Vox - Wonder Woman: reviews, news, and analysishttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/52517/voxv.png2021-01-06T11:00:00-05:00http://www.vox.com/rss/stream/155042972021-01-06T11:00:00-05:002021-01-06T11:00:00-05:00Would Wonder Woman 1984 work better as a season of TV?
<figure>
<img alt="Wonder Woman running down a street in Washington, DC, with the Capitol building in the background." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/XiljN-_RNHK2VFdqnC5uS2zNEyU=/72x0:648x432/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/68627881/wonder_woman_1984.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Wonder Woman takes off to save the day. | WarnerMedia</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It couldn’t have hurt!</p> <p id="Mm7R2a"><a href="https://www.vox.com/22172492/wonder-woman-1984-review"><em>Wonder Woman 1984</em></a> is a mess. Caught between a whole bunch of masters, the movie ends up serving none of them, as it awkwardly lurches from one plot point to another. The protagonist ends up in a narrative dead end with her ex, the main plot (involving a wishing stone) takes all of 10 minutes to examine the many ramifications of having wishes granted, and the arc of villain Cheetah (Kristen Wiig) is horribly truncated.</p>
<p id="If06k4">Yet I kind of liked the movie, in spite of myself. It’s so gloriously messy and weird that I couldn’t help but be fascinated by its choices, even as I found myself actively rejecting them. Watching the film, I even had an unusual thought, the opposite of one I’ve had often while watching sprawling, bloated TV shows: I wish <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> had more time to tell its story. If something like <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/21529098/the-queens-gambit-review-netflix-anya-taylor-joy"><em>The Queen’s Gambit</em></a> is a seven-hour movie, then <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> is a two-and-a-half-hour television season. The movie even breaks down into episodic chunks.</p>
<p id="9yrH5j">The potential reasons <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> crams so much stuff into its story (to its detriment) are many, and we can’t always know why those choices were made. Was Steve Trevor, Wonder Woman’s boyfriend from the first movie, brought back across the oceans of space and time because all involved in the movie really wanted Chris Pine back? Or was he brought back because of a studio note, and then everyone involved in the movie played up the company line of just really wanting Chris Pine back? You can make arguments in either direction, but a definitive “answer” will remain elusive.</p>
<aside id="dxKCxt"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Wonder Woman 1984 is a better rom-com than superhero movie ","url":"https://www.vox.com/22172492/wonder-woman-1984-review"}]}'></div></aside><p id="yZca61">So consider another explanation: In a more focused movie, the story of Steve’s resurrection and Wonder Woman (a.k.a. Diana Prince) realizing she must sacrifice him to save the world would have resonated, in similar fashion to Superman giving up his powers to have a normal life with Lois Lane, only to reluctantly realize domestic bliss is impossible for him to achieve in 1981’s <em>Superman II</em>. But a more focused movie likely would have had to shunt a bunch of the movie’s other ideas to the sidelines. </p>
<p id="2I3kSY">What if that idealized version o<em>f WW84 </em>were a single, hour-long episode about Diana and Steve reconnecting, then realizing the weight of that reconnection? What if at this moment, when plenty of TV critics bemoan the degree to which TV seems to want to be the movies, the movies are all too often becoming TV?</p>
<h3 id="5Od7CN">TV-like films are increasingly common, even outside of cinematic universes</h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt="Wonder Woman" data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/mUFSP5jLCYazIIobUc0Ka_3BtYE=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21808811/ww.jpg">
<cite>Warner Bros./DC</cite>
<figcaption>Wonder Woman really digs the ‘80s aesthetic.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p id="a51EDH">I first wrote about this most obvious example of serialized television’s influence on the blockbuster industry <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7216591/TV-takes-over">in 2014</a>: The rise of interconnected cinematic universes has created a number of what are effectively gigantic-budget TV shows that people watch new “episodes” of in theaters. Indeed, at the time, various film franchises were hiring writers rooms to help plot out their next steps, something that had long been used in TV but rarely in film.</p>
<aside id="y8XYpR"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Everything is television now","url":"https://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7216591/TV-takes-over"}]}'></div></aside><p id="GYZkhP">This approach has shifted somewhat, as fewer and fewer “cinematic universes” exist, outside of the deeply interconnected Marvel universe and the loosely interconnected DC universe. Now, blockbuster filmmaking is dependent on making sure viewers get their money’s worth — and thus go to see these films in theaters — and on the hype cycle of casting announcements and plot teases. Movies often end up crammed full of more plot lines than they know what to do with as a result. They, in essence, become tiny TV seasons, not oversize, one-off episodes. </p>
<p id="mR3CgC">Such a fate befalls <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em>. Any one of its plot threads might be interesting on its own, and two or three of them in the same movie, weighted properly, could have worked too. But <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> slams every single idea its writers have into one movie, resulting in Wonder Woman getting sidelined in her own movie for much of its runtime. By the time Wonder Woman and Cheetah finally face off, two hours have passed in a two-and-a-half-hour movie.</p>
<p id="nGQv30">But if you extrapolate the movie’s plot arcs across, say, 10 episodes of television, it’s not hard to see Cheetah’s turn from a Wonder Woman ally to a villain in episode seven or so hitting as a big, exciting story turn. Similarly, Diana realizing that her responsibilities to the world are greater than her longing to see Steve again would land with more heft if we had time to actually live in that relationship, instead of relying on shorthand from the first movie and/or ’80s movie tropes.</p>
<p id="Y9AFzy"><em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> mostly forces you to guess its character arcs from the limited information it presents, which makes those characters so paper thin that they’re hard to latch onto. All of these arcs are theoretically interesting, but they’re handled with the subtlety of a hammer to the face. And this is in spite of how skillful the first film was at telling a very basic superhero origin story, with clearly articulated goals and character arcs.</p>
<p id="nfOHHw">There is no one way to tell a story in a movie, even in a blockbuster. A carefully crafted three-act structure can feel dreadfully boring, because we’re so used to it. But <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em>’s storytelling ends up in a weird netherworld between the three-act structure and something more episodic. A larger canvas to play on might have also given the story more room to contextualize <a href="https://twitter.com/mangiotto/status/1342711549085958144">its most horrifying story elements</a>. </p>
