Wonder Woman official movie thread (6/23/17) 6 6

[Gatsby77]

12 minutes ago, revat said:

Thing is, even though certainly sexism (and to some extent racial/ethnic/national issues) plays a significant  role, you never really know how the negotiation goes. 

Its no small thing to lead a movie.  I can foresee a situation where a very confident actor loves a --script so much and is so confident is willing to gamble on themselves and take a minimum salary and take more on the back end, or count on more for the second contract. or future fame.  And that could be the tipping point on becoming the choice for the role.  Especially one who otherwise will have a reasonable life as Gadot might have, and/or one who has some different perspectives on what really matters (maybe someone who has served in the military?) and risk. 

Now of course in hindsight it seems lame that Gadot got paid too little given the success of WW (and that she was the best part of BvS) and that the most obvious reason is 'sexism'.  But if you're a studio, you do the math and work with the numbers you have. But hopefully she actually ended up making more money on the back end of WW, and gets a monster contract for WW2.

Yeah. And The Hollywood Reporter published a piece yesterday that not only confirmed your quote (that Cavill actually got paid a little bit less than $300k as a base for Man of Steel) and also pointed out that Chris Hemsworth only got paid $150,000 for the first Thor movie.

It's been interesting to track how the narrative has changed -- Week 1, everybody was praising Wonder Woman. Week 2, the beginning of a backlash, with complaints that casting an Israeli actress = Zionist / anti-Palestinian agenda; along with "movie didn't include lesbians or transgenders." And now Week 3, with "she's underpaid."

I think $300k base is right on target, given how little Hollywood actors are typically given for their starring roles. Her escalation will likely mirror that of Jennifer Lawrence (and, whatever you think of her now, Lawrence was paid $500,000 for The Hunger Games only after she'd already scored a well-deserved Oscar nomination for Winter's Bone).

[drotto]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

Yeah. And The Hollywood Reporter published a piece yesterday that not only confirmed your quote (that Cavill actually got paid a little bit less than $300k as a base for Man of Steel) and also pointed out that Chris Hemsworth only got paid $150,000 for the first Thor movie.

It's been interesting to track how the narrative has changed -- Week 1, everybody was praising Wonder Woman. Week 2, the beginning of a backlash, with complaints that casting an Israeli actress = Zionist / anti-Palestinian agenda; along with "movie didn't include lesbians or transgenders." And now Week 3, with "she's underpaid."

I think $300k base is right on target, given how little Hollywood actors are typically given for their starring roles. Her escalation will likely mirror that of Jennifer Lawrence (and, whatever you think of her now, Lawrence was paid $500,000 for The Hunger Games only after she'd already scored a well-deserved Oscar nomination for Winter's Bone).

Also regardless of gender, it was her first major role, and she was a supporting character and not one of the leads.  Considering this, and the fact she was in the movie for 20 minutes, it makes sense. 

 

Compairing her salary to the headliner star (Cavill) is not comparing equivalent parts, and they would never be on the same pay scale.  What she gets from here forward should be comparable. 

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, drotto said:

Also regardless of gender, it was her first major role, and she was a supporting character and not one of the leads.  Considering this, and the fact she was in the movie for 20 minutes, it makes sense. 

 

Compairing her salary to the headliner star (Cavill) is not comparing equivalent parts, and they would never be on the same pay scale.  What she gets from here forward should be comparable. 

Agreed!

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, drotto said:

Also regardless of gender, it was her first major role, and she was a supporting character and not one of the leads.  Considering this, and the fact she was in the movie for 20 minutes, it makes sense. 

 

Compairing her salary to the headliner star (Cavill) is not comparing equivalent parts, and they would never be on the same pay scale.  What she gets from here forward should be comparable. 

I don't follow your logic -- the articles are discussing what Gadot reportedly was paid to star in Wonder Woman, not BvS.  And comparing that ($300,000 base) salary to what Cavill got paid to star in Man of Steel.

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I don't follow your logic -- the articles are discussing what Gadot reportedly was paid to star in Wonder Woman, not BvS.  And comparing that ($300,000 base) salary to what Cavill got paid to star in Man of Steel.

Where she was not the lead in BvS, and more a supporting role for the limited screen time she had (7 minutes total - that's it), now she was going to be a lead in a film about her character. So that is when she was carrying the weight of a production on her shoulders.

[HouseofComics.Com]

22 hours ago, paperheart said:

saw it this weekend in a packed theater. the first two acts were great, the third wasn't.  WW's first action scene in costume was thrilling. Chris Pine at the German gala speaking in English w/ a German accent to German characters was terrible; they should have dubbed in German w/ subtitles. The final battle was too CGI and too much.

Saw it the second time last night in downtown Berkeley. Shocked that the theater was near full on a Tuesday night. Had the same thought as you about the German speaking part. I liked the final battle a lot more the second time.

