who is tired of the movie makers stalling wonder woman

[jmc]

^ But we aren't just talking hit movies, we're talking mega hit movies for WB that will more than cover cost for any lost revenue, the final Harry Potter alone I'm tipping will break a billion dollars. I'm aware that its not as simple as writing a cheque and handing it to a director, but when you've got these type of money making machines in the pipeline, it's more than ample opportunity to try a new franchise.

 

[GL's Light]

I'm aware that its not as simple as writing a cheque and handing it to a director, but when you've got these type of money making machines in the pipeline, it's more than ample opportunity to try a new franchise.

And they're going to try new franchises, most likely starting with Green Lantern. Other new franchises will follow as they work their way through the development pipeline.

 

[REDophile]

Jonah Hex and The Losers could have sequels if they do well enough. As for crossovers and easter eggs, well, I think the live action feature films are better off standing on their own within a loosely shared universe. It allows for more variation in style and tone. Plus, the idea of putting together a shared universe with tight continuity running through a large number of films would be very difficult to pull off. For one thing, you have to negotiate with actors and actresses who you might not be able to come to terms with. Marvel is already running into problems in that regard, and they've only got two of their self-financed films under their belt so far.

I agree with you, the universe should be loosely shared. WB isn't and shouldn't be planning a Justice League film anymore, Marvel is connecting all theirs mainly to build up to the Avengers. But they could do a better job creating a shared film universe with DC, especially since WB does own the rights to all their characters.

We can't expect them to churn out flicks for all the DC characters regularly, but at least tie them together one at a time. One of the few enjoyable parts of Batman Forever was when Dick and Bruce made a reference to Metropolis. They can't really do that with Nolan's Batman, but if they had a WW film to work with they could easily drop hints about Flash, GL, etc.

I remember Paul Levitz was asked about this and said "keep watching our movies, keep watching." Well, Jonah Hex isn't gonna be tied to the same continuity as GL if they come out next summer, neither would the Losers. It would just make it more enticing, like how Iron Man and TIH hinted at Captain America so we're all excited about that movie coming up. WB can easily do it because DC is all theirs. That's one reason why GL would be huge for them.

 

[The Major]

Its not just WW in my opinion
its all DC movies except Batman. Superman is starting to have a problem too.

Agreed.

I know it's difficult to make a movie but still... for the GL, FLash, WW films theyve had directors and other crew sign on and then DC/WB stalled (so it seems) and then the crew sign off, then that repeats for lord knows how long

The WW film has never gotten past the script stage IIRC. Directors have snooped around like McG but no-one's close to signing on. Slver's mismanagement of the franchise is well known. The only excption is the anmated movie but that's patehtic after all the years he's had it. No big budget movie, no tv show or cartoon series ever materialized under his watch.

Flash is in a similar situation.

It also looks like WB has no idea what to do with these properties. That stalls them. Rather then being pro-active they'd rather do noting, next to nothing or if a franchise succeeds in medium like cartoons they'll immedatey stop it cold once it gets cancelled. This leads to a franchise stagnating for nothing. Superman and Batman wouldn't have grown into billion dollar a year franchises with these tactics. DC having more influence and WB being pro-active could stop this blundering from occuring.

But i think the problem is for all the films there is no BIG young talent that would fit into the roles. I Think DC/WB doesnt want to gamble on a star of a mediocre rating TV show or just finding a random person.

Which is why I'm for more DC involvement in educating WB on their franchises and WB actively courting these big talents like Marvel has been doing. DC needs to be treated with more respect by WB for this to work. The big talents aren't gong to read the comics themselves unless they're already comic raders so to combat that WB needs to stop sitting on their asses expecting Hollywood to make their own DC adaptions on their own.

That goes for the tv shows and cartoon divisions, too. The animated branch is in theebst shape but still needs improvements. WW needs its own Bruce Timm equivelant, Chris Nolan equivelent and Ron Moore equivelant. They'll never get that by doing nothing.

SO in short I think DC/WB needs to gamble and get on the ball.

Agreed.

 

[The Major]

Studios have some films that perform poorly every year. The few giant hits help to cover those costs. Also, they have equity partners and shareholders to bear in mind and answer to, so investing $150 million in a film isn't a small decision. Anyway, even bearing all that mind, WB is actually a studio that's more willing than most to take big risks.

Not on DC it isn't. They have no successful third DC film franchise, the animated division is the best at taking on lesser franchises but they're still far behind in output with series, and the tv show division is a trainwreck for making DC adaptions.