<p id="rk1t84">But you know what medium <em>lives</em> in that netherworld and has a larger canvas to paint on right there? That’s right. Television.</p>
<h3 id="pnmXMZ">What’s driving this weird shift in storytelling across film and television?</h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt="Beth, played by Anya Taylor-Joy, studies a chessboard before a tournament." data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gg54jTm1z3bZknW7YWGF-HPW8LY=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21984920/TQG_103_Unit_01939RC.jpg">
<cite>Phil Bray/Netflix</cite>
<figcaption>
<em>The Queen’s Gambit</em> is fun — and maybe could have been shorter.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p id="hmSHgb">In the world of television, the idea of a season being <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2017/03/prestige-tv-why-are-we-sure-it-looks-like-a-10-hour-movie.html">“really more of a 10-hour movie”</a> has become a cliché in the way people who make TV shows talk about the shows they make. Sometimes it’s just marketing-speak. But too often, “a 10-hour movie” means “we had enough story for a two-hour movie, and we stretched it across 10 hours.” Bland, incident-free TV seasons that load all of their plot developments into the last couple of episodes are a dime a dozen on TV, particularly on streaming platforms. </p>
<p id="bgzbwP">Believe it or not, the movie-fication of TV and the TV-fication of film have the same root cause: It’s much harder to get a mid-budget movie made in the modern film industry than it’s ever been. </p>
<aside id="o8Y003"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Why Are We So Sure ‘Prestige’ TV Looks Like a 10-Hour Movie?","url":"https://www.vulture.com/2017/03/prestige-tv-why-are-we-sure-it-looks-like-a-10-hour-movie.html"}]}'></div></aside><p id="DzwclK">Now, with the film industry increasingly unlikely to greenlight projects like <em>The Queen’s Gambit </em>(which spent nearly two decades in the works as a movie before evolving into a miniseries), because films of that scope rarely turn into the $1 billion grossing behemoths that dominate the industry, those projects turn to streaming services hungry for content. But those streaming services also want longer versions of those stories, to better optimize the amount of time you spend watching them. As such, <em>The Queen’s Gambit</em> — a show I liked but thought could probably stand to be a bit shorter — sprawls over seven hours instead of over two, as it would have as a film. </p>
<p id="OqDz2f">This pressure applies in an opposite direction in the world of blockbuster filmmaking, because those films are too big to fail. <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> needs to be a big hit, because it has a studio’s fortunes riding on both it and the larger superhero universe it is connected to. As such, it needs to appeal to as many people across the globe as possible. And even though a compelling story, well told, remains a powerful way to get people from every country invested in a film, it’s all too tempting to try to gild that story with every possible add-on you can think of, to ensure every possible fan is accounted for in the end. It’s an approach that tries to serve everyone but too often ends up pleasing no one. </p>
<p id="VMczhT">What’s frustrating about these changes is that, in general, TV can abide more story — whether in the form of an endless number of episodes based on basically the same story format, or lots of episodes telling a long story full of twists — whereas a movie tends to benefit from less story. For the most part, movies work as short stories or novellas, and TV shows resemble sprawling novels. (Even a single-season limited series has far more narrative space than a film.) Obviously, there are several exceptions, but if you think about your favorite movies or TV shows of all time, you’ll likely find the former to be more stripped down, story-wise, while the latter have more room for character complications and plot turns.</p>
<p id="o7kEkY">In a world where stories are shunted to different media based largely on the budgetary outlay necessary to make them happen, however, there’s a tendency to assume a good story is well suited to any medium. And that can be true! A skilled writer and director will find a way to adapt any story for whatever medium they’re working in. But the one-size-fits-all approach that suggests a story is exactly as long as the studio has budgeted for is leading to movies and TV shows that seem to avoid what makes them good, in favor of making everything feel either way too long or far too short. Too often, this results in work like <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em> — weird and unfocused and all over the place. </p>
https://www.vox.com/culture/22213821/wonder-woman-1984-spoilers-ww84-messyEmily St. James2020-12-15T12:00:00-05:002020-12-15T12:00:00-05:00Wonder Woman 1984 is a better rom-com than superhero movie
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/5skOabrpjSvyVoC2Gln0GTS8TDI=/0x0:7072x5304/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/68516641/rev_1_WW84_16249r_High_Res_JPEG.0.jpeg" />
<figcaption>Gal Gadot in <em>Wonder Woman 1984</em>. | Clay Enos/DC Comics</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Wonder Woman 1984, for better and worse, feels like three Wonder Woman movies wrapped into one. </p> <p id="JdjNRx">Wonder Woman challenges much of what is supposed to make this blockbuster movie era of superheroes cool. She doesn’t have Batman’s dark vengeance, Iron Man’s sardonic edge, or Thor’s party boy vibe, nor does she possess Captain America’s charming self-awareness.</p>
<p id="NQAIGU">Instead, Amazonian princess Diana Prince (née Diana of Themyscira) is a goddess who saves humanity. She talks about the beauty of the world and learning all of its languages, relishes her sacred duty to protect the innocent and fight for those who cannot fight themselves, and dreams of making the world better, one good deed at a time.</p>
<p id="9xFEdJ">Unlike most of those Good Guys, Diana is from a matriarchal land of female warriors. She’s too good for the world of men, Diana’s mother Hippolyta tells <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/5/30/15709572/wonder-woman-review-gadot">her in the first movie</a>. The Queen of the Amazon’s assessment isn’t really about Diana’s superhero abilities and literal godliness. It’s a warning: Diana believes fully in love, truth, compassion, empathy, kindness, and mercy, but this other world is one mired in cynicism and corruption. </p>
<p id="8XTt7N">The first <em>Wonder Woman </em>stood apart from other DC Entertainment movies in the clarity of Diana’s supersize morality crisis. </p>
<p id="J7m22c"><a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/11/16290336/patty-jenkins-wonder-woman-2">Director Patty Jenkins</a> carefully laid the foundation of the character in the 2017 film, showing how Diana’s hopeful and idealistic worldview leads to fantastic moments, like saving a village that American forces gave up on long ago. But these lofty ideals also have the capability of stranding Diana in hesitation. When she finds out that humans are just capable of evil on their own and that the world of men are undeserving of her goodness, she questions if they’re even worth saving.</p>
