|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 19:18:31 GMT
All three combined might've qualified as risky ten years ago or so, but not now If it weren't risky now, then 1) more female Directors would've had opportunity to direct superhero movies and 2) more female Directors would've had the opportunity to direct a big-budget franchise movie, and 3) more female-led superhero movies would've been made in the past decade. But Patty Jenkins is only the 2nd woman given the opportunity to direct a superhero movie and the 6th woman given the opportunity to direct a movie with a budget over $100 million and no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero movie for over a decade. So it was still very risky when Wonder Woman was greenlit to go into production. 2) Independent to director-for-hire tackling big budget spectacles is not rare at all, male or female, it happens so frequently it seems you don't need a background in helming them to make so and so as long as you've got one or two critical darlings under your belt, or crowd pleasers for that matter. Like I said before, it isn't rare and happens frequently for male Directors, but for female Directors it's almost as rare and infrequent as the planets aligning together. Like I said before, there have been over 300 movies with a budget over $100 million and only 6 (including Wonder Woman) have been directed by a female Director. 6 out of more than 300. That's less than 2% of all movies with a budget of $100 million. You're saying that less than 2% is frequent? What did Jordan Vogt-Roberts do before tackling Kong: Skull Island? Fairly small-in-scale, low-in-budget, quirky comedies and stand-up/sketches for TV. Nothing about his prior work suggests he could deliver something on the scale of Kong Jordan vogt-Roberts is a male Director. Hollywood has a different set of "rules" for male Directors. Why Women Aren't Being Hired To Direct Superhero MoviesThe bias that makes it difficult for female directors has been something that Lexi Alexander has been fighting against for years. The only woman to ever direct a comic book adaptation (to date) says that female directors have to prove that they can produce masculine films, while male filmmakers are simply assumed to be capable even if they have no experience.
In an interview with Vulture, Alexander says different criteria are used when considering female directors for superhero projects.
I think in industries riddled with bias, you tend to hire women only if their previous work is very masculine, which is hilarious given that this is not how male directors are chosen. … Women have to be ‘one of the boys’ to get in on the superhero business, whereas male directors don’t have to have any proof on their résumé that they can deliver hardcore action.
As an example of her point, Alexander mentions Kenneth Branagh, who directed the first Thor movie even though the majority of his experience directing to that point had been Shakespeare. Nobody looked at him as an "action director," simply a director who could do the job. On the other side there is an assumption that women can’t do action unless they’ve proven otherwise.Superheroes are everywhere now, especially in film and TV. A female led superhero film is not surprising And yet, no one in Hollywood (certainly not MCU) had been willing to make a female-led superhero movie for more than a decade. what is surprising about Wonder Woman however is that it took this long to make it happen when we've had multiple Superman and Batman physical related media in the past few decades. That just further proves my point. The perception in Hollywood prior to Wonder Woman was that female-led superhero movies couldn't be successful because there was just no market for them. Wonder Woman had to go up against that long-held perception just to be greenlit in the 1st place. That's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan of being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar - because Wonder Woman had to overcome a lot more obstacles just to get to the big screen.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 2, 2017 19:38:33 GMT
the biggest risk in making CBM films is who or what it is about. And given the fact that Iron Man was just another solo male superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie), Iron Man was a pretty safe and low-risk movie and given the fact that not only had there never been a successful female-led superhero movie but also no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero movie (certainly not MCU) for over a decade, Wonder Woman is definitely the riskiest CBM ever made. As much as you want to twist it, the fact is Wonder Woman is, and was, a much well known character than Iron Man, and was pretty much a household name, unlike Iron man, and was was already established on film. Stop the lazy comparisons with earlier female CBMs...they took a risk also, but failed because they were BAD FILMS...nothing to do with the sex of the lead. Did HULK fail because it was a male lead? The fact is that there are way