I'm not sure and I don't think DC can do her justice.
The potential is clearly there ... but the only way to know is to produce a movie and see. I think it is more about a good script and good performance than about the character's appeal. If millions of people will go see Hunger Games they'll go see WW if the trailers are good, the marketing is compelling and the reviews of plot and acting are positive.
I think the character has quite a bit of potential to made into a successful film. But I agree that I don't feel that DC can do her justice either. Marvel had a specific goal in mind when they started making their own films. They seem like their playing catch up and are too preoccupied with imitating successful formulas instead of trying to create their own.
I'm very skeptical as to whether Gal Gadot can carry her own movie and a I'm non-believer in Snyder's ability to pull it off but I do believe in the character of Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman is like a delicious and super expensive cut of meat that they grind and drown in tomato paste and cook a bolognesa that no one wants to eat.
DC dropped the ball with this. Even the most die hard Marvel fanboys will tell you Diana is the most popular female superheroine out of the big 2. If Dc was that scared about her movie flopping then add a character or two like how Snyder did to MOS. Either Dc doesnt believe in Gadot , whoever would make the film , or they dont believe in the character is just a shame especially when summer blockbusters are going for a bad ass female lead who stands above the boys Hunger Games , Divergent , Lucy for example.
I'm pretty sure the character can. Maybe not to the same BO levels as Batman and Superman but at least the same level as Thor. It all boils down to casting the character. I don't have faith in Gal Gadot to carry her own movie so far. She will have to defy my expectations to do so.
I think that Wonder Woman can carry her own film, but as everyone has pointed out, it would all depend on who's writing the character and what actress they hired to play her character.
kgb brought up a good possibility. Maybe they don't have faith in Gadot or Wonder Woman, but by attaching them to a successful film (Man of Steel) and character (Batman), it will give them a boost.
@agent008: didn't Gadot get the part for MoS well after several failed WW features had been entertained? I doubt her casting had much to do with a lack of a movie so much as lack of faith in scripts was a problem. Joss Whedon was attached to WW for a while and even that fell apart.
The animated feature sold slowly upfront, but over time has slid solidify into the top 8-10 sellers in the DCAU numbers. But that slow start out up a lot of barriers for female driven leads in the DCAU.
@superguy1591: Well WW is in the spotlight atm, sexism has nothing to do with it . Besides i'm pretty sure most people DON'T think Aquaman or Flash could hold a franchise.
Would you ask if Flash, GL, Aquaman or Superman could hold a franchise?
If not, why Wonder Woman?
LOL wut? how does this make you sexist? those characters have long successful runs under various writers,WW doesn't not even under Greg Rucka and Gail Simone(who wrote the screen play for the animated movie).
@entropy_aegis: it's a stupid question. Just look at guardians of the galaxy, a group of nobodies that most people didn't care about, and they've doing quite well. So it's not about successful comic book runs or popularity of characters, but about a studio treating the material with respect, as well as a willingness to give it a decent budget.
@entropy_aegis: This because comicbook audiences are majority male. Like others have said, if a talking rat and Shakespeare's Superman can make a lot of money, Diana can make more.
Would you ask if Flash, GL, Aquaman or Superman could hold a franchise?
If not, why Wonder Woman?
Even if a person would question Wonder Woman's ability to hold a franchise but not the four male Justice Leaguers it still wouldn't necessarily be an example of sexism.
That said, I would question whether Aquaman could hold a franchise. While he's probably roughly equal in name recognition to the others, he's still seen as a joke for some reason, and has never even had his own television show.
The reason why people question whether Wonder Woman could be a successful film franchise is because of how unsuccessful the character has been in her native medium after the Marsten era ended. The one bright spot has been the George Perez era, and everything after that has been much more debated.
@agent008: didn't Gadot get the part for MoS well after several failed WW features had been entertained? I doubt her casting had much to do with a lack of a movie so much as lack of faith in scripts was a problem. Joss Whedon was attached to WW for a while and even that fell apart.
The animated feature sold slowly upfront, but over time has slid solidify into the top 8-10 sellers in the DCAU numbers. But that slow start out up a lot of barriers for female driven leads in the DCAU.
Disagree. I think that part of the reason Green Lantern got the green light (npi) was that it had become one of DC Comics most successful titles. However, because the Green Lantern movie did so poorly, I think it's likely that DC got cold feet about making non-Batman superhero movies. They tried to do what Marvel did and failed, so instead, they're relying on the recent Man of Steel success, and the wave of still-solid interest in Batman, to introduce their other heroes.
As much as I've warmed up to the idea of Gal Gadot, I doubt that DC would have cast her in the role if it had been a stand alone WW film. They probably would have gone with someone who had a little bit more name recognition.
