanbase. the clincher is always on the execution.

i think in general you just dont like female-led action movies that doesnt objectify them. admit it. from your previous posts, you seem to be the type of fellow who's like that anyway.

Way to jump to stupid conclusions. I have no problem with Female action heroes. I loved the Kill Bill movies, the first two alien movies, Terminator 2 and the X-Men movies which showcased plenty of female heroes.

What exactly did I say to indicate I only care for female action movies that objectify females. As I recall I refered to the both the WW and Charlies Angels TV show as bad T&A action shows.

 

[Steelsheen]

Way to jump to stupid conclusions. I have no problem with Female action heroes. I loved the Kill Bill movies, the first two alien movies, Terminator 2 and the X-Men movies which showcased plenty of female heroes.

What exactly did I say to indicate I female action movies that objectify females. As I recall I refered to the both the WW and Charlies Angels TV show as bad T&A action shows.

whatever dude. i review your posts before responding to them, and you really come across as chauvinistic.

backtracking now after someone has called you on that is what's stupid.

thats the nice thing about a public forum with quote features, its all out there for people to read and see for themselves.

 

[superion]

whatever dude. i review your posts before responding to them, and you really come across as chauvinistic.

backtracking now after someone has called you on that is what's stupid.

thats the nice thing about a public forum with quote features, its all out there for people to read and see for themselves.

I am not backtracking on anything. So why don't you quote and highlight some of these chauvinistic comments I have made.

 

[Dark Knight]

So that its off the market. By taking the spec script off the market, it aims to protect itself against the possibility that any similarities between the scripts could be fodder for future legal action.

Means nothing.

Although from what I've heard its a very good script for newcomer writers.

If you do work at WB....then I think giving up on WW is a mistake! If they get someone with a solid vision like what Zack Snyder did with 300...and make the WW film an epic film....and keep the budget around 80 million....get an actress like Biel to star as WW and get Zeta Jones to star as her mother Queen Hippolyta...then trust me....WW WILL make money at the BO!

 

[Dark Knight]

If this is true, theyve made the right decision. Wonder Woman would be a failure like all other female superhero films. There just isnt enough appeal for it.

If you really do work for WB, Flash, Shazam and Green Lantern are the way to go.

Not necessarily. 300 was made for what 70 million? Why would WW need a 200 million budget when 300 only had a budget less than 100 million. It seems like Silver was on track with that new spec script...now he just needs to find another writer to make necessary adjustments to make the film EPIC and keep it that way! Keep the budget under control....no more than 80 million aned get a solid director with a vision.

 

[Dark Knight]

I think name recognition is a bit overrated. I remember the same arguments being used about Superman Returns and X3. The Returns people claimed Superman's name recognition meant it had more fans and would translate to bigger BO. The X3 people said just because people recognize the name does not mean they are fans or have any interest in the character. Here it looks like the X3 people were right.

Another example more people probably know Mickey Mouse then any comic superhero but if Disney made a new $150 million cgi Mickey Mouse movie they would probably be pissing their money away. People know Mickey Mouse but they have no real interest in the character. People may know WW but I have the feeling most people other than comic fans just consider the character rather lame.

The name recognition argument is a very weak argument. I remember the clowns over on the message boards used that argument regarding Returns and Returns barely survived at the BO. WB needs to remember to keep the budgets under control for the superhero style genre films based on comic books. 300 is a perfect example and BB was to a certain extent as well.