more big name comic book heroes that are male than female so there will be more male one's that female. Even so Wonder Woman is probably in the Top 10 of ALL of them, and probably the only female character in that 10. Also may I remind you MCU is not a studio or a production company...Marvel Entertainment (who have overseen the production of films since Blade, DC since Catwoman), which oversea both the pre and post MCU films, were willing to make a female-led superhero movie, Elektra, as well as willing to have a female director with Punisher War Zone. They may not have been blockbusters, but contrary to what you have said, they did do it. You seem obsessed with the idea that WW is such a success despite her being a woman, and because it was directed by a woman. The truth is it was a success BECAUSE it was Wonder Woman, and because it was made by a decent director regardless of sex. It has done well because it is a decent DC film.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 2, 2017 20:16:00 GMT
2) Independent to director-for-hire tackling big budget spectacles is not rare at all, male or female, it happens so frequently it seems you don't need a background in helming them to make so and so as long as you've got one or two critical darlings under your belt, or crowd pleasers for that matter. Like I said before, it isn't rare and happens frequently for male Directors, but for female Directors it's almost as rare and infrequent as the planets aligning together. Like I said before, there have been over 300 movies with a budget over $100 million and only 6 (including Wonder Woman) have been directed by a female Director. 6 out of more than 300. That's less than 2% of all movies with a budget of $100 million. You're saying that less than 2% is frequent? what is surprising about Wonder Woman however is that it took this long to make it happen when we've had multiple Superman and Batman physical related media in the past few decades. That just further proves my point. The perception in Hollywood prior to Wonder Woman was that female-led superhero movies couldn't be successful because there was just no market for them. Wonder Woman had to go up against that long-held perception just to be greenlit in the 1st place. That's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan of being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar - because Wonder Woman had to overcome a lot more obstacles just to get to the big screen. Whilst the numbers of jobs given to women directors compared to male is disproportionate, it should still be taken into consideration there are a lot less female directors. Yes more women should be given a chance, but are way less of them. They should be hired on their merits, not their sex. Marvels roster of female heroes is much smaller. The most famous ones are part of teams. Wonder Woman was a no-brainer for DC. You seem totally ignorant of Wonder Woman's standing in both the comic world and amongst the public. List DCs Top 5 most famous heroes. List the top 10 most famous comic book heroes both Marvel & DC (pre MCU). I think you'd find Wonder Woman in both lists. Of course DC were going to make the film...she is the most famous unfilmed comic book hero. I doubt it has a chance. Firstly because I hope the Academy is not partial to such tokenism. And secondly, it's good, but in no way is it that good. Male or female hero, it was a decent comic book film. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing especially remarkable, about the direction, acting, script or FX. The overall package was decent and every element of it was decent.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 21:01:29 GMT
Did HULK fail because it was a male lead? There were plenty of male-led superhero movies before Hulk and still plenty afterwards. Hulk's failure didn't create the perecption among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that they should stop making male-led superhero movies because there's just no market for them and they can't succeed. The failures of Supergirl, Catwoman, and Elektra created a perception among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that there's just no market for female-led superhero movies and they couldn't succeed. Elektra's failure resulted in more than a decade without any female-led superhero movies. Marvel Entertainment (who have overseen the production of films since Blade, DC since Catwoman), which oversea both the pre and post MCU films, were willing to make a female-led superhero movie, Elektra, as well as willing to have a female director with Punisher War Zone. Elektra was more than a decade ago. Since Elektra, there have been over 2 dozen solo male superhero movies and over a dozen superhero team-up movies but not a single solo female superhero movie, until Wonder Woman. And Punisher: War Zone was just a $35 million budget movie, less than 1/4 the budget of Wonder Woman. You seem obsessed with the idea that WW is such a success despite her being a woman, and because it was directed by a woman. Wonder Woman is a success