Why Can't DC Get it right?

[BlackLantern]

that seems reasonable, but Hollywood is still a very sexist town and any studio would be hesitant about spending 100 + mil on a movie with a female lead

 

[Heretic]

Of course. A major franchise with the budgets were talking about is a huge risk. Guys simply will not pay money to watch their favorite hot actress in a film. Wonder Woman, for obvious reasons, could have a cast of the 20 sexiest women in Hollywood...and guys would think "they arent getting naked...and even if they are...I have porn instead". It's like when Katie Holmes went topless in The Gift. This was when she was at the PEAK of her "girl you want to see naked" career, and guys didnt care enough to spend 7 bucks.

That's why I seriously think the ONLY way to do it is to write the film as if it's about men. No lingering sexy camera shots of slow motion Amazons running on the beach...just a brutal, war of the gods type epic film. Make 300 look like Home Alone.

 

[Heretic]

edit

 

[BlackLantern]

and no director would shoot that film...the studio would want it to be pg-13 and female friendly

 

[Heretic]

Well, female friendly from their ridiculous viewpoint. You KNOW that a Wonder Woman movie would more than likely end up like Bloodrayne or something...which is more insulting to women than anything.

But it is a risk. By making Wonder Woman appeal to the Sex And The City crowd, you will absolutely lose the entire male market. By going for sex appeal, you lose women AND men since men dont buy tickets based on sexy actresses.

The market has proven that they will support a legend-based action film (300, Clash Of The Titans...even things like Avatar and Lord Of The Rings) but anything with a female lead is a risk.

 

[DarKush]

Why would Wonder Woman have to be a $100 million dollar plus movie? Why couldn't TPTB look at stuff like Underworld for example. Those movies were made at a modest price and had strong female leads, and they were all profitable. I'm not sure about Resident Evil's budget, but once again, the female lead there didn't hurt the franchise.

Some might bemoan the quality of the examples I've cited, but their success can't be questioned. People are supporting those films enough for sequels to be made.

If they keep the cost relatively low and the action high, I think Wonder Woman would be great. I liked her animated film the best out of the recent spate of DCAU films. After reading the trade Who is Wonder Woman it really schooled me on her rogues and she has some decent ones that could make good movie villains.

If I had my choice I would go with Tricia Helfer, Rhona Mitra, Morena Baccarin, or Lena Headley for Wonder Woman. I think all have acquitted themselves well with action/genre roles. For Steve Trevor, why not bring back Nathan Fillion from the animated film? Or maybe Bradley Cooper.

Perhaps Demi Moore, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Carrie-Ann Moss, and Monica Bellucci might have 'aged' out of the role, but I would've liked to see them too. If Kim Kardashian could act I think she looks the part to me.

 

[Docker2.0]

All superhero flicks have to be $100M blockbusters for some strange reason. I honestly don't think it has to be, nor does Captain America. I think $60-70M for Cap seems about right because he really isn't super powered but whatever. I say make it with that budget and you can double your profits. That's just me but.............eh.

 

[BlackLantern]

if you want to keep the mythology elements of WW, visual FX costs money, sets cost money, all the costumes and extras costs money

and on Cap, a majority of the film is taking place in WW2 IIRC, and is also being shot overseas....so I'm not sure what the budget for that will be

 

[Docker2.0]

I can't remember what bid budget movie came out last year but it's budget was only $70M and it looked like it cost $200M to make it. Movie budgets are getting out of hand and it could be made a lot cheaper and look more expensive than a muthaducka if done right.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk


This movie was made with $300. $300 freakin dollars!!! You can't tell me that movies can't be made with $70M and look like you are right in it.

 

[Denny67]

I think its because DC doesnt have a plan... Marvel does and is interlinking their movies. Risky?...yes...cool? Eff yeah. WB never had to deal with several different studios...they always had all the characters. They have all their eggs wrapped up in Batman...you'd think that after the success of the MCU they'd start going ahead on the DCU...all we know about is Bat3..Green Lantern and Superman...and Superman is being reboot in a separate universe alone from other heroes

Bingo! The DC universe is completely under the WB umbrella. They actually have MORE creative control to establish a cohesive film universe and continuity. It really shows how utterly clueless the WB brass is.

How they are able to get it so right with their animation division and so wrong with live action is a mystery that ranks right up there with the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[Crook]

I can't remember what bid budget movie came out last year but it's budget was only $70M and it looked like it cost $200M to make it. Movie budgets are getting out of hand and it could be made a lot cheaper and look more expensive than a muthaducka if done right.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk


This movie was made with $300. $300 freakin dollars!!! You can't tell me that movies can't be made with $70M and look like you are right in it.