<p id="65A8DC">With Diana, the tension is not that her life is in danger. She’s always as fast, as strong, and as durable as her enemies. Rather, it’s whether the goddess finds it within herself to sacrifice for people who would likely never do the same for her. </p>
<p id="yFcQ6x">The best moments of Jenkins’s ambitious and hefty sequel, <em>WW1984</em>, engages with Wonder Woman’s very human problem. Diana is a goddess — in appearance, morality, strength, invulnerability — living among mortals, but she is otherwise alone. </p>
<div class="c-float-right"><aside id="TU7FOD"><div data-anthem-component="ratingcard" data-anthem-component-data='{"rating":3,"title":"Wonder Woman 1984"}'></div></aside></div>
<p id="w5qKcH">But superhero movies, even those with the emotional promise of Wonder Woman, are unfortunately never fully about the emotional fragility our characters can’t punch their way through. Superhero movies are supposed to be big, expensive, loud, and fun. And <em>WW1984</em> is stuffed to its cinematic seams, sometimes to its detriment.</p>
<p id="VJbPDe"><em>WW1984</em> is three movies rolled into one: It’s at once a romance about lost love; a tale about the jealousy in our friendships; and the story of a sad, broken man desperate to take over the world. And it’s only the first two of these that truly take us somewhere wonderful. </p>
<h3 id="pS4AMc">Wonder Woman feels more flawed and human in <em>WW1984 — </em>that’s a good thing</h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/AAK0xiF7qSLMTMyv-wkW7yW8tbU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22168424/rev_1_WW84_24010r_High_Res_JPEG.jpeg">
<cite>Clay Enos/DC Comics</cite>
<figcaption>Wonder Woman leg-pressing a tank in Wonder Woman 1984.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p id="eVJvpE">Since the first film from 2017, it is impossible for me to see anyone else but <a href="https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2933757/">Gal Gadot</a> as Wonder Woman and Gal Gadot as anyone else but Wonder Woman. She obviously looks the way we think superheroes are supposed to look — tall and beautiful. But Gadot’s magic is in the small stuff. It’s the small wink that assures you she’s got this or that vague suggestion of a smile as she careens into a tank. Her Wonder Woman lives where joy meets strength.</p>
<p id="NfHuXS"><em>WW1984</em> mostly — aside from an opening sequence — swerves away from Gadot’s strengths and asks her to give a chillier take on the character. As its title suggests, we meet Gadot’s Diana in the rambunctious ’80s where she’s a beautiful loner who lives in DC’s Watergate building.</p>
<p id="KnxhG7">To be clear, she’s not a loner because she lives in the Watergate, but rather because she’s watched the love of her life die in WWI while she maintains near-immortality. Judging from the camera’s lingering shots on old photos of Steve (Chris Pine) in the many nooks around her apartment, Diana still nurses a broken heart.</p>
<p id="vkPrKM">On a shelf, there’s one picture of Diana and an aged Etta Candy, Steve’s assistant from the first movie. I immediately imagined the stories and laughs they had together, yet the film overlooks the underlying sadness of that: how emotionally exhausting it would be for Diana to know that she’d outlive all of her friends. That has to be equally as devastating as losing her first love. </p>
<p id="TbkFu4">The one new friend she does make is the dorky Barbara Minerva (played by a devilish Kristen Wiig), a new coworker in the gemology department at the museum where Diana works. How Barbara’s last name does not set off alarm bells in Diana’s head is hard to fathom, considering Diana’s firsthand experience with gods and goddesses. Then again, maybe that’s my fault for expecting logic in a movie about an Amazonian demigod living in Washington, DC.</p>
<p id="NXPI20">Barbara, all social awkwardness, can’t seem to decide whether she’s jealous of or attracted to — in a platonic way, of course — Diana’s natural grace. Wiig, who’s made a career out of honing cringe, taps into that well to find Barbara. But she imbues Barbara with just enough friend-envy (frenvy?) that there’s just the slightest bit of relatable menace in the glances she steals and her talk about how easy Diana’s life must be.</p>
<p id="UZMJIt">The two bond over a weird stone that they soon find out grants wishes. It’s a “poor unfortunate souls” type of situation: One longs to be admired, and the other wants a boyfriend. And does the stone help them? Yes, indeed. And Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) — a television con man loser who sure seems like a certain sitting president’s DCEU analogue — has his eyes on the stone and the two as well.</p>
<h3 id="lNh8HH">My wish for <em>WW1984</em> would be much more editing</h3>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ftOsh_nzROj3WLFl7zYMkhGz78U=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22168426/rev_1_WW84_14707r_High_Res_JPEG.jpeg">
<cite>Clay Enos/DC Comics</cite>
<figcaption>Gal Gadot and Chris Pine in <em>Wonder Woman 1984.</em>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p id="DsAOgH">All of this stone magic results in everybody getting what they want: Diana gets a second chance with Steve; Barbara becomes hot (relatable) and strong (also relatable), and Maxwell Lord becomes less of a loser. But it also results in a lot of movie and not enough script to hold everything together. </p>
<p id="WZqM8E">For all the globe-trotting Diana does in the film, there’s unfortunately barely any time for her beloved Themyscira, and not enough from her Amazon moms Hippolyta and Antiope. Yet what the movie lacks in Amazonian extravaganza, it makes up for in its romantic reunion between Diana and Steve. Pine, as he did in 2017, brings out the emotional vulnerability of Diana and the movie. He clasps her hand and tells her, “I wish we had more time.” If there is a man worth risking the world for, it is Steve — but he would never allow you to do that. The two share a heavenly romantic moment, and something I’ve thought about long after the movie ended while I got nostalgic over a WWI boyfriend I never had.</p>
<p id="iTf7rs">At the same time as she’s reuniting with Steve, Barbara starts to pull away from Diana. Barbara becomes stronger, faster, more confident to the point where her behavior shocks Diana. It’s a thrilling glimpse into Diana’s ego. Is she threatened because Barbara’s behavior is rank, or is she threatened because, for the first time in forever, she finally has an equal? The answer, just based on how much we’ve seen of Diana’s competitiveness on Themyscira, is more uneasy than it seems.</p>
<p id="BE3Doe">The frustrating part of <em>WW1984</em> is that these two solid storylines are saddled with a third. Looming in the background is the maniacal Maxwell Lord who wants to rule the world and wield unrivaled influence. While Pascal is doing great work, lacing American cheesiness into every fiber of his character, I found myself wondering when we’d get back to Diana and Steve, or questioning whether Barbara and Diana would ever be friends again, or asking myself what Diana loves more: being a goddess or being in love?</p>
<p id="fAkNOf">I’m confident Jenkins could have excised Lord, perhaps saved his role for a third installment, smashed together what was left, and created an even better Wonder Woman movie than the first one. Lord’s presence and his motives dull the interesting stuff about Wonder Woman, plunging us into rote superhero territory. </p>