because it's 1 of the best CBMs ever made and certainly better than all of MCU's movies. And Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made because it had to overcome a huge obstacle just to get greenlit. Neither Iron Man nor Captain America nor Thor nor Guardians of the Galaxy nor Ant-Man nor Doctor Strange had to overcome a long-held perception among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that there was just no market for it an it couldn't succeed. Wonder Woman not only had to overcome that long-held perception among Hollywood executives just to get greenlit but also had the additional risk of a female lead who had very few previous movie roles and never had a leading role in a movie and a female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie from 14 years ago. It doesn't get any riskier than that.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jul 2, 2017 21:28:13 GMT
Did HULK fail because it was a male lead? There were plenty of male-led superhero movies before Hulk and still plenty afterwards. Hulk's failure didn't create the perecption among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that they should stop making male-led superhero movies because there's just no market for them and they can't succeed. The failures of Supergirl, Catwoman, and Elektra created a perception among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that there's just no market for female-led superhero movies and they couldn't succeed. Elektra's failure resulted in more than a decade without any female-led superhero movies. Marvel Entertainment (who have overseen the production of films since Blade, DC since Catwoman), which oversea both the pre and post MCU films, were willing to make a female-led superhero movie, Elektra, as well as willing to have a female director with Punisher War Zone. Elektra was more than a decade ago. Since Elektra, there have been over 2 dozen solo male superhero movies and over a dozen superhero team-up movies but not a single solo female superhero movie, until Wonder Woman. And Punisher: War Zone was just a $35 million budget movie, less than 1/4 the budget of Wonder Woman. You seem obsessed with the idea that WW is such a success despite her being a woman, and because it was directed by a woman. Wonder Woman is a success because it's 1 of the best CBMs ever made and certainly better than all of MCU's movies. And Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made because it had to overcome a huge obstacle just to get greenlit. Neither Iron Man nor Captain America nor Thor nor Guardians of the Galaxy nor Ant-Man nor Doctor Strange had to overcome a long-held perception among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that there was just no market for it an it couldn't succeed. Wonder Woman not only had to overcome that long-held perception among Hollywood executives just to get greenlit but also had the additional risk of a female lead who had very few previous movie roles and never had a leading role in a movie and a female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie from 14 years ago. It doesn't get any riskier than that. It's really sad how determined you are to convince others of DCEU's success. Have you ever 'agreed to disagree'?
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 2, 2017 21:48:27 GMT
You seem obsessed with the idea that WW is such a success despite her being a woman, and because it was directed by a woman. Wonder Woman is a success because it's 1 of the best CBMs ever made and certainly better than all of MCU's movies. And Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made because it had to overcome a huge obstacle just to get greenlit. Neither Iron Man nor Captain America nor Thor nor Guardians of the Galaxy nor Ant-Man nor Doctor Strange had to overcome a long-held perception among Hollywood executives who greenlit movies that there was just no market for it an it couldn't succeed. Wonder Woman not only had to overcome that long-held perception among Hollywood executives just to get greenlit but also had the additional risk of a female lead who had very few previous movie roles and never had a leading role in a movie and a female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million indie movie from 14 years ago. It doesn't get any riskier than that. Copying and pasting the same thing over and over again doesn't make it right. You don't seem to be able to process that Wonder Woman is/was a major figure in both comic books and popular culture. She is/was well known amongst the non comic reading public. Is known to generations of people. You seem to think brand and public recognition and awareness is far less important a factor to a films success than the sex of that character. DC should be applauded less for making the film, and perhaps criticised more for taking 13 years to make it in favour of making 4 films starring Batman and 3 starring Superman. As for their being "no market" and therefore a risk, bullshit. There is a market - DC fans, comic book fans, blockbuster fans. As opposed to that massive market for talking racoons and trees. The other thing you constantly ignore is that Wonder Woman had already made her big screen debut. Many considered her the best thing about BvS, in fact the only element of the film consistently praised. People WANTED a Wonder Woman film. DC knew there was a merket for it.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 2, 2017 22:47:54 GMT