 

[The Major]

And they're going to try new franchises, most likely starting with Green Lantern. Other new franchises will follow as they work their way through the development pipeline.

Only if it succeeds. If GL fails DC will be back to the status quo. There are no lesser franchises getting cartoon series, all we got is Brave and the Bold. A Batman focused cartoon. The tv branch's best idea of new series was about Robin before he became a super-hero. Pointless and nothing more then the Smallville formula only replacing Clark Kent with Dick GRayson. Need I mention Birs of Prey? An excellent franchise executed like amateurs made it. That isn't innovantion, its stagnation.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

When WB where guaranteed a crap load of cash over the next few years, 3 Harry Potters and 2 Hobbits movie in the next 4 years, possibly equaling a couple billion dollars, you can't tell me they can't take a gamble on a new superhero franchise.

If you had to take a bet on which character to invest 150 million dollars on. You can't honestly say you'd pick a character that you have rebuild popularity ,for in genre(female action flick) that hasn't had a hit since Tomb Raider, over the male character that has sold more books in three years than WW has sold in at least 40 years?

I'm not saying it is fair, but business is business. Like GL's Light said, money for these projects come from investors and the want a sure bet over your pet projects.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Only if it succeeds. If GL fails DC will be back to the status quo. There are no lesser franchises getting cartoon series, all we got is Brave and the Bold. A Batman focused cartoon. The tv branch's best idea of new series was about Robin before he became a super-hero. Pointless and nothing more then the Smallville formula only replacing Clark Kent with Dick GRayson. Need I mention Birs of Prey? An excellent franchise executed like amateurs made it. That isn't innovantion, its stagnation.

You know these people are idiots. Why are you pressing so hard for them to --ck up Wonder Woman? Just let them take their time and hopefully get it right.

 

[The Major]

If you had to take a bet on which character to invest 150 million dollars on. You can't honestly say you'd pick a character that you have rebuild popularity ,for in genre(female action flick) that hasn't had a hit since Tomb Raider, over the male character that has sold more books in three years than WW has sold in at least 40 years?

I'd consider Kill Bill a female action flick. Underworld is another female lead action franchise that did well.

You're ignoring quality, as well. Tomb Raider's weakness wasn't that it had a female lead it was the horrible quality. The movies didn't have **** on Nolan's Batman in that respect. That's a vital compenent for success.

over the male character that has sold more books in three years than WW has sold in at least 40 years?

Blade, Hellboy, 300, Sin City, Wanted. None of these comics are as popular as Johns GL run.

I'm not saying it is fair, but business is business. Like GL's Light said, money for these projects come from investors and the want a sure bet over your pet projects.

Then build her franchise up in cartoons, tv shows and video-games first until she's ready for a big budget movie. WB can do that.

 

[The Major]

You know these people are idiots. Why are you pressing so hard for them to --ck up Wonder Woman?

Because there are things they can do to stop being idiots. Once that occurs WW will be in good hands. I'm "pressed hard" since they need motivation to get moving. They need movement to actually do stuff. WW deserves to be a franchise hich is a high priority for WB.

Just let them take their time and hopefully get it right.

That would be an improvement on the WW franchise. They haven't come close to do that yet.

 

[GL's Light]

The WW film has never gotten past the script stage IIRC.

Joss Whedon of course signed on as writer and director, but eventually departed the project.

Not on DC it isn't.

Batman Begins, Superman Returns and Watchmen are all ballsy movies in various ways, and they're on the cusp of making another ballsy movie with Green Lantern.

And the tv show division is a trainwreck for making DC adaptions.

Like the show or not, Smallville is a successful series. Birds of Prey, on the other hand, was mismanaged and a big missed opportunity. There's a pilot for The Human Target in the works at Fox. Their track record could be a lot better, but it sure beats Mutant X.

Is there room for improvement at Warners in their development of DC properties? Absolutely. But in the aggregate there has been substantial improvement.

 

[GL's Light]

I'd consider Kill Bill a female action flick. Underworld is another female lead action franchise that did well.

Kill Bill, Volume 1 made $180.9 million worldwide, Kill Bill, Volume 2 made $152.1 million worldwide. Underworld made $95.7 million, Underworld: Evolution made $111.3 million. These were successful because their budgets were kept low ($60-70 million in total for the two volumes of Kill Bill and $22 million for Underworld).

The Resident Evil films are likewise successful because they bring in $100-150 million worldwide on budgets ranging from the low 30s to the mid 40s. No female-led action film has ever grossed more than $300 million. The top grossers in this category are Lara Croft: Tomb Raider at $274.7 million, Charlie's Angels at $264.1 million and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle at $259.1 million.

