Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/06/23/why-it-took-so-long-to-get-a-w.html
…
1 Like
Because she was shunted to the mommy track, and had to stay at home during her prime raising wunderkinder and baking wonderbread?
(Only half joking here; soon after the Marstons lost control of Wonder Woman, the person who got creative control was a chauvinist who believed WW’s place was in the home or out being helplessly rescued.)
10 Likes
While it’s unfortunate we had to wait, I’m glad it landed in the hands it did. Now we need to get Patty Jenkins on the rest of the DC universe and maybe the franchise can be pulled out of the dumpster fire it became with the progressively shittier Superman movies.
16 Likes
Although the scene in the alleyway was an homage to the similar scene in the (not shitty) Christopher Reeve Superman.
2 Likes
I agree with the video in the post that it got back to some of the more optimistic tone of the first Superman movie. I actually liked WW better than Guardians 2 (which was good, but not as good as the first one IMO).
5 Likes
(Lol, using the Ghostbusters remake while talking about “more movies with female characters” is good trolling! a bit like showing Uwe Boll when talking about “more movies by Canadian directors”…)
TBH all this feminist chest-thumping is getting tiresome. I really want to see WW because it got great reviews and it made bank, which means it’s a good movie, that’s it. WW is a very difficult character to get right without ending in self-parody even in comics, which might explain why it got fewer movie treatments to begin with. Before Batman started the new wave of superhero flicks, it had already been reinvented by Frank Miller in comics; Superman got the Alan Moore treatment and plenty of other official and unofficial versions in very high-quality series; Spiderman had DeMatteis’s Kraven and McFarlane’s revolution; Wonder Woman had what…? I’m a Marvel guy but I read the masterpieces, and WW never had one in her own right. It’s just a difficult character.
IMHO this constant complaint about fewer treatments is just misplaced. Would you rather have one great movie every 30 years that everyone will remember, or have several shitty ones that everyone will forever laugh at (see: Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Punisher etc)? Superman and SpiderMan have been almost destroyed by excessive franchising, people should be happy that WW has been treated with utmost care and love until today.
3 Likes
All good points raised in the video, but does Fandor not get that reading a video doesn’t hold a great deal more advantage over reading an article? The reason you have video in the first place is so you can WATCH it.
Hire a narrator dangnabit!
The Fantastic Four - 1994, 2005, 2006(TV,) 2007, 2015
Daredevil - 2003, 2015(TV)
Punisher - 1998, 2004, 2008, 2017(TV)
Wonder Woman - 2017
You may feel that all this “feminist chest-thumping” is getting tiresome, but let me tell you whats tiresome to me; that “bad” movies staring men vastly outnumber “good” movies staring women. So sure, I’d like “good” movies and not “bad” movies, how is that even a question? But why do men get to repeatedly be mediocre and women need to be excellent if we want to get even a sliver of a chance of getting more movies? Personally, I’m looking forward to more female led movies, let hope they’re also “good”.
30 Likes
I still feel like Fandor covered a lot of “what” without really delving into “why”.
This was a good opportunity to really get down to the nitty gritty, a la Sarkeesian.
1 Like
TL;DR The studios had to wait for Gal Gadot to reach the appropriate age.
3 Likes
Because male characters are somewhat disposable? Because we’re more ashamed to give women cheap treatments, out of respect for everyone involved? Or like I said, because it seems so much easier to get them awfully wrong even in comics? Do you really want more Catwoman-level films? Because that’s what you’re asking for.
As I said, and you proved with stats, do you really want to be in a situation where more female characters are outright jokes? Because Punisher and FF are jokes at the moment.
I’ve said this before that in some cases (Supes, Bats, Spidey) they are the top brands for those companies. Its not the gender that gets them green lit for some many things, its the marketability of the logo, icon, etc.
I do not think its chest thumping on the part of feminists, I think its pride. Being proud of not just seeing an iconic female hero finally on the big screen; but also it is hands down the best flick DC has done.
The only caution I personally adhere to is that there are very few major brand marketable female heroes in Marvel and DC’s lineup that are not part of a larger group. I am very very much looking forward to Ant-man & the Wasp as I feel it may end up as the best marvel movie to date…but a solo Wasp film? I adore E. Lily…but the character of Janet Van Dyne (or Hope in this iteration) just doesn’t bring enough for a solo flick. I’d argue Scott Lang’s Ant-man doesn’t either and feel that Ant-man was an ensemble cast despite the solo title.