<p id="gvV45o">Large adult sad boys who want to take over the world and launch it into an apocalypse is something we’ve seen before (see: Loki in <em>Avengers</em>, Ultron in <em>Avengers: Age of Ultron</em>, Luthor and Doomsday in <em>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</em>, Steppenwolf in <em>Justice League</em>). This formulaic story is something fit for the other guys. The more time spent on it, the less time <em>WW1984</em> spends being wondrous.</p>
<p id="pGe1uL"></p>
<p id="3C22bC"></p>
https://www.vox.com/22172492/wonder-woman-1984-reviewAlex Abad-Santos2017-12-15T12:20:02-05:002017-12-15T12:20:02-05:00Wonder Woman’s “No Man’s Land” scene was the best superhero moment of 2017
<figure>
<img alt="Wonder Woman" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/te58sqnhKm7ahmR1ZmQUV0YLGJs=/0x0:2400x1800/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57995489/ww3.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Wonder Woman shined in 2017. This scene was a big reason why. </p> <p id="i3SjC1">Four years ago, lots of people engaged in some pretty idiotic conversations about <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/wonder-woman-cant-have-it-all/311917/">bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen</a>. The character, one of DC Comics’ most popular and most recognized heroes of all time, was deemed by many — without any real evidence — to be too “tricky” or “challenging” to get her own movie. </p>
<p id="mzpehw">But what everything really came down to was that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/wonder-woman-cant-have-it-all/311917/">studio executives weren’t convinced</a> that a Wonder Woman film could make enough money to be a worthwhile investment. They thought audiences might not believe the character’s origin story (she’s an Amazonian princess from a mystical island), or would write off her trademark weapons — a magical golden lasso and bulletproof gauntlets — as too silly. </p>
<p id="8zfJyy">Never mind that around the same time, <em>The Hunger Games</em> was hauling in piles of cash at the box office. Or that Marvel was making movies about the Norse god of Thunder and an American hero frozen in time, while also planning the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie — complete with a talking raccoon and a sentient tree capable of saying only three words. Despite Wonder Woman’s status as the most famous female superhero of all time, DC and Warner Bros. couldn’t be convinced to give her her own movie. </p>
<p id="zsaYxE">By the goddess, they were so stupidly wrong. </p>
<p id="sJqJU9">If any superhero won 2017, it was <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15740256/wonder-woman-movie">Wonder Woman</a>, who finally got her starring vehicle and really made it count. </p>
<p id="WlVTyP">In yet another year when movies were punctuated by superheroes — or cluttered with them, depending on how you feel about comic book films — none shined brighter than Diana Prince, played by Gal Gadot. <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/24/16019408/wonder-woman-box-office-summer-record"><em>Wonder Woman</em> broke records</a>, ignited a passionate fan base, and shattered expectations. The film renewed fans’ hope that Warner Bros. could make a good superhero film and left them <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/11/16290336/patty-jenkins-wonder-woman-2">begging for a sequel</a>. It also captured the spirit of Wonder Woman — characterized by compassion, love, and determination — and conveyed that spirit to its audience. </p>
<p id="w9pTHA">And while the movie contained many great moments, there was none more powerful and defining than the scene where Wonder Woman charges through “No Man’s Land.” </p>
<h3 id="jxsbSt">What makes “No Man’s Land” such a fantastic scene</h3>
<div id="q5Nu6Q"><div style="left: 0; width: 100%; height: 0; position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.2493%;"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MlwHKphUU_Y?rel=0&" style="border: 0; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;" allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no"></iframe></div></div>
<p id="XW0553">Throughout our pop culture history of superheroes, there are iconic, indelible moments that are intertwined with our heroes. For Batman, it’s witnessing the murder of his parents, which makes him feel utterly helpless and inspires him to fight back. For Spider-Man, it’s the death of his Uncle Ben and his regret over the role he played in it, which burns the “with great power comes great responsibility” mantra into his brain. For the X-Men, it’s watching their friend Jean Grey become the Dark Phoenix and realizing the primal evil she’s capable of. </p>
<p id="7Ea0yo">These pivotal moments tell us who our heroes are, what they stand for, and what drives their heroism. So it’s no surprise that movies repeatedly return to them, and to the themes they explore. Conversely, it’s usually a surprise when a movie featuring these characters avoids such well-known story points (like <em>Spider-Man: Homecoming</em> omitting the death of Uncle Ben). </p>
<p id="pmVH0S">“No Man’s Land” is Wonder Woman’s pivotal moment. </p>
<p id="CMbVXT">In the film, we see that Diana has a very concrete idea of what war looks like. She believes it to be a mythic battle where good and evil are distinctly divided. Soon after traveling to London, and then continuing through the different parts of Europe where World War I is raging on, she begins to learn that war is much different and much more complicated than she thought it to be. She and her handlers arrive at the edge of a place known as “No Man’s Land,” and their initial plan is to bypass it. That plan changes after Diana speaks to a woman who tells Diana that her village has been seized. </p>
<p id="uPEUbR">Diana, so frustrated by not being able to help, takes a stand, as all the men around her try to explain that she can’t cross “No Man’s Land.” They try to talk her out of trying. </p>
<p id="YMYbLC">“It means no man can cross it,” Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) tells her. “This is not something you can cross. This is not possible.”</p>
<p id="OXAbrD">Steve’s warning to Diana plainly telegraphs what she’s going to do next. But in the hands of Gadot and director Patty Jenkins, a scene that might’ve otherwise come off as cheesy or saccharine is instead infused with dignity and humanity. </p>
<p id="llTpXv">In glorious slow motion, Diana shrugs off her costume and appears in her Amazonian battle armor. She emerges from a bunker, shield in tow. Then she deflects a bullet. Then one more. Then the German army begins to focus all their fire on her, as she digs her heels into the ground, tightens her grip on her shield, and deflects a storm of gunfire. </p>
<p id="lRwVWf">What’s brilliant about this scene is that it’s not only representative of Diana standing up for what she believes in, nor is it solely an instance where she succeeds in doing what was previously thought to be impossible — all while inspiring her handlers and her allies to push forward. Rather, it’s a beautiful combination of those things.</p>
<p id="xbQ300">It’s compassion, determination, inspiration, and love rolled into one moment: Diana is taking fire and protecting those who can’t protect themselves. And she’s doing it with a small smirk that sharpens on her lips, as if she knows she’s got this. </p>