They make movies about stuff like a talking raccoon and a tree. That's nothing. There have been movies with talking chipmunks and talking teenage mutant ninja turtles. Scooby Doo had a talking dog and The Chronicles of Narnia series had all kinds of talking animals. And oh yeah, there are those movies with those talking apes that have been hugely successful. That's riskier than a movie about a female Superhero. Nope, given the fact that not only has there never been a successful female-led superhero movie but also no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero for more than a decade, Wonder Woman is the riskiest CBM ever made: 1. A lead actress who had very few previous movie roles and who had never had a leading role in a movie. 2. A female Director whose only previous movie was an $8 million dollar budget indie movie from 14 years ago. 3. A genre that has never produced a successful movie. That's like the Triple Crown of high-risk. It doesn't get any riskier than that. Superman was a very basic, very archetypal character. Comic superheroes would exist with or without him. Marvel would exist without him. Nope, prior to Superman being in Action Comics #1, comic books were mostly just re-publishing comic strips that appeared in daily newspapers from around the world. Superman started the era of comic-book superheroes. Without Superman, there are no comic-book superheroes and no MCU. Iron Man was a risky move. Not really. Iron Man was just another solo male superhero movie (like the Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man movies and the first Hulk movie). Pretty safe, not much risk. That it was about a man matter very little. It mattered a lot. It mattered so much that MCU was afraid to make a female-led superhero movie for 9 years and are only making Captain Marvel because DCEU made Wonder Woman. it just got an artificial booster from the prior movies being awful Did Supergirl being awful make Catwoman a great movie? Did Catwoman being awful make Elektra a great movie? Wonder Woman is a great movie not because of any previous movies being awful but because Wonder Woman is 1 of the best CBMs ever made and is better than all of MCU's movies. A CBM about lesser known characters that include a talking racoon and a tree? That had never been done before, especially with all the crap MCU had to put up with like "This is the film that will bring the MCU down!" only for them to win out yet again. WAY riskier than making a film about a well known heroine. Gadot not being well known? That's not a risk. She was well liked from BvS. Director not known for doing big budget CBMs? Not risky at all, MCU paved the path for Jenkins. Wonder Woman is a well known heroine, the risk on her was minimal. Superman was a very basic character, and others like the Shadow and such predated him (Radio Heroes, admittedly, but the same principle). Marvel in no way needed him to exist. They'd have created Captain America without Superman. Iron Man was WAY riskier than WW. Without Iron Man, odds are there'd be no WW movie. MCU's been building itself up properly before they make a movie about a lesser known female heroine. DC took longer to make a WW movie than Marvel has, relatively speaking. None of those movies came out so closely together nor were they part of the same "Universe". WW being part of the DCEU meant the prior failures gave the critics such a low opinion that when WW turned out to be halfway decent they went easy on it for its mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 23:01:50 GMT
They should be hired on their merits, not their sex. But that standard should apply to both male and female Directors. But it doesn't. The reality is that Hollywood ha a different set of "rules" for male and female Directors. Why Women Aren't Being Hired To Direct Superhero MoviesThe bias that makes it difficult for female directors has been something that Lexi Alexander has been fighting against for years. The only woman to ever direct a comic book adaptation (to date) says that female directors have to prove that they can produce masculine films, while male filmmakers are simply assumed to be capable even if they have no experience.
In an interview with Vulture, Alexander says different criteria are used when considering female directors for superhero projects.
I think in industries riddled with bias, you tend to hire women only if their previous work is very masculine, which is hilarious given that this is not how male directors are chosen. … Women have to be ‘one of the boys’ to get in on the superhero business, whereas male directors don’t have to have any proof on their résumé that they can deliver hardcore action.