My 2c for what its worth (about 1.5c I’ve been told).
1 Like
Not as tiresome as the chauvinist claim that female leads don’t sell. Clearly they do when they get a good movie. And finally getting that proven is a significant step, no matter how tired you already are of that step.
22 Likes
I can agree, but seeing this one movie as “final proof” means discounting people like Sigourney Weaver, Angelina Jolie and Natalie Portman, just talking about blockbusters. Female leads, good movies, bank.
But if you mean female superhero leads, then the problem is that the source material is just not great, historically speaking. An industry built for (and largely by) male teenagers struggled for decades to write decent female characters; so there are fewer movie treatments, because writers simply struggle with the source material. Isn’t it great that, despite this, the average female-lead adaptations tends to be better than the average male-lead series? Isn’t that a sign of higher respect for the characters?
No, it must be discrimination. eh.
1 Like
But even as part of a larger group, we barely get to see them. Storm has been the leader of the X-Men for ages, but she barely played a role in the X-Men movies. There have been tons of female Avengers, but we only got Black Widow with 5 men, and later the Scarlet Witch and a couple more men added to the team.
Maybe there’s a shortage of female heroes that have the stature of Superman or Spiderman, but we get tons of B-list male superheroes, and still very few female ones.
17 Likes
They did make one a big budget movie about Wonder Woman’s adventures flying around in that jet but nobody saw it.
7 Likes
True. There have been plenty of successful movies with female leads. And yet we still got to hear the claim that female leads don’t sell. I really hope those claims will finally stop now.
9 Likes
Lost in all the noise of gender and mansplaining is that WW is a fictional character, she isn’t real. She deflects bullets with her bracelets and boobs and everyone looses their collective shit how refreshing it is to have a female hero.
Because there HAS NEVER been any movies with women in the lead/hero role, ever…
Karen Silkwood
Norma Rae
Erin Brokovich
I don’t know where I’m going with this, but cinema has examples of strong, determined women that don’t fly or have super powers. But they are still heroes. Real heroes. They weren’t born for the screen or graphic novels.
1 Like
Not really. She was in charge for a relatively brief period in the late Claremont years, but nowadays they’ve largely gone back to Cyclops and Wolverine most of the time Prof X is not around. Emma Frost has been in charge for ages, and she was in the films, but her complicated backstory basically lead writers to kill her off in the background.
There have been tons of crap Avengers, let’s be honest. Many of those were female characters. I don’t really itch to see the old Ms. Marvel in the same way I don’t really itch to see Wonder Man. I still hope Marvel come to their senses and ditch their plans for a Carol Danvers movie, using the new Ms Marvel instead - Kamala Kahn is literally born to be on the screen.
1 Like
I’d argue that Black Widow as a female lead doesn’t sell. Female leads have worked fine in the past in action orientated films (not just romantic comedies). I just don’t care to watch a Black Widow flick. Unless you make it akin to how Haywire was…then I am down…I just think Haywire was more action/adventure and fits the same genre as Jack Reacher and John Wick.
My favorite marvel film is CA; TWS. I do not see Cap as the stand alone lead in that film…it is a buddy flick. Cap and Black Widow have nearly equal screen time; and it is that team up that helps make it such a great story line and character driven film. She is as important to that movie’s success as anything else.
Are these characters though that can carry a stand alone film? I do not want a Cannonball solo film any more than I want a stand alone Scarlet Witch film. Not compelling.
Give me a marvel team up of Shadowcat and Wolverine…I am all over it.
The issue with storm I think was in the chosen actress…Halle Berry was horrid. She was also horrid as Catwoman. Go figure, I wonder what the common issue was? Storm is amazing, but part of what always made her such a compelling character through issues 130-Xtinction agenda story line was her interaction as a leader with the team. Remove the team, and it undercuts the strengths of her character.
Look at some of those female avengers and ask if they would make good lead characters? Tigra? Mockingbird? Spider-woman? Firestar? Moondragon? This goes double for many male heroes too…Black Knight? Hercules? Starfox? Namor? Just no.
I am hoping for a Wonderman tv show on Netflix…and Magik would be another one I would love to see.
1 Like
