Luke Owen on the box office tracking for Wonder Woman…
Last month it was reported that Wonder Woman, the latest entry in the struggling DCEU, was tracking around $83 million. While not a complete disaster, it really wasn’t a great number when compared to its contemporaries. However a new report yesterday stated it was more likely to be around $65-75 million domestically.
Now, as we’ve noted on this site many times, estimations and tracking are sometimes way off the mark. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 was tracking top open to $160 million but actually earned $146 million. Logan was tracking $60 million, but actually brought home $88 million. Disney’s Beauty and the Beast was on track to earn $120 million, but it smashed expectations with $174 million. Kong: Skull Island was set to make around $48 million, but actually earned $61 million. The Fate of the Furious was said to make $400 million globally when it opened last month, but it actually made $433 million. Tracking can be off. Sometimes they make more, sometimes they make less. Either way, there is a margin of error.
And, as many DC fans pointed out when we first reported the $83 million tracking, that would put Wonder Woman on par with Marvel Cinematic Universe entries Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor. All three have similar budgets too, and both those early entries into the MCU were considered successes once all was said and done (The First Avenger earned $370 million, Thor earned $449 million). So it’s not all bad news, right?
Well, yeah, kind of.
The problem when comparing Wonder Woman to Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor is that they were both released in 2011, when the comic book movie landscape was very different. In that year, Thor was the only movie based on a comic book to crack the top 10 domestic totals, soundly beaten by the likes of Twilight, Sherlock Holmes, Mission: Impossible and The Hangover. The following year saw the release of The Avengers, which changed the landscape when it blew up the box office with $1 billion worldwide. Suddenly, ‘the cinematic universe’ was the in-demand buzz word for studios. In 2013, Iron Man 3 and Man of Steel held solid positions in the top 10 of the year, with Thor: The Dark World just missing out. 2014 saw three comic book movies in the top 10 (four if you include Big Hero 6). 2015 only had Avengers: Age of Ultron, but the only other big comic book movies released that year were Ant-Man (which came 14th) and the disastrous Fantastic Four. Last year? Four of the top 10 highest grossing releases were comic book movies; nearly half. The appetite for comic book movies in 2017 is a lot different to 2011.
Better comparisons would be Ant-Man ($57 million) and Doctor Strange ($85 million). Both were non-sequels in an established cinematic universe, and Wonder Woman (if reports are correct) cost less to make. The problem there is Ant-Man was considered a very disappointing opening for Marvel and Disney (it was the second lowest of the MCU with only The Incredible Hulk below it) and Doctor Strange is a c-tier character with only Benedict Cumberbatch as the film’s sole selling point to movie goers. And it’s not like Ant-Man is a marquee character in popular culture. The majority of early comments from non-comic book fans were, “what, so he’s an ant?”.
This, on the other hand, is Wonder Woman. On the Mount Rushmore of comic book characters – both Marvel and DC – she has to have a prominent place. She is one of the most recognisable pieces of popular culture, an icon of comic books and media. Put a picture of her in front of someone who has never read a comic book in their life and they will know who she is. They may not know her history, her powers or any of her villains, but they know who Wonder Woman is. Any time a woman of power does something impressive, the news and media will refer to her as a “wonder woman”. You could make the argument she is more of a icon than Superman and Batman.
In this film world where people go and see films because they know the brand its associated too or recognise an IP, a possible $65 million opening for Wonder Woman isn’t great news. It’s not a disaster nor a flop, but it’s certainly disappointing. This is Wonder Woman’s first time on the big screen and there is a huge cinematic universe behind her, and she can only earn the same as Doctor Strange? It’s nowhere close to Suicide Squad‘s $133 million opening or Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice‘s $166 million. With that said, Suicide Squad had star-appeal in Will Smith and Margot Robbie, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice had – well – the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel going at it, so it was always going to struggle to hit those levels. It does raise the question why Warner Bros. and DC Films didn’t case a huge name as the villain? It really would have helped the movie outside of it featuring the most iconic female in comic book history.
Look, I am not an MCU fanboy or a DCEU hater. Flickering Myth as a whole aren’t either. I know that Wonder Woman will turn a profit – just as her contemporaries did – and opening the same day in China should at least secure a solid global opening. But this is the first female-led comic book movie since Elektra, and that was THIRTEEN years ago. As cinema goers, lovers and fans, we want more female-led movies and Wonder Woman was the perfect vehicle for this change. So when we hear news that Wonder Woman might be able to earn the same as Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor, Ant-Man and Doctor Strange, you’ve got to be at least a little disappointed.
Luke Owen is the Deputy Editor of Flickering Myth, the co-host of The Flickering Myth Podcast and the author of Lights, Camera, GAME OVER!: How Video Game Movies Get Made (which you can pre-order from Amazon UK and Amazon US). You can follow him on Twitter @ThisisLukeOwen.