As an example of her point, Alexander mentions Kenneth Branagh, who directed the first Thor movie even though the majority of his experience directing to that point had been Shakespeare. Nobody looked at him as an "action director," simply a director who could do the job. On the other side there is an assumption that women can’t do action unless they’ve proven otherwise.it's good, but in no way is it that good. Wonder Woman is 1 of the best CBMs ever made and certainly better than all of MCU's movies.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 2, 2017 23:13:48 GMT
As for their being "no market" and therefore a risk, bullshit. There is a market - DC fans, comic book fans, blockbuster fans. Not according to the perception of Hollywood executives who greenlit movies. From their perspective, there was no market for female-led superhero movies. It there were, they would've greenlit more female-led superhero movies in the decade since Elektra. But they didn't, because their perception was that there was no market for female-led superhero movies and they couldn't succeed. That's the biggest obstacle that Wonder Woman had to overcome that neither Iron man nor Captain America nor Thor nor Guardians of the Galaxy nor Ant-Man nor Doctor Strange had to deal with. And that's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar - because Wonder Woman had to overcome bigger obstacles just to get greenlit. As opposed to that massive market for talking racoons and trees. The perception of Hollywood executives who greenlit movies is that there's more of a market for talking animals than for female-led superhero movies. Ther have been movies with talking chipmunks and talking teenage mutant ninja turtles. Scooby Doo had a talking dog and The Chronicles of Narnia had all kinds of talking animals. And oh yeah, there's those movies with talking apes that have been hugely successful. And 1 of the most popular movies in Hollywood history had a talking scarecrow and a talking lion. The other thing you constantly ignore is that Wonder Woman had already made her big screen debut. Many considered her the best thing about BvS, in fact the only element of the film consistently praised. People WANTED a Wonder Woman film. DC knew there was a merket for it. WB took the risk and announced the Wonder Woman movie BEFORE BvS was released. So WB took the risk and greenlit the Wonder Woman movie BEFORE they knew how the public would react to her brief appearance in BvS.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 2, 2017 23:20:36 GMT
As for their being "no market" and therefore a risk, bullshit. There is a market - DC fans, comic book fans, blockbuster fans. Not according to the perception of Hollywood executives who greenlit movies. From their perspective, there was no market for female-led superhero movies. It there were, they would've greenlit more female-led superhero movies in the decade since Elektra. But they didn't, because their perception was that there was no market for female-led superhero movies and they couldn't succeed. That's the biggest obstacle that Wonder Woman had to overcome that neither Iron man nor Captain America nor Thor nor Guardians of the Galaxy nor Ant-Man nor Doctor Strange had to deal with. And that's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar - because Wonder Woman had to overcome bigger obstacles just to get greenlit. As opposed to that massive market for talking racoons and trees. The perception of Hollywood executives who greenlit movies is that there's more of a market for talking animals than for female-led superhero movies. Ther have been movies with talking chipmunks and talking teenage mutant ninja turtles. Scooby Doo had a talking dog and The Chronicles of Narnia had all kinds of talking animals. And oh yeah, there's those movies with talking apes that have been hugely successful. The other thing you constantly ignore is that Wonder Woman had already made her big screen debut. Many considered her the best thing about BvS, in fact the only element of the film consistently praised. People WANTED a Wonder Woman film. DC knew there was a merket for it. WB took the risk and announced the Wonder Woman movie BEFORE BvS was released. So WB took the risk and greenlit the Wonder Woman movie BEFORE they knew how the public would react to her brief appearance in BvS. That perspective is pre-MCU, which helped people realize that unashamed CBMs that don't suck out all the good stuff in favor of something "grounded" were profitable. It was nothing to do with WW being about a woman, it was because CBMs weren't as high in demand in general back then. Once again, that perception is before the MCU rehabilitated CBMs for people. Narnia has the book success to back then up, the Chipmunks movies didn't start until 2007 and have the old shows to back them up, etc. And again, without the MCU to do all the hard work for them, the WW movie never would've happened.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 3, 2017 0:15:43 GMT
That perspective is pre-MCU So there have been plenty of female-led superhero movies since MCU began in 2008? The perception by Hollywood executives that female-led superhero movies couldn't be successful because there was no market for them wasn't just pre-MCU. It was pre- Wonder Woman. That's why no one (including MCU) was willing to even make a female-led superhero movie since Elektra, until Wonder Woman. without the MCU to do all the hard work for them, the WW movie never would've happened. MCU hasn't done shit. They've had 9 years and still haven't made a female-led superhero movie and wouldn't even make Captain Marvel if not for DCEU making Wonder Woman. Superman: The Movie paved the way for CBMs almost 4 decades ago and now Wonder Woman has opened the door for more female-led superhero movies.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 3, 2017 1:28:07 GMT