@agent008: didn't Gadot get the part for MoS well after several failed WW features had been entertained? I doubt her casting had much to do with a lack of a movie so much as lack of faith in scripts was a problem. Joss Whedon was attached to WW for a while and even that fell apart.
The animated feature sold slowly upfront, but over time has slid solidify into the top 8-10 sellers in the DCAU numbers. But that slow start out up a lot of barriers for female driven leads in the DCAU.
Disagree. I think that part of the reason Green Lantern got the green light (npi) was that it had become one of DC Comics most successful titles. However, because the Green Lantern movie did so poorly, I think it's likely that DC got cold feet about making non-Batman superhero movies. They tried to do what Marvel did and failed, so instead, they're relying on the recent Man of Steel success, and the wave of still-solid interest in Batman, to introduce their other heroes.
As much as I've warmed up to the idea of Gal Gadot, I doubt that DC would have cast her in the role if it had been a stand alone WW film. They probably would have gone with someone who had a little bit more name recognition.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. It's a fact that there were several failed attempts at WW both in Film and on TV and that Joss Whedon was attached to a WW film for some time, but there were issues with scripts, all of this was happening about the time of (if not earlier than) GL release. It's also possible that the relative failure of GL played a role in the reason why they have now chosen to introduce WW and others through the MoS and JL franchises, but more likely the massive success of Marvel using this tactic pushed the idea through.
I also doubt Gal would have been the top of the list for a solo film headliner, but DC has rarely used A-listers for the hero role, especially recently ... Christian Bale was by no means a household name when he was cast as BM and Henry Cavil? Brandon Routh? Even Christopher Reeves ... none of these actors were much more known that Gadot is now when they were cast. They do seem to like putting A-listers in as supporting and villain roles. I could certainly see a more established actor playing Steve Trevor, or Etta or Hippolyta or the main villain.
@superguy1591: Well WW is in the spotlight atm, sexism has nothing to do with it . Besides i'm pretty sure most people DON'T think Aquaman or Flash could hold a franchise.
Beata
Flash could IMO ... nothing dark like BM of course, but light and humorous ala GotG could be well received.
DC has yet to do light and humorous live action well this century.
true story ... they tried with GL and failed ... I never understood what genius decided to try and make it funny and introduce Parallax in the same story. Hal is a smart ass, but the Parallax storyline was by far his most dark and least humorous ... bad mashup DC!
Flash could absolutely work as light and funny, but they'd have to stay with a fun story ... I always found the have to eat all the time bit a funny quirk that got added to Flash, and personally I find Wally's personality much more amusing than Barry ... but that's just me
DC has yet to do light and humorous live action well this century.
Flash could absolutely work as light and funny, but they'd have to stay with a fun story ... I always found the have to eat all the time bit a funny quirk that got added to Flash, and personally I find Wally's personality much more amusing than Barry ... but that's just me
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. It's a fact that there were several failed attempts at WW both in Film and on TV and that Joss Whedon was attached to a WW film for some time, but there were issues with scripts, all of this was happening about the time of (if not earlier than) GL release. It's also possible that the relative failure of GL played a role in the reason why they have now chosen to introduce WW and others through the MoS and JL franchises, but more likely the massive success of Marvel using this tactic pushed the idea through.
I also doubt Gal would have been the top of the list for a solo film headliner, but DC has rarely used A-listers for the hero role, especially recently ... Christian Bale was by no means a household name when he was cast as BM and Henry Cavil? Brandon Routh? Even Christopher Reeves ... none of these actors were much more known that Gadot is now when they were cast. They do seem to like putting A-listers in as supporting and villain roles. I could certainly see a more established actor playing Steve Trevor, or Etta or Hippolyta or the main villain.
I'm disagreeing that it was a lack of a satisfying script that led DC to decide on introducing Wonder Woman in a Batman/Superman movie and using someone with little acting experience like Gal Gadot. I also don't think that they're following Marvel's tactic. Marvel introduced the Avengers members in solo films before the actual Avengers films. The only two who didn't get that treatment were lesser known characters like Hawkeye and Black Widow who are not known for even having a regular ongoing series. Then again, I feel that WB isn't too confident overall with their individual properties aside from Nolan's Batman. I think that's why the Man of Steel sequel turned into something of an introduction for the Justice League.
However, I'll have to concede my argument about WB not wanting Gal Gadot to headline a Wonder Woman pre-Batman v Superman. While Christian Bale was not a household name, he had made enough news for his physical transformation in the film The Machinist. But the rest are great examples. I still don't know what other movies Brandon Routh has been in. Keaton was a respected actor but not an ideal choice to lead a summer action film, so Jack Nicholson was what got people.