Don't get caught in the hype of "small-budget" shorts like these. The software and hardware ALONE to shoot this type of stuff cost several thousand. I always laugh at how filmmakers claim it was made for so-and-so and fail to explain what exactly they spent the money on. I guarantee you it'd never account for every aspect of the production.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea for me i am a big fan of comics, and if a film version looks good for a character i will check it out. Then i judge if it was a good film or a bad film. Hopefully though with how films like tdk, ironman changed how some see films. That the studios will start to see what works the best for these films, and make the right decisions about future film adaptions of characters. So we get hopefully a better film for said characters.

Also i agree i would love for wb/dc to take more chances with characters like flash/ww/aquaman. But yea they need to find the right folks to tackle the characters. Like how goyer/nolans were great for batman. We need to see folks who tackle a character like they did and understand who and what a character is.

 

[BlackLantern]

Don't get caught in the hype of "small-budget" shorts like these. The software and hardware ALONE to shoot this type of stuff cost several thousand. I always laugh at how filmmakers claim it was made for so-and-so and fail to explain what exactly they spent the money on. I guarantee you it'd never account for every aspect of the production.

agreed...it does look good, but 3 minutes is a lot different from 2 hours

 

[Spider-Vader]

They'll get their s*** together once Avenger's makes a s***-load of money. A JL movie could possibly make more. Bats, Supes, WW, Flash & GL (as of now) are all more well-known than any Avenger except IM & Hulk.

 

[Heretic]

The weird thing is that no "world" has to be built. The public already accepts that Superman and Batman are friends. Just make solo movies that have virtually no connections...then have a Justice League movie where they all have to team up. Trust me, if some massive threat came to earth, all of them would end up in the same fight.

 

[roach]

The weird thing is that no "world" has to be built. The public already accepts that Superman and Batman are friends. Just make solo movies that have virtually no connections...then have a Justice League movie where they all have to team up. Trust me, if some massive threat came to earth, all of them would end up in the same fight.

the sad thing is they have all the rights to the characters...they can have everyone they want and not need to deal with rights at another studio

 

[Webhead2006]

totally that is another thing that sucks about wb not doing anything really with their dc characters they are all under one house, and marvel still needs to get full control back on some.

 

[roach]

totally that is another thing that sucks about wb not doing anything really with their dc characters they are all under one house, and marvel still needs to get full control back on some.

to be honest I am glad they dont...I'd rather not see Wolverine or Spiderman on the Avengers

 

[baerrtt]

Why would Wonder Woman have to be a $100 million dollar plus movie? Why couldn't TPTB look at stuff like Underworld for example. Those movies were made at a modest price and had strong female leads, and they were all profitable. I'm not sure about Resident Evil's budget, but once again, the female lead there didn't hurt the franchise.

Some might bemoan the quality of the examples I've cited, but their success can't be questioned. People are supporting those films enough for sequels to be made.

If they keep the cost relatively low and the action high, I think Wonder Woman would be great. I liked her animated film the best out of the recent spate of DCAU films. After reading the trade Who is Wonder Woman it really schooled me on her rogues and she has some decent ones that could make good movie villains.

If I had my choice I would go with Tricia Helfer, Rhona Mitra, Morena Baccarin, or Lena Headley for Wonder Woman. I think all have acquitted themselves well with action/genre roles. For Steve Trevor, why not bring back Nathan Fillion from the animated film? Or maybe Bradley Cooper.

Perhaps Demi Moore, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Carrie-Ann Moss, and Monica Bellucci might have 'aged' out of the role, but I would've liked to see them too. If Kim Kardashian could act I think she looks the part to me.

Whilst I have no problem with the sensible idea of a WW movie being done 'on the cheap' there's a part of me (and other fans would express this as well) that feels that the character being given the UNDERWORLD/RESIDENT EVIL budget treatment and getting similar box-office results no matter how profitable.....would still be doing the character a disservice especially if the actual quality turns out to be, IMHO, as mediocre as the two franchises I've mentioned.

Basically put WW was intended, when Joel Silver had the rights all those years back, as a MAJOR summer tentpole and such a direction, in a way, basically still says 'This character isn't worth spending THAT much money on'.

 

[dnno1]

I can't remember what bid budget movie came out last year but it's budget was only $70M and it looked like it cost $200M to make it. Movie budgets are getting out of hand and it could be made a lot cheaper and look more expensive than a muthaducka if done right.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dadPWhEhVk


This movie was made with $300. $300 freakin dollars!!! You can't tell me that movies can't be made with $70M and look like you are right in it.