That perspective is pre-MCU So there have been plenty of female-led superhero movies since MCU began in 2008? The perception by Hollywood executives that female-led superhero movies couldn't be successful because there was no market for them wasn't just pre-MCU. It was pre- Wonder Woman. That's why no one (including MCU) was willing to even make a female-led superhero movie since Elektra, until Wonder Woman. without the MCU to do all the hard work for them, the WW movie never would've happened. MCU hasn't done shit. They've had 9 years and still haven't made a female-led superhero movie and wouldn't even make Captain Marvel if not for DCEU making Wonder Woman. Superman: The Movie paved the way for CBMs almost 4 decades ago and now Wonder Woman has opened the door for more female-led superhero movies. CBMs in general got riskier after 2008. That is what convinced the DCEU to give WW a shot. MCU was too busy rebuilding the publics' faith in non-grounded CBMs. If not for them, there'd be no WW.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 3, 2017 1:38:34 GMT
All three combined might've qualified as risky ten years ago or so, but not now If it weren't risky now, then 1) more female Directors would've had opportunity to direct superhero movies and 2) more female Directors would've had the opportunity to direct a big-budget franchise movie, and 3) more female-led superhero movies would've been made in the past decade. But Patty Jenkins is only the 2nd woman given the opportunity to direct a superhero movie and the 6th woman given the opportunity to direct a movie with a budget over $100 million and no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero movie for over a decade. So it was still very risky when Wonder Woman was greenlit to go into production. 2) Independent to director-for-hire tackling big budget spectacles is not rare at all, male or female, it happens so frequently it seems you don't need a background in helming them to make so and so as long as you've got one or two critical darlings under your belt, or crowd pleasers for that matter. Like I said before, it isn't rare and happens frequently for male Directors, but for female Directors it's almost as rare and infrequent as the planets aligning together. Like I said before, there have been over 300 movies with a budget over $100 million and only 6 (including Wonder Woman) have been directed by a female Director. 6 out of more than 300. That's less than 2% of all movies with a budget of $100 million. You're saying that less than 2% is frequent? What did Jordan Vogt-Roberts do before tackling Kong: Skull Island? Fairly small-in-scale, low-in-budget, quirky comedies and stand-up/sketches for TV. Nothing about his prior work suggests he could deliver something on the scale of Kong Jordan vogt-Roberts is a male Director. Hollywood has a different set of "rules" for male Directors. Why Women Aren't Being Hired To Direct Superhero MoviesThe bias that makes it difficult for female directors has been something that Lexi Alexander has been fighting against for years. The only woman to ever direct a comic book adaptation (to date) says that female directors have to prove that they can produce masculine films, while male filmmakers are simply assumed to be capable even if they have no experience.
In an interview with Vulture, Alexander says different criteria are used when considering female directors for superhero projects.
I think in industries riddled with bias, you tend to hire women only if their previous work is very masculine, which is hilarious given that this is not how male directors are chosen. … Women have to be ‘one of the boys’ to get in on the superhero business, whereas male directors don’t have to have any proof on their résumé that they can deliver hardcore action.
As an example of her point, Alexander mentions Kenneth Branagh, who directed the first Thor movie even though the majority of his experience directing to that point had been Shakespeare. Nobody looked at him as an "action director," simply a director who could do the job. On the other side there is an assumption that women can’t do action unless they’ve proven otherwise.Superheroes are everywhere now, especially in film and TV. A female led superhero film is not surprising And yet, no one in Hollywood (certainly not MCU) had been willing to make a female-led superhero movie for more than a decade. what is surprising about Wonder Woman however is that it took this long to make it happen when we've had multiple Superman and Batman physical related media in the past few decades. That just further proves my point. The perception in Hollywood prior to Wonder Woman was that female-led superhero movies couldn't be successful because there was just no market for them. Wonder Woman had to go up against that long-held perception just to be greenlit in the 1st place. That's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan of being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar - because Wonder Woman had to overcome a lot more obstacles just to get to the big screen. The goal of any director is to tell a story as effective as they can, at the end