DC has yet to do light and humorous live action well this century.
Flash could absolutely work as light and funny, but they'd have to stay with a fun story ... I always found the have to eat all the time bit a funny quirk that got added to Flash, and personally I find Wally's personality much more amusing than Barry ... but that's just me
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. It's a fact that there were several failed attempts at WW both in Film and on TV and that Joss Whedon was attached to a WW film for some time, but there were issues with scripts, all of this was happening about the time of (if not earlier than) GL release. It's also possible that the relative failure of GL played a role in the reason why they have now chosen to introduce WW and others through the MoS and JL franchises, but more likely the massive success of Marvel using this tactic pushed the idea through.
I also doubt Gal would have been the top of the list for a solo film headliner, but DC has rarely used A-listers for the hero role, especially recently ... Christian Bale was by no means a household name when he was cast as BM and Henry Cavil? Brandon Routh? Even Christopher Reeves ... none of these actors were much more known that Gadot is now when they were cast. They do seem to like putting A-listers in as supporting and villain roles. I could certainly see a more established actor playing Steve Trevor, or Etta or Hippolyta or the main villain.
I'm disagreeing that it was a lack of a satisfying script that led DC to decide on introducing Wonder Woman in a Batman/Superman movie and using someone with little acting experience like Gal Gadot. I also don't think that they're following Marvel's tactic. Marvel introduced the Avengers members in solo films before the actual Avengers films. The only two who didn't get that treatment were lesser known characters like Hawkeye and Black Widow who are not known for even having a regular ongoing series. Then again, I feel that WB isn't too confident overall with their individual properties aside from Nolan's Batman. I think that's why the Man of Steel sequel turned into something of an introduction for the Justice League.
However, I'll have to concede my argument about WB not wanting Gal Gadot to headline a Wonder Woman pre-Batman v Superman. While Christian Bale was not a household name, he had made enough news for his physical transformation in the film The Machinist. But the rest are great examples. I still don't know what other movies Brandon Routh has been in. Keaton was a respected actor but not an ideal choice to lead a summer action film, so Jack Nicholson was what got people.
I see now, and you make good points ... the truth is probably somewhere in there! Personally I think this direction makes the most sense for DC as they desperately need to expand their cinematic universe.
On a side note ... I saw The Machinist premier at Sundance Film Festival that year and was floored by what Bale did to himself! I'd seen him in a couple of other roles (Velvet Underground and American Psycho) prior to The Machinist and could hardly believe it was the same man!
I still haven't seen the Machinist although my friend bought it on DVD and told me how great it was. I'll need to check it out as well as Velvet Goldmine. I prefer performances of his when he uses native accent, rather than affecting an American one, the exception being American Psycho.
Side note, Jack Back was considered to play Hal Jordan and the film was to be a comedy.
I still haven't seen the Machinist although my friend bought it on DVD and told me how great it was. I'll need to check it out as well as Velvet Goldmine. I prefer performances of his when he uses native accent, rather than affecting an American one, the exception being American Psycho.
Side note, Jack Back was considered to play Hal Jordan and the film was to be a comedy.
Velvet Goldmine ... I always do that :)
Machinist is a bit of a mental f*ck ... but it's really fascinating as a story!
Jack Black as Hal Jordan sounds as horrible as the failed WW comedy TV show from circa 1967 that was supposed to have a fat and ugly woman with delusions who saw herself as WW when she looked in the mirror.
The premise for that comedy show sounds strangely appealing.
LOL ... it never got past the concept phase and could well have been no more than a rumor. Can you imagine how Gloria Steinem would have reacted to it though???
I just saw it on youtube. She's not fat or ugly, but she's supposed to be plain looking. Now that you mention it, it would be incredibly problematic, on premise alone. A heroine who finds self-validation by looking in the mirror and imagining herself as beautiful and attractive according to male, Eurocentric standards.
I just saw it on youtube. She's not fat or ugly, but she's supposed to be plain looking. Now that you mention it, it would be incredibly problematic, on premise alone. A heroine who finds self-validation by looking in the mirror and imagining herself as beautiful and attractive according to male, Eurocentric standards.
LOL ... I didn't realize it had actually filmed a concept clip! I had only ever read about it ... I just went and watched it on youtube too ... conceptually it makes for some good laughs, but in execution it's wretched!
I'm a firm fan of Marvel and will tell you the number one female super-hero is Wonder Woman. She had her own TV series in the 70's and there was Xena in the 90's so yes, the world will watch a female superhero. I don't see how DC hasn't put out a Wonder Woman movie or TV show.
Log in to comment