<p id="vZvNV3">All of it just melts my cold, dark heart. </p>
<p id="Hg87vR">“No Man’s Land” crystallizes Wonder Woman’s heroism in such a beautiful way that as of that moment, you don’t need to know anything about the character’s past to understand her. You almost don’t even need to see the rest of the movie. This amazing scene tells you all you need to know about Wonder Woman’s place in the world. </p>
<p id="0WROeJ">It’s hard to name another scene from one of 2017’s many superhero movies that’s as indelible as this one. Of course, I was amazed when <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ccey7IJLCM">Captain America bicep-curled a helicopter</a> in <em>Civil War</em>. And I cheered when Thor realized his full potential in <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/10/26/16537186/thor-ragnarok-review"><em>Ragnarok</em></a>. </p>
<p id="EvRbSn">But those moments still weren’t as powerful as “No Man’s Land.” </p>
<p id="JGtsQ4">In just a short pocket of time, Wonder Woman reminded us of what it’s like to do good. She showed us how to be brave in the face of impossibility. She demonstrated the power of determination and resiliency. And every time I rewatch the scene, I remember how wondrous superheroes can truly be.</p>
https://www.vox.com/2017-in-review/2017/12/15/16767902/wonder-womans-no-mans-land-sceneAlex Abad-Santos2017-09-11T16:10:01-04:002017-09-11T16:10:01-04:00Patty Jenkins officially signs on to direct Warner Bros.’ Wonder Woman sequel
<figure>
<img alt="2017 Forbes Women's Summit" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/QNbrMlmKFmWHXAGE2ERHr0-EkY0=/0x0:2001x1501/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56623855/695546738.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Photo by Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Jenkins has signed a record-breaking deal for Wonder Woman 2.</p> <p id="KT6f5Y"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0420941/?ref_=tt_ov_wr">Patty Jenkins</a>, who directed this summer’s breakout hit <em>Wonder Woman</em>, has officially signed on to direct the sequel, <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/patty-jenkins-wonder-woman-sequel-director-1202548413/">according to Variety</a>. </p>
<p id="idX5xK">Signing Jenkins to oversee the sequel would seem to be a no-brainer, since <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/26/15873242/wonder-woman-box-office-record"><em>Wonder Woman </em>defied expectations</a> and hauled in more than <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wonderwoman.htm">$816 million worldwide</a>, making Jenkins the <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-becoming-top-grossing-live-action-film-directed-by-a-woman-1016002">highest-grossing female director of a live-action movie ever</a>, and brought in the most money domestically (<a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=dc.htm">$410 million</a>) of all the films in <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=dc.htm">DC’s Extended Cinematic Universe</a>, a quartet of movies that includes <em>Wonder Woman</em>, <em>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</em>, <em>Suicide Squad</em>, and <em>Man of Steel</em>. But finalizing Jenkins as <em>Wonder Woman 2</em>’s<em> </em>director took a surprisingly long time given those numbers.</p>
<p id="kgWyh2">When movies do exceptionally well, like <em>Wonder Woman </em>did, studios will often rush a sequel announcement and stage a full promotional blitz. And that happened to an extent with the <em>Wonder Woman </em>sequel, with the <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/wonder-woman-2-release-date-1202506799/">announcement of a 2019 release date</a> for the film and confirmation that Jenkins was <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/news/wonder-woman-sequel-patty-jenkins-1202472855/">involved with the sequel’s development</a>, specifically the screenplay. But it wasn’t until today that Jenkins’s involvement as director was made official.</p>
<p id="XObonW">The announcement comes at the end of a summer filled with speculation that Jenkins was renegotiating her return with Warner Bros., an evidently long process that nonetheless seems to have resulted in a monumental deal for the director. <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-sequel-patty-jenkins-officially-set-return-as-director-1031052">According to the Hollywood Reporter</a>’s sources — there hasn’t been an official confirmation yet — the “challenging” negotiations resulted in Jenkins becoming the highest-paid female director in film history:</p>
<blockquote><p id="rvlOkF">Sources say Jenkins will receive directing and writing fees in the high seven figures (think somewhere in the $7 to $9 million range) on<em> Wonder Woman 2</em> but, more significantly, will have a considerable backend. (At her peak, Nancy Meyers earned in the $5 million range, according to sources.) The deal is a superheroic leap for Jenkins, who was paid $1 million for directing the initial<em> Wonder Woman </em>but was looking to get something more on the level of Zack Snyder's pay after he directed<em> Man of Steel </em></p></blockquote>
<p id="iPWpYI">Gal Gadot, the star of the first film, is already signed on for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7126948/"><em>Wonder Woman 2</em></a><em>,</em> whose release has been scheduled for December 13, 2019.</p>
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/11/16290336/patty-jenkins-wonder-woman-2Alex Abad-Santos2017-07-24T11:40:01-04:002017-07-24T11:40:01-04:00Wonder Woman overtakes Guardians of the Galaxy 2 to become the summer’s biggest movie
<figure>
<img alt="Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/OQDirUi0r7WLLlpjX-LH7QpY-dQ=/0x0:1800x1350/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55854633/wonderwoman.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Along with Dunkirk and Girls Trip, Patty Jenkins’s film contributed to an expectations-shattering weekend at the domestic box office.</p> <p id="qNcd7T">Wonder Woman had a big weekend at San Diego Comic-Con: <em>Wonder Woman 2</em> <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/22/15984224/wonder-woman-2-warner-bros-sdcc-2017">was officially announced</a>, and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2017/7/22/15989768/justice-league-new-trailer-aquaman-wonder-woman">the newly unfurled <em>Justice League</em> trailer</a> also heavily featured the character. But the DC hero had an even bigger weekend at the box office, where she claimed a big new sales record — and continues to rewrite common knowledge about what audiences want from their movies.</p>
<p id="yNGXWY">After <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15739284/wonder-woman-box-office-records-female-director-get-out-hidden-figures">smashing opening-weekend box office records in June</a>, beating <em>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</em> and <em>Suicide Squad</em> in <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/12/15782354/wonder-woman-box-office-second-weekend">second-weekend sales</a> and becoming the <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/26/15873242/wonder-woman-box-office-record">biggest live-action film directed by a woman</a>, Patty Jenkins’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/5/30/15709572/wonder-woman-review-gadot"><em>Wonder Woman</em></a> took another title this weekend: It surpassed <em>Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2</em> to become the highest-grossing movie of the summer at the domestic box office, taking in <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wonderwoman.htm">almost $390 million in ticket sales domestically</a>. </p>