of the day it is irrelevant what gender they are of as long as they deliver a quality product that is loved as much by critics as it is by audiences and scores high profit then its all well and good. Indie directors are making a jump to bigger projects more and more these days, that is the truth. And many people were expecting Wonder Woman to be directed by a female and voiced support for it, there was no actual debate by anybody that it would've been a complicated task to have done. Wonder Woman is as much known and as much a beloved character as Batman and Superman, the reason why we haven't seen a feature with her till now is not because Hollywood is afraid of female led action movies( If that were true, then other high octane fantastical franchises like Underworld, Resident Evil, and Tomb Raider would've never been greenlit in the first place, or the popular YA novel adaptations like The Hunger Games and Divergent) but because the film rights holder Warner Bros. was lazy and didn't try to steer too far from Batman and Superman, and when they did the results were not very good. They could've made a Wonder Woman movie anytime, but didn't bother till now. There have been many studios who have been willing to make more female superhero films, they just have not gotten off the ground due to determination of potential lacking profitability, and question of content relevance. Wonder Woman however is a timeless character and not a tough nut to crack but Warner Bros. didn't really do much of anything because they were too lazy. Sorry, but Wonder Woman is not gonna be nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards. It's a great and entertaining movie, but its not Oscar material outside of technical aspects.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 3, 2017 3:07:08 GMT
If it weren't risky now, then 1) more female Directors would've had opportunity to direct superhero movies and 2) more female Directors would've had the opportunity to direct a big-budget franchise movie, and 3) more female-led superhero movies would've been made in the past decade. But Patty Jenkins is only the 2nd woman given the opportunity to direct a superhero movie and the 6th woman given the opportunity to direct a movie with a budget over $100 million and no one in Hollywood had even been willing to make a female-led superhero movie for over a decade. So it was still very risky when Wonder Woman was greenlit to go into production. Like I said before, it isn't rare and happens frequently for male Directors, but for female Directors it's almost as rare and infrequent as the planets aligning together. Like I said before, there have been over 300 movies with a budget over $100 million and only 6 (including Wonder Woman) have been directed by a female Director. 6 out of more than 300. That's less than 2% of all movies with a budget of $100 million. You're saying that less than 2% is frequent? Jordan vogt-Roberts is a male Director. Hollywood has a different set of "rules" for male Directors. Why Women Aren't Being Hired To Direct Superhero MoviesThe bias that makes it difficult for female directors has been something that Lexi Alexander has been fighting against for years. The only woman to ever direct a comic book adaptation (to date) says that female directors have to prove that they can produce masculine films, while male filmmakers are simply assumed to be capable even if they have no experience.
In an interview with Vulture, Alexander says different criteria are used when considering female directors for superhero projects.
I think in industries riddled with bias, you tend to hire women only if their previous work is very masculine, which is hilarious given that this is not how male directors are chosen. … Women have to be ‘one of the boys’ to get in on the superhero business, whereas male directors don’t have to have any proof on their résumé that they can deliver hardcore action.
As an example of her point, Alexander mentions Kenneth Branagh, who directed the first Thor movie even though the majority of his experience directing to that point had been Shakespeare. Nobody looked at him as an "action director," simply a director who could do the job. On the other side there is an assumption that women can’t do action unless they’ve proven otherwise.And yet, no one in Hollywood (certainly not MCU) had been willing to make a female-led superhero movie for more than a decade. That just further proves my point. The perception in Hollywood prior to Wonder Woman was that female-led superhero movies couldn't be successful because there was just no market for them. Wonder Woman had to go up against that long-held perception just to be greenlit in the 1st place. That's why Wonder Woman has a better chance than Logan of being nominated for a Best Picture Oscar - because Wonder Woman had to overcome a lot more obstacles just to get to the big screen. The goal of any director is to tell a story as effective as they can, at the end of the day it is irrelevant what gender they are of as long as they deliver a quality product that is loved as much by critics as it is by audiences and scores high profit then its all well and good. Indie directors are making a jump to bigger projects more and more these days, that is the truth. And many people were expecting Wonder Woman to be directed by a female and voiced support for it, there was no actual debate by anybody that it would've been a complicated task to have done. Wonder Woman is as much known and as much a beloved character as