A $150 million film needs to gross in the region of $375 million, and preferably over $400 million, to get a good return on its investment. Spending that much on a female-led action film would be a very poor bet.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'd consider Kill Bill a female action flick. Underworld is another female lead action franchise that did well.
You're ignoring quality, as well. Tomb Raider's weakness wasn't that it had a female lead it was the horrible quality. The movies didn't have **** on Nolan's Batman in that respect. That's a vital compenent for success..

Tomb Raider is the highest grossing film in that bunch. So in Hollywood, the Tomb Raider/Charlie's Angels would be closer to something they'd put together.Quentin Tarantino makes films with his own name as marketing.

Blade, Hellboy, 300, Sin City, Wanted. None of these comics are as popular as Johns GL run. .

All of those are basically Graphic Novels(Blade's stories collected are enough for a TPB). Like I said earlier. Hollywood likes books. All the information is in a single book not having to work to bring in small stuff from obscure runs over twenty years ago.

Then build her franchise up in cartoons, tv shows and video-games first until she's ready for a big budget movie. WB can do that.

I'd agree.


Look at the Legend of Chung-Li. How is possible that that movie looks worse than the Street Fighter movie from 94? Over a billion Asian people, thousands of Asian martial arts flicks made every year and Hollywood thinks the best idea for the film is Kreuk from Smallville? I know WW is coming soon and I'm worried.

 

[The Batman]

I am, it's sad Batman's has got 6 movies so far Supman's got 5 not to mention the many animated & live action shows they have had between then. What's Wonder Woman 1 live action series nerely 30 years age a few apperiaces in a few cartoons and 1 70 minute animated movie this year. a live action WW movie is overdue.

It's not sad, it makes perfect sense.

Honestly, even though she's apart of the trinity, the truth is, she is not on Superman and Batman's level...she is only there because of what she represents rather than what she actually is. Like other posters have said, her comics dont have consistent quality or identity...so how in the hell are filmmakers supposed to make this movie when there's several different versions of wonder woman around?

 

[GL's Light]

I think it's possible to make a WW film that's both successful and a good film to boot; there a number of directions one could go in to achieve that. But a smart producer would find a way to do it within a reasonably limited budget.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I've frankly been amazed at how long this has taken. Perez's Gods & Mortals has everything you need for a first film; even if you want to bring in some influences from other eras, Diana's origin story is very consistent across all iterations of the comic: island of immortal Amazons, created from clay and blessed by the Gods, God of War makes trouble, Diana leaves to deal with it. It's not rocket science.

Like other posters have said, her comics dont have consistent quality or identity...so how in the hell are filmmakers supposed to make this movie when there's several different versions of wonder woman around?

By picking the parts they think work best. That's what they did with Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. The former two have gone through many, many different takes in the comics (compare the Batman of 1940 to the Batman of 1960 to the Batman of today), and in other media as well.

There are a number of recent runs that are generally regarded as the seminal influences: George Perez, Phil Jiminez, Greg Rucka, now Gail Simone. All those guys are still alive; ask them for input if you need it.

 

[Steelsheen]

Spending $150 million on a WW film would be nuts given the box office glass ceiling that female-led action films have encountered to date. They need to make the film on a reasonable budget - certainly no more than $100 million.

agreed. and $100M is plenty enough, they can get a pretty good actress with that already.

Look at the Legend of Chung-Li. How is possible that that movie looks worse than the Street Fighter movie from 94? Over a billion Asian people, thousands of Asian martial arts flicks made every year and Hollywood thinks the best idea for the film is Kreuk from Smallville? I know WW is coming soon and I'm worried.

Kristin isnt much of the problem, its the shody directing and lamebrain dialog. i'm really hoping the music track can still save whats left of that movie. so far its the only thing missing from those clips we saw.

 

[Steelsheen]

It's not sad, it makes perfect sense.

Honestly, even though she's apart of the trinity, the truth is, she is not on Superman and Batman's level...she is only there because of what she represents rather than what she actually is. Like other posters have said, her comics dont have consistent quality or identity...so how in the hell are filmmakers supposed to make this movie when there's several different versions of wonder woman around?