<p id="3aS63h">That’s a huge showing for any movie, and downright fantastic for a movie about a female superhero that’s directed by a woman, two characteristics that, until recently, were assumed to underperform at the box office. </p>
<aside id="7UbZc5"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data="{"stories":[{"title":"Hollywood's ideas about audiences are outdated. Wonder Woman's record-smashing debut proves it.","url":"https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15739284/wonder-woman-box-office-records-female-director-get-out-hidden-figures"}]}"></div></aside><p id="vzisrC"><em>Wonder Woman</em>’s domestic gross handily beats last year’s<em> </em><a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11291550/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-review"><em>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</em></a> ($330 million) and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12366370/suicide-squad-review-harley-quinn-will-smith-margot-robbie"><em>Suicide Squad</em></a> ($325 million). And while it hasn’t yet overtaken those two films’ international sales (or <em>Guardians’, </em>for that matter), its overall gross thus far ($780 million) already outpaces <em>Suicide Squad’s </em>$745 million total and is edging up on <em>Batman v Superman</em>’s $873 million. Last week, <em>Wonder Woman</em> passed the final <em>Harry Potter</em> installment to become <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-box-office-passes-up-final-harry-potter-film-at-us-box-office-1021638">Warner Bros.’ third-biggest release of all time</a>, behind Christopher Nolan’s <em>The Dark Knight</em> and <em>The Dark Knight Rises</em>. </p>
<p id="Fa8pOv">Incidentally, Nolan had a big weekend too, with his <em>Dunkirk</em> raking in about $50.5 million, 20 percent more than was projected — helped along in part by strong <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15985474/dunkirk-explainer-format-imax-digital-70mm-35mm-buy-ticket">IMAX ticket sales</a> and positive reactions from both critics and audiences. And with about $30 million, the well-reviewed <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/20/15971776/girls-trip-review-hilarious-gem"><em>Girls Trip</em></a> had the biggest opening weekend for a comedy so far this year, and an even higher Cinemascore (a common barometer of opening-weekend audience reactions) than <em>Dunkirk</em>: <em>Girls Trip</em> earned an A+, while <em>Dunkirk</em> garnered an A-. (<a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/19/15986916/valerian-and-the-city-of-a-thousand-planets-review"><em>Valerian and the </em><em>City of a </em><em>Thousand Planets</em></a>, despite counting Rihanna among its cast, <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=valerian.htm">only earned $15 million</a> against its $150 million production budget, and is on track to be a flop.)</p>
<p id="5fMhhp">All of these box office numbers run against expectations in one way or another, <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15739284/wonder-woman-box-office-records-female-director-get-out-hidden-figures">which is becoming a trend in 2017</a>. <em>Wonder Woman</em> was considered a bit of a risk because of its woman-centric story and its director, Patty Jenkins; studios rarely hand big-budget tentpole films to female directors. As a historical war film, <em>Dunkirk </em>was expected to do well, but its director’s name recognition, excellent reviews, and a noteworthy cast (including, importantly, One Direction’s Harry Styles) helped propel it over expectations. And <em>Girls Trip</em> is a comedy starring four black women, which Hollywood usually considers a “niche” film — but its opening week number are far from “niche.” </p>
<p id="LZNohG">Whether this expectations-defying trend will continue is anyone’s guess. But it’s starting to look like the summer of 2017 will be remembered as, if not a total game changer, the year the groundwork was laid for a new “Hollywood wisdom.” </p>
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/7/24/16019408/wonder-woman-box-office-summer-recordAlissa Wilkinson2017-06-26T15:00:01-04:002017-06-26T15:00:01-04:00Wonder Woman is now the biggest live-action film directed by a woman
<figure>
<img alt="Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/aOtA2iiLO_wPMHHC2jcurN4YuhM=/0x1:1800x1351/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55452171/wonderwoman.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The film’s $652 million worldwide box office haul just broke the record.</p> <p id="d7cT9U"><a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15740256/wonder-woman-movie"><em>Wonder Woman</em></a><em> </em>made an estimated <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wonderwoman.htm">$25 million at the US box office this weekend</a>, and in doing so set a new record: The movie is now the biggest live-action movie in Hollywood history directed by a woman.</p>
<p id="IeahXE"><a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wonderwoman.htm">According to Box Office Mojo</a>, <em>Wonder Woman</em> has made $652 million worldwide and $318 million domestically since its release on June 2. The <a href="http://variety.com/2017/film/box-office/wonder-woman-box-office-female-directors-1202477406/">previous record holder</a> was the Abba-inspired musical <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795421/?ref_=nm_knf_i1"><em>Mamma Mia</em></a>, which was directed by <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1630273/">Phyllida Lloyd</a> and made $609 million worldwide ($144 million domestic) in 2008. </p>
<aside id="5nrCPY"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Why Wonder Woman’s second-weekend sales are so extraordinary — and important","url":"https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/12/15782354/wonder-woman-box-office-second-weekend"}]}'></div></aside><p id="GfKucQ">In terms of superhero films, <em>Wonder Woman</em> has already <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=superhero.htm">made more money</a> domestically than movies like <em>The Amazing Spider-Man</em> (2012), <em>Man of Steel</em> (2013), <em>Captain America: The Winter Soldier </em>(2014), and <em>Doctor Strange</em> (2016). It has yet to beat those movies in worldwide box office figures, but it’s only in the fourth week of its theatrical run and will likely remain in theaters for several more weeks.</p>
<p id="YLDG9Q">It’s also within striking distance of the domestic hauls for last year’s<em> </em><a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11291550/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-review"><em>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice</em></a> ($330 million) and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12366370/suicide-squad-review-harley-quinn-will-smith-margot-robbie"><em>Suicide Squad</em></a> ($325 million). What separates those two movies from <em>Wonder Woman</em> is that <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/12/15782354/wonder-woman-box-office-second-weekend"><em>Wonder Woman </em>has seen less of a decrease in box office sales</a> since its opening weekend. <em>Batman v Superman</em> and <em>Suicide Squad</em> both saw dramatic drops after their premieres (and in <em>Batman v Superman</em>’s case, that drop was a <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-inside-batman-v-880143">historic one</a>).</p>