Batman and Superman, the reason why we haven't seen a feature with her till now is not because Hollywood is afraid of female led action movies( If that were true, then other high octane fantastical franchises like Underworld, Resident Evil, and Tomb Raider would've never been greenlit in the first place, or the popular YA novel adaptations like The Hunger Games and Divergent) but because the film rights holder Warner Bros. was lazy and didn't try to steer too far from Batman and Superman, and when they did the results were not very good. They could've made a Wonder Woman movie anytime, but didn't bother till now. There have been many studios who have been willing to make more female superhero films, they just have not gotten off the ground due to determination of potential lacking profitability, and question of content relevance. Wonder Woman however is a timeless character and not a tough nut to crack but Warner Bros. didn't really do much of anything because they were too lazy. Sorry, but Wonder Woman is not gonna be nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards. It's a great and entertaining movie, but its not Oscar material outside of technical aspects. Wonder Woman isn't really as well known and beloved as Batman or Superman. The average person knew significantly less about her than they did the other two. Even as far as comic sales are concerned, titles like Green Lantern have sold better. Making a Wonder Woman movie starring a relatively unproven actress wasn't a risk-free move.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 3, 2017 4:02:28 GMT
The goal of any director is to tell a story as effective as they can, at the end of the day it is irrelevant what gender they are of as long as they deliver a quality product that is loved as much by critics as it is by audiences and scores high profit then its all well and good. Indie directors are making a jump to bigger projects more and more these days, that is the truth. And many people were expecting Wonder Woman to be directed by a female and voiced support for it, there was no actual debate by anybody that it would've been a complicated task to have done. Wonder Woman is as much known and as much a beloved character as Batman and Superman, the reason why we haven't seen a feature with her till now is not because Hollywood is afraid of female led action movies( If that were true, then other high octane fantastical franchises like Underworld, Resident Evil, and Tomb Raider would've never been greenlit in the first place, or the popular YA novel adaptations like The Hunger Games and Divergent) but because the film rights holder Warner Bros. was lazy and didn't try to steer too far from Batman and Superman, and when they did the results were not very good. They could've made a Wonder Woman movie anytime, but didn't bother till now. There have been many studios who have been willing to make more female superhero films, they just have not gotten off the ground due to determination of potential lacking profitability, and question of content relevance. Wonder Woman however is a timeless character and not a tough nut to crack but Warner Bros. didn't really do much of anything because they were too lazy. Sorry, but Wonder Woman is not gonna be nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards. It's a great and entertaining movie, but its not Oscar material outside of technical aspects. Wonder Woman isn't really as well known and beloved as Batman or Superman. The average person knew significantly less about her than they did the other two. Even as far as comic sales are concerned, titles like Green Lantern have sold better. Making a Wonder Woman movie starring a relatively unproven actress wasn't a risk-free move. She's close enough. When people think of a female superhero Wondie is the first thing that comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jul 3, 2017 4:10:50 GMT
[She's close enough. When people think of a female superhero Wondie is the first thing that comes to mind. People knew her name, but people didn't really know about her like they knew Batman and Superman. She wasn't a C-lister, but she was pretty far behind Batman and Superman in terms of mainstream popularity. In terms of who DC's best selling female character is, Harley Quinn actually outshines Wonder Woman. Time will tell if that changes with the success of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 3, 2017 6:49:48 GMT
[She's close enough. When people think of a female superhero Wondie is the first thing that comes to mind. People knew her name, but people didn't really know about her like they knew Batman and Superman. She wasn't a C-lister, but she was pretty far behind Batman and Superman in terms of mainstream popularity. In terms of who DC's best selling female character is, Harley Quinn actually outshines Wonder Woman. Time will tell if that changes with the success of the movie. In recent years yes Harley Quinn becomes a pretty big name for DC, but Wonder Woman's been around just about as long as Bats and Supes and is one of the most recognized superheroes in pop culture.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Oct 18, 2018 23:16:00 GMT
Great article: How The DCEU Changed The Marvel Plan & Won
The DCEU's strategy has been so successful that even MCU is copying DCEU. DCEU introduced Wonder Woman and Aquaman in BvS before giving them their own solo movies. What does MCU do? MCU copies DCEU by introducing Black Panther in Civil War before giving him his own solo movie.
|
|