By picking the parts they think work best. That's what they did with Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. The former two have gone through many, many different takes in the comics (compare the Batman of 1940 to the Batman of 1960 to the Batman of today), and in other media as well.

thats it exactly. WW may not have as much material as Supes or Bats does, but she has enough. a very good screenwriter and director can make a great movie out of what she currently have, and (i bet they'll love this) have enough creative elbow room to add their own stuff, to further support and/or expand the mythology, for example that crystalline structure that was the Fortress of Solitude in the 1978 Superman movie, i dont remember the FOS ever being rendered that way in the comics prior to the film coming out.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea as i said before i hate that wb just doesnt seem to know what the hell to do with the dc characters beyond batman and they still need to fix superman first. To bad dc didnt have more control and say over films years ago. Also as many have said to bad dc cant really have their own film studio like marvel has but they cant as long as wb owns dc comics.

 

[dnno1]

Kill Bill, Volume 1 made $180.9 million worldwide, Kill Bill, Volume 2 made $152.1 million worldwide. Underworld made $95.7 million, Underworld: Evolution made $111.3 million. These were successful because their budgets were kept low ($60-70 million in total for the two volumes of Kill Bill and $22 million for Underworld).

The Resident Evil films are likewise successful because they bring in $100-150 million worldwide on budgets ranging from the low 30s to the mid 40s. No female-led action film has ever grossed more than $300 million. The top grossers in this category are Lara Croft: Tomb Raider at $274.7 million, Charlie's Angels at $264.1 million and Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle at $259.1 million.

A $150 million film needs to gross in the region of $375 million, and preferably over $400 million, to get a good return on its investment. Spending that much on a female-led action film would be a very poor bet.

Those films had two things going for them: A low budget and and ensemble cast. That's probably the only way you are going to make it with a female superheroine film. Note that they are not making anymore Charlie's Angel's films even though they made fairly high BO returns. That's because they reached diminishing returns (i.e. they made less revenue even though they spent more more for production).

 

[GL's Light]

Those films had two things going for them: A low budget and and ensemble cast. That's probably the only way you are going to make it with a female superheroine film.

I think a solo superheroine film can be successful, too, if properly conceptualized and kept to a low enough budget. However, I do think that a Birds of Prey film (with a new cast and not linked to the TV series) has a lot of commercial potential.

Note that they are not making anymore Charlie's Angel's films even though they made fairly high BO returns. That's because they reached diminishing returns (i.e. they made less revenue even though they spent more more for production).

Yeah, which further underscores my point that female-led action films need to have very carefully controlled budgets.

 

[dnno1]

I think a solo superheroine film can be successful, too, if properly conceptualized and kept to a low enough budget. However, I do think that a Birds of Prey film (with a new cast and not linked to the TV series) has a lot of commercial potential.

That's just opinion and not based on any fact. The fact of the matter is that none of them have.

Yeah, which further underscores my point that female-led action films need to have very carefully controlled budgets.

I will agree with you here to a point. All films should have better control of their budgets, but female led films may have a better shot at doing well at the BO if produced on a low budget (< $60 million) and targeted to a niche market.

 

[GL's Light]

That's just opinion and not based on any fact. The fact of the matter is that none of them have.

Well, there have only been a very small number of superheroine movies and none of them have been any good. So, yes, of course it's opinion at this point because there's not a wide enough data pool to draw on to come to any hard and fast facts. But there have been successful action films with female leads, so it stands to reason that making a successful solo superheroine film is within the realm of possibility if it's made with the right cinematic concept and budget level.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

But there have been successful action films with female leads, so it stands to reason that making a successful solo superheroine film is within the realm of possibility if it's made with the right cinematic concept and budget level.

Exactly. Wonder Woman is probably the only female action hero that could make 200 million plus, but the character needs to have all her ducks in a row. The DVD movie is a good start, even though it's not for kids. A cartoon series and rebooting a new 21st origin would get everyone on the same page about what Wonder Woman is.

 

[dnno1]

Well, there have only been a very small number of superheroine movies and none of them have been any good. So, yes, of course it's opinion at this point because there's not a wide enough data pool to draw on to come to any hard and fast facts. But there have been successful action films with female leads, so it stands to reason that making a successful solo superheroine film is within the realm of possibility if it's made with the right cinematic concept and budget level.

Sheena: Queen of the Jungle (1950)
Barbarella
Sheena (1984)
Supergirl
Red Sonja
Brenda Starr
Vampirella
Tank Girl
Barbwire
Catwoman
Elektra
Utraviolet (kind of)

If you actually think about it there have been about as many as there have been Batman and Superman films (maybe more) and none of them have done as well as their male counterpart films. That's a lot and your comment is an understatement. There is certainly enough data out of that pool to draw some conclusions with.