Audience was majority female Cal students it seemed and they laughed hard at all the jokes from the time she comes upon Pine in the pools to the end of the London fish out of water stuff. Audience loved this movie. Such a winner.

[Bosco685]

No, Gal Gadot Was Not Ridiculously Underpaid for Wonder Woman

by Marissa Martinelli

Quote

The internet was outraged on Tuesday (as it so often is) over reports that Wonder Woman star Gal Gadot had earned just a tiny fraction of what her male counterparts earned for their own breakout superhero roles. A story on Elle.com compared Gadot’s base salary of $300,000 for her first superhero standalone with an alleged $14 million earned by Henry Cavill in 2013 for Man of Steel. Had the comparison been accurate, it would certainly have been worthy of outrage, another egregious example of gender imbalance in Hollywood—but the story was incredibly misleading, as actual reporting quickly showed.

 

Here’s what we can reasonably assume to be true: Gadot did sign a three-picture deal with Warner Bros. for Batman v. Superman, Wonder Woman, and the upcoming Justice League movie, with a $300,000 base salary per film. As Kyle Buchanan over at Vulture points out, that’s pretty consistent with the salaries of other superheroes just starting out, including Chris Evans, who made a similar amount for the first Captain America movie.

 

Gadot’s reported $300,000 paycheck alone probably wouldn’t have caused such a stir, except that the Elle post used it as an example of the gender pay gap in Hollywood by comparing Gadot’s salary to the $14 million Henry Cavill earned for Man of Steel (Never mind for a moment that that $14 million figure is already incredibly dubious, since it seems to originate from a Forbes article that uses some pretty unreliable sourcing). Even assuming that number does correctly reflect how much Cavill received for the film overall, there’s no way it refers to Cavill’s base salary alone. Vulture asserts that Cavill, like Gadot, earned a six-figure paycheck for his superhero debut, and a source “with knowledge of studio negotiations on franchise films” told Vanity Fair something similar, adding that it would be “insane” for the studio to have paid Cavill that much for a single movie up front.

 

[Bosco685]

You would have thought Gal Gadot's agent would have at least inserted financial target bonuses as the movie crossed certain box office levels. This way, to encourage her showing up at events to drive more ticket sales.

[Gatsby77]

I'm not so sure they didn't. That also seems to be standard nowadays (example: Jennifer Lawrence's getting a 100% bonus for The Hunger Games after it was wildly successful).

Either way, this isn't a Hulk situation -- with JL nearly in the can Gal Gadot's 3-picture at $300k base contract is now up and given her current buzz I think WB needs her to continue as Wonder Woman more than she needs them.

[Bosco685]

‘Wonder Woman’ Crosses $600 Million at Worldwide Box Office

Quote

In less than three weeks of wide release, “Wonder Woman” has earned $601.6 million [worldwide]. The breakdown, after Wednesday night’s totals were counted, now stand at $289.2 million domestic, and $312.4 million overseas.

 

This comes after “Wonder Woman” shattered expectations to earn $103.3 million in North America during its opening weekend. The movie has shown impressive holds since then, dropping only 43% during its second weekend, and a staggering 29.5% in its third frame.

 

“Wonder Woman” is also the rare movie this summer that has been able to post a relatively equal split between U.S. and international earnings. Film such as “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales,” and the upcoming “Transformers: The Last Knight” are leaning heavily on the international box office, especially China.

 

It’s a big win for Warner Bros. and DC Comics which have pulled off a movie that has been received well by both audiences and critics. Director Patty Jenkins, too, has been a celebrated figure in Hollywood since the movie proved to be a hit. Variety recently revealed exclusively that Jenkins is already involved in drafting a -script for the sequel. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine topline the film as Diana Prince (a.k.a. Wonder Woman) and Steve Trevor.

 

Domestically, “Wonder Woman” is the third-highest earning movie of 2017 so far behind Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast” ($503.5 million) and “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” ($376.2 million).

 

[Bosco685]

4.0X budget. And not even near its end run yet.

[Bosco685]

Wonder Woman’s incredible end credits sequence is officially online

Quote

Art of the Title caught up with Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins and the team at Greenhaus GFX, the studio responsible for creating the awesome graphics that were used in the end credits. Check out the sequence in the video above, and part of the Jenkins interview below.

 

AotT: "The Wonder Woman main-on-end titles are an amazing part of this movie. They act as a sort of reprise of the story, a recap of what the audience has just seen. Is that how you initially approached it?"

 

Patty: "In our case the title sequence almost became the end of the movie in a beautiful way. You’re right at a moment when you wish you had more and it becomes more. It carries forward the story in a way. What the final moment of the film is best at is saying 'Now there’s Wonder Woman, now Wonder Woman is born'.”