Don't get caught in the hype of "small-budget" shorts like these. The software and hardware ALONE to shoot this type of stuff cost several thousand. I always laugh at how filmmakers claim it was made for so-and-so and fail to explain what exactly they spent the money on. I guarantee you it'd never account for every aspect of the production.

There is no doubt that a lot of time went into the making of that film and it paid off for it's director, Frederico Alvarez (he was offered 30 million ot make a Hollywood production). It doesn't change the fact that an independent film can be made at less expense than a big budget hollywood film since there is the flexibility to use unions or the standard production houses that could make a film very costly. It would be a good suggestion, though that the attempt to place Wonder Woman in some other form of medium, like Web TV or independent film when she stands a better chance at builing a following withouth the risk of losing a lot of money.

 

[DarKush]

Whilst I have no problem with the sensible idea of a WW movie being done 'on the cheap' there's a part of me (and other fans would express this as well) that feels that the character being given the UNDERWORLD/RESIDENT EVIL budget treatment and getting similar box-office results no matter how profitable.....would still be doing the character a disservice especially if the actual quality turns out to be, IMHO, as mediocre as the two franchises I've mentioned.

Basically put WW was intended, when Joel Silver had the rights all those years back, as a MAJOR summer tentpole and such a direction, in a way, basically still says 'This character isn't worth spending THAT much money on'.

I understand your point and I wouldn't want any Wonder Woman movie to be mediocre. However that's not always tied to budget. Transformers 2 for example had a large budget but was a terrible film. Granted, it made money. People surely debate the quality of more modest films like Resident Evil and Underworld, but they have proven profitable with a smaller budget. I think there is a hesitation on the part of the suits to give a Wonder Woman film a go and a bigger budget because of fears it might fail. I would rather they go for a smaller, and hopefully quality film, which gets made instead of waiting for the big budget that will never come. If a smaller Wonder Woman film does well box office wise, the sequel will probably get the bigger budget.

IMO, there's a lot of TV shows that have cinematic FX today so I'm sure that a Wonder Woman film could produce at least decent FX on a smaller budget.

 

[Webhead2006]

roach even if wolverine or spidey was under full control by marvel again whos to say they would put them in avengers films yet. Since they have characters like antman, wasp, vision and other members they could use first. Plus since marvel studios doesnt have these character in their world right now we would still probably see a solo film from them first before we ever see them in team up film.

 

[lespaul59]

WB should take a chance, when they've got all the ingredients together to make a great movie. I really don't get the acceptance of mediocrity. You're paying your hard earn money to watch theses films, you should be demanding quality. What good is a half arsed version of a character, it's only ever gonna be subject to ridicule and fan division afterward. This must be a comic book mentality due to the frequency of issues, that's the only reason I can think of as to why some would forgo quality.

I wasn't saying WB/DC should churn out movies reguardless of quality either. The fact of the matter is WB/DC mind set is if we don't think it will make us money we're just gonna do Batman and Superman insted. And they don't always get those two right. Untill they start releasing movies with more than just SM, BM and other movies most people probaly don't even know came from a comic that's what people are gonna think. And well the Watchmen is so different from what people expect to see from a comic or comic movie I'm not sure it ever really had a chance.

I also think the era you grew up in partly forms your opinion on these things. Like while I was growing up and really into comics the only comics movies that came out where Superman 4, Batman 1-4, The Punisher, Captain America , The Crow, Howard the Duck, The Hulk tv movies, Swamp Thing 2 and probaly a few more that I'm missing. And when you take that into consideration you have three DC characters, four Marvel characters and I don't remember who put the Crow out and out of all of those you get maybe 5-6 good movies. So out of thirteen or so movies you get say at least 5 good movies between 2-3 companies your view is gonna be different than somebody who might have grown up between say 99 untill now. I don't want anybody to think I'm saying your opinion should be this or that I'm just saying the lack of diversity has shapped my opion on the subject.

And since Batman and Robin DC has only really done Batman, Superman, Catwoman and Watchmen and only the Batman movies and the Watchmen have been good. And I'm not including Jonah Hex because I haven't seen it so I don't know if it's good or not. It's sad when the first SM movie in almost 20 years is kinda like WTH and should have been way better.

 

[lespaul59]

You know I'm not so sure I didn't argue my own point with that last post.

 

[BlackLantern]

well the "fan division" jmc talks about only makes up about 5 percent of the movie going audience, if that