<aside id="cEHusY"><div data-anthem-component="readmore" data-anthem-component-data='{"stories":[{"title":"Why people are freaking out over Wonder Woman’s stellar Rotten Tomatoes score","url":"https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/5/30/15715322/wonder-woman-rotten-tomatoes-score"}]}'></div></aside><p id="k4zTI7">These numbers matter to both fans and Hollywood insiders, because there’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/12/15782354/wonder-woman-box-office-second-weekend">unbelievable pressure on<em> Wonder Woman</em> to do well at the box office</a>. It’s an unfortunate reality that in the past, poorly received female superhero movies like <em>Catwoman </em>and <em>Elektra</em> <a href="http://time.com/3847432/marvel-ceo-leaked-email/">have been cited as a reason</a> not to create more superhero movies centered on female characters. Though, given <em>Wonder Woman</em>’s success, a sequel at this point is nearly inevitable — it’s simply a matter of <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-director-patty-jenkins-not-signed-sequel-1010845">giving director Patty Jenkins what she wants</a>. </p>
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/26/15873242/wonder-woman-box-office-recordAlex Abad-Santos2017-06-21T21:17:22-04:002017-06-21T21:17:22-04:00The outrage over Gal Gadot’s $300,000 paycheck for Wonder Woman, explained
<figure>
<img alt="Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/00434JgAmxKkDiRXH0mkqrBpt-E=/160x0:1120x720/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55357175/wonderwoman2.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It was sparked by an absurd, inaccurate claim that Henry Cavill made $14 million when he appeared in Man of Steel.</p> <p id="wS3K3w">Thanks to a poorly sourced news story, the power of Twitter to make something go viral, and the erotic allure of online outrage, an urban legend was born on Tuesday morning: that the $300,000 <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/5/30/15713806/gal-gadot-name-correct-pronunciation">Gal Gadot</a> was paid for her starring role in <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15740256/wonder-woman-movie"><em>Wonder Woman</em></a> was pennies compared with Henry Cavill’s alleged payment of $14 million for 2013’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/"><em>Man of Steel</em></a><em>. </em></p>
<p id="GIT0A5">It all began when Lauren Duca, a columnist at Teen Vogue, tweeted the following (now deleted) sentiment:</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1Mxf8hRJou3pX-Op3HDusN7--iU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8718965/Screen_Shot_2017_06_20_at_2.25.40_PM.png">
</figure>
<p id="xH6BS0">Duca’s tweet was retweeted more than 14,500 times and quickly drew attention to the story. And it’s easy to see why: Not only is it absolutely absurd to think that Gadot was paid 46 times less than Cavill for a better movie, but if it happened to Gadot, the insinuation is that other actresses are likely suffering from the same pay gap. </p>
<p id="48EHSH">There’s only one problem: The scenario in Duca’s original tweet wasn’t true. </p>
<p id="cByEz2">To be certain, there is absolutely a <a href="http://www.eonline.com/de/news/745600/amy-adams-knew-about-gender-pay-gap-while-making-american-hustle-doesn-t-totally-agree-with-jennifer-lawrence">gender pay gap between actors and actresses in Hollywood</a>, but Gal Gadot’s salary for <em>Wonder Woman</em> isn’t an example of it. </p>
<h3 id="q8tGyB">Gal Gadot was probably paid $300,000 for <em>Wonder Woman</em>. Cavill was probably not paid $14 million for <em>Man of Steel</em>. </h3>
<p id="FF9SRv">The apparent culprit behind this false comparison is a story published by <a href="http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/news/a46089/superman-makes-more-money-than-wonder-woman/">Elle</a> that has since been updated to reflect its error. The original piece stated that Gadot was making $300,000 for <em>Wonder Woman</em> and that Cavill had made $14 million for <em>Man of Steel</em>. Elle cited a story from <a href="https://variety.com/2014/film/news/wonder-woman-gal-gadot-signs-three-picture-deal-with-warner-bros-1201067961/">Variety</a> as its source for Gadot’s salary, which in turn cited an Israeli entertainment show. </p>
<p id="jwskJD">For Cavill’s salary, the Elle piece cited Forbes, which had in turn cited a website called <a href="http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actors/henry-cavill-net-worth/">the Richest</a>, one of the <a href="http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/henry-cavill-net-worth/">internet’s many websites</a> that “tell” you a celebrity’s net worth. The Richest speculates that Cavill’s net worth is $8 million, though that assessment appears to be based on only two pieces of “earnings and financial data,” both from 2013. Those two pieces of data are a $14 million salary and “box office gross” bonuses from <em>Man of Steel</em>, and a $23,900 Omega De Ville Hour Vision wristwatch; the site does not list any other earnings or assets whatsoever, from before Cavill worked on <em>Man of Steel</em> (like the payment he would have received for appearing in <em>The Immortals</em> and Showtime’s <em>The Tudors</em>) or since. </p>
<p id="3hx5Pn">The Elle article spurred Duca’s popular tweet. And after people pointed out to Duca that the $14 million figure had come from a questionable source, she tweeted — and also later deleted — a clarification, while still making the point that Gadot’s salary is tiny compared with the worldwide box office gross that <em>Wonder Woman</em> will haul in:</p>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt=" " data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/B8cIqPxEQk72BnaPz8pLLg6ZL3w=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8718903/Screen_Shot_2017_06_20_at_2.21.12_PM.png">
</figure>
<p id="fVK20J">People were far less interested in that subsequent tweet, and it was only retweeted 198 times before it was deleted.</p>
<p id="E0SVXL">Meanwhile, Vanity Fair reported that “a source with knowledge of studio negotiations on franchise films” said that it would be <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-salary">“insane”</a> for a studio to pay Cavill that much. And <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2017/06/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-salary-why-it-was-so-low.html">Vulture</a> reported that “Cavill made a six-figure paycheck comparable to Gadot’s for <em>Man of Steel</em> and that his co-star Amy Adams, a much bigger name, pulled in seven figures to play his Lois Lane.”</p>
<p id="oEuzpZ">Vanity Fair’s and Vulture’s sources were unnamed, but both outlets are more reputable and trustworthy than the Richest. </p>
<p id="OnlC6v">Essentially, the point that Elle, Duca, and others were trying to make about a gender pay gap and <em>Wonder Woman </em>is already broken if the $14 million figure is false — no matter how noble their intentions. That point becomes even more entertainingly incorrect and ironic if Vulture’s source is right about Adams getting paid more than Cavill. </p>