 

 

[ADAMANTIUM]

10 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Wonder Woman’s incredible end credits sequence is officially online

 

 

I laughed at some of the music choices/changes in the film, but that is a pretty killer theme music  

[Bosco685]

Frozen is THE highest female-directed movie. But when it comes to a live movies...

‘Wonder Woman’ To Conquer ‘Mamma Mia!’ As Top-Grossing Live Action Title By Female Director

Quote

Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman for Warner Bros/DC has crossed the $600M threshold worldwide and soon will become the highest-grossing live-action movie by a female director, taking over Universal’s 2008 musical Mamma Mia! That movie directed by Phyllida Lloyd grossed $609.8M at worldwide B.O.

 

This weekend, Wonder Woman will click past the $300M mark domestically. The movie through 20 days at $289.1M is running 7% ahead of last summer’s DC hit Suicide Squad, which ended its run at $325.1M. Wonder Woman is akin to 1989’s Batman and 2002’s Spider-Man in that the classic superhero’s presence on the big screen was long overdue and has stoked females young and old who continue to come out in droves. Just last weekend at the domestic B.O., Wonder Woman earned $41.2M, the second-best third weekend haul ever for Warner Bros. after The Dark Knight‘s $42.66M. Wonder Woman already is the highest-grossing live-action title by a female director stateside, beating Betty Thomas’ Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel ($219.6M) and Catherine Hardwicke’s Twilight ($192.7M).

 

As far as becoming the highest-grossing title overall by a female director, Wonder Woman has a long way to go as Disney’s animated Frozen, co-directed by Jennifer Lee, owns the domestic ($400.7M) and global record ($1.27 billion).

 

[paperheart]

On 6/18/2017 at 7:16 AM, Bosco685 said:

$300MM by Saturday just at the Domestic Box Office? That is incredible!

make that Friday; w/ Transformers dying in US, another big weekend for WW on tap- easily $25MM+

[Bosco685]

3 hours ago, paperheart said:

make that Friday; w/ Transformers dying in US, another big weekend for WW on tap- easily $25MM+

Should be, and why I posted that update in the Transformers 5 thread. One of the lowest early runs of the franchise.

[Agent 007]

Just saw it today, marvelous and excellent movie.  Best DC movie IMO!!!  Even a bigger fan of WW.  A++++

[Bosco685]

‘Wonder Woman’ Breaks Records: Biggest Live-Action Box Office Hit by Female Director

Quote

“Wonder Woman” set a new milestone on Friday, becoming the highest-grossing live-action film to be directed by a woman.

 

The superhero adventure eclipsed the $609.8 million racked up by “Mamma Mia!,” the Abba musical that was directed by Phyllida Lloyd.

 

“Wonder Woman” was directed by Patty Jenkins, who previously oversaw the Oscar-winning “Monster.” Despite the critical raves that “Monster” earned, Jenkins had to wait 14 years before directing another feature film. She only got the “Wonder Woman” gig after the original choice, Michelle MacLaren, was pushed out in the wake of creative differences.

 

[PovertyRow]

Well this old Povertyrow (aka ThatPovGuy) finally saw this film last Tuesday (aka June 20, 2017 with Marc from houseofcomics.com (a superlative board member and Berkeley Con organizer).  It was SPECT-FREAKING-ACULAR. Gal Godot IS Wonder Woman. And it turns out she is a helluva an actress! Her facial expressions, attitudes, vocalizations, goings-where-no-woman-has-gone-before...well, she was all over it. Absolutely my favorite superhero movie since Josh'first AVENGERS (which is saying a LOT.)

This was a tremendous origin story (and one that really needed telling - I mean - how many modern non-comic folk have any idea of Diana's origin?) As a 66 year old Sicilian (so do not mess with me), cannot imagine anyone better in the role as Gal Godot.

This is a film I will see multiple times in the theater and will also add to my collection.

[Bosco685]

Now you know Wonder Woman has hit the Big Time!

Harlem Globetrotters Draft Wonder Woman Star Gal Gadot

Quote

Gal Gadot has been drafted by the world-famous Harlem Globetrotters.

 

For their eleventh straight season, the Globetrotters hosted a draft to select the next members of their world-traveling team. Taking to social media, the Globetrotters and the Washington Generals — their social media — each choose six players.

 

Who were the other two celebrities joining Gadot as members of the Harlem Globetrotters Class of 2017? New York Yankees stud Aaron Judge and multi-sport phenom Tim Tebow, you might have heard of them.

 

“The Globetrotters have always tried to be creative when it comes to our draftees,” Globetrotters coach Sweet Lou Dunbar reflected. “Having players who can electrify fans with high-flying ability is a tremendous trait, but they’ve got to go beyond that. Globetrotters need to be superstars off the court, as well, and we think we’ve scored a touchdown, hit a home run, and lassoed in the best in all those areas this year.”