Rwa2play: Bathysphere: I can't get over the concept of a talking, machine-gun wielding raccoon. Not sure why, but it makes me think of the Beatles every time I see it referenced.

Does anyone have that tweet with DC and WW Marvel with RR? Thanx, it really says it all about the states of DC/WB and Marvel/Disney nowadays...

My problem with that tweet is that it emits Marvel Zombie vibes. It assumes that GotG is already a success. I think the average adult moviegoer will think more like freak7. A machine gun toting raccoon sounds retarded to most people. There's no way Disney/Marvel would put RR front and center in their GotG trailers.

That said, I don't think moviegoers are confused by the idea of a Wonder Woman movie. It's more that it's a marketing problem or at least one perceived by Hollywood. There are very few action movies with female leads that directly refer to the female protagonist. Wonder Woman is one you kinda have to, therefore it's a risk. On the other hand they could go the Dark Knight/Man of Steel route. Still, Wonder Woman is a risk and I think WB is risk averse while Marvel Studios are not.

Rwa2play: Lord Binky: Rwa2play: Bathysphere: I can't get over the concept of a talking, machine-gun wielding raccoon. Not sure why, but it makes me think of the Beatles every time I see it referenced.

Does anyone have that tweet with DC and WW Marvel with RR? Thanx, it really says it all about the states of DC/WB and Marvel/Disney nowadays...

My problem with that tweet is that it emits Marvel Zombie vibes. It assumes that GotG is already a success. I think the average adult moviegoer will think more like freak7. A machine gun toting raccoon sounds retarded to most people. There's no way Disney/Marvel would put RR front and center in their GotG trailers.

So wait, Marvel has had movies about a guy who wears a futuristic suit of armor, a Norse God of Thunder, a guy who can turn into a monster, a weakling that became the perfect soldier with technology that (even for the 40s) is somewhat unrealistic and you think Disney/Marvel's NOT going to put a Raccoon with a machine gun front and center?

That said, I don't think moviegoers are confused by the idea of a Wonder Woman movie. It's more that it's a marketing problem or at least one perceived by Hollywood. There are very few action movies with female leads that directly refer to the female protagonist. Wonder Woman is one you kinda have to, therefore it's a risk. On the other hand they could go the Dark Knight/Man of Steel route. Still, Wonder Woman is a risk and I think WB is risk averse while Marvel Studios are not.

Nah, it's a DC/WB problem.  They're so hesitant to do anything that would merit negative criticism, they won't go to the mat unless it's a sure thing.  Marvel (in a good way) just doesn't care, they get it.  They realized "Hey, this is all about fantasy.  So why the hell not?"  That's why you'll have a tree and a raccoon with a machine gun in a movie.

DC's so caught up grounding their universe in reality, that they completely abandoned why their characters are so fantastic and beloved.

All of the Avengers are portrayed by flesh and blood people. It's an important visual distinction from a CG raccoon. I personally don't have a problem with Rocket Raccoon (or Groot for that matter) but I think a typical, non-comic reading, 18-34 male might think it's a bridge too far. I simply think the notion that Marvel's going to feature a gun-toting raccoon and be successful is counting chickens before they hatch. On the other hand, it's not like there aren't other members.

I did however note that Marvel clearly isn't risk averse and that's a good thing in business. The sheer structure of the Avengers movies is proof of that and RR is taking another risk - at least, if he is front and center. Their attitude towards their properties is risky but it's paying off.

Meanwhile WB is playing it safe. For years they were able to rely on Batman and Harry Potter, which were both already proven properties. Now they have Man of Steel, which is Superman - another proven property - and it's more or less a remake of the first two Reeve-era films. Then they are going a Nolanesque route, because he made them a couple billion dollars with his take on Batman.

It's all really playing it safe and it's actually not paying off too badly so far. They're just not making Avengers/Iron Man 3 money and if they want to they must take risks which means - yes - a Wonder Woman film among their other properties. They tried with Green Lantern, but the key problem there was, well, they didn't try hard enough.