<h3 id="Z0I7HY">Gal Gadot was paid similarly to Chris Evans for the first <em>Captain America</em> movie. And she’s poised to make a lot more money in sequels.</h3>
<p id="pndEO4">To be clear, the gender pay gap in Hollywood is real — <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-sony-hack-reveals-jennifer-lawrence-is-paid-less-than-her-male-co-stars">the Sony email hack of 2014 </a>revealed that Jennifer Lawrence was actually paid less than her male co-stars in<em> American Hustle</em> even though she was arguably the biggest star of the movie. </p>
<p id="ObkGZu">But Gadot’s contract is actually the norm for debut superhero movies: Little-known or unknown actors don’t make that much money when starring in their first superhero films. </p>
<p id="LYfZFi">Deadline, a well-sourced trade publication like Variety, <a href="http://deadline.com/2010/03/evans-in-captain-america-deal-mode-29192/">reported</a> in 2010 that Chris Evans was paid around $300,000 to star in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458339/"><em>Captain America: The First Avenger</em></a>. And <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/gal-gadot-got-paid-same-as-henry-cavill-superhero-debuts-1015202">the Hollywood Reporter points out</a> that Chris Hemsworth made $150,000 initially for appearing in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/"><em>Thor</em></a>. </p>
<p id="5D2DY5">These salary numbers feel like drops in the bucket compared with what superhero movies usually rake in at the box office — <em>Captain America: The First Avenger</em> <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=captainamerica.htm">made $370 million worldwide</a> and <em>Thor</em> <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=thor.htm">made $449 million worldwide</a>. <em>Wonder Woman</em> has <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wonderwoman.htm">already surpassed $570 million worldwide</a>. But they also don’t include or consider things like a box office bonus, whether an actor has contractual obligations to appear in future movies, and whatever kind of deals are made for additional compensation that is dependent on the movie’s success. </p>
<p id="slquhy">What Evans and his fellow Marvel stars — most notably Robert Downey Jr. — have done in the wake of their respective successes is renegotiate their contracts. Downey famously parlayed the initial $500,000 he made for <em>Iron Man</em> into <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/09/robert-downey-jr-addiction-children">$50 million for his appearance in 2012’s first <em>Avengers</em> film</a>. </p>
<p id="FbuKPI">And Gadot will have the same opportunity as she negotiates potential future <em>Wonder Woman</em> films. </p>
<p id="SDwXIj"><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/06/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-salary">According to Vanity Fair</a>, she hasn’t signed on for the inevitable <em>Wonder Woman </em>sequel. Because <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/5/15739284/wonder-woman-box-office-records-female-director-get-out-hidden-figures"><em>Wonder Woman</em> is a smashing box office success</a>, Gadot now has an advantage in negotiating a bigger payday for herself. </p>
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/20/15840802/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-salary-cavill-14-millionAlex Abad-Santos2017-06-12T12:50:01-04:002017-06-12T12:50:01-04:00Why Wonder Woman’s second-weekend sales are so extraordinary — and important
<figure>
<img alt="Wonder Woman" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KZwkzGzrj4vZhqWuKWR6WKb1wBQ=/0x1:2400x1801/1310x983/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55210481/ww3.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Warner Bros.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Wonder Woman’s second weekend was better than those of Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. </p> <p id="2d02gr"><em>Wonder Woman</em> beat the boys’ club at the box office. </p>
<p id="esnr2T">This weekend, Patty Jenkins’s new entry in Warner Bros.’ DC movie universe took in an estimated $57 million, <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=wonderwoman.htm">according to Box Office Mojo</a> — around a 45 percent drop from its opening weekend. And while drawing just over half the number of opening-weekend viewers may not sound impressive on the surface, that figure is actually really great news for Warner Bros. and the team that put the film together. </p>
<p id="iEHGm7">When it comes to superhero movies — all movies, really — the drop between an opening weekend and its second weekend is often precipitous. <a href="https://www.vox.com/2016/4/9/11392508/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-zack-snyder"><em>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice </em>saw its box office haul drop 69 percent</a> from its first to second weekend, and <em>Suicide Squad</em> had a decrease of about <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=dc2016.htm">67 percent</a>. So <em>Wonder Woman</em>’s second-weekend box office numbers are pretty stellar compared with those two movies — in fact, as BuzzFeed’s Adam Vary points out, <em>Wonder Woman </em>had the best second weekend of any modern superhero movie, in terms of first-to-second-week domestic box office decrease:</p>
<div id="BNtgR2">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p lang="en" dir="ltr">Box office: With $57.2M, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WonderWoman?src=hash">#WonderWoman</a> has the lowest 1st to 2nd domestic weekend drop for a modern superhero movie. It is a phenomenon. <a href="https://t.co/OcssHZ5nYR">pic.twitter.com/OcssHZ5nYR</a></p>— Adam B. Vary (@adambvary) <a href="https://twitter.com/adambvary/status/873909541213061120">June 11, 2017</a>
</blockquote>
<script async="" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
</div>
<p id="ifrnsa">When you add in foreign box office, Wonder Woman sits at around<a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=wonderwoman.htm"> $435 million in its first two weekends</a> — a figure that shatters the <a href="http://deadline.com/2017/05/wonder-woman-domestic-box-office-opening-gal-gadot-patty-jenkins-1202089623/">initial projections</a> for the film, which was tracking for an estimated $65 million opening weekend domestically. </p>
<p id="9U7Lxl">These numbers matter to both fans and Hollywood insiders, because there’s unbelievable pressure on<em> Wonder Woman</em> to not only be a good movie but also do well at the box office. It’s an unfortunate reality that in the past, poorly received female superhero movies like <em>Catwoman</em> and <em>Elektra</em> <a href="http://time.com/3847432/marvel-ceo-leaked-email/">have been cited as a reason</a> not to create more superhero movies centered on female characters. </p>
<p id="cSwdBh">Though a sequel hasn’t officially been announced, <em>Wonder Woman</em>’s successful box seems to indicate that a second <em>Wonder Woman</em> film is a no-brainer at this point. <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/wonder-woman-director-patty-jenkins-not-signed-sequel-1010845">THR reported last week </a>that negotiations for director Patty Jenkins to return for a second movie are expected to begin soon. </p>
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/12/15782354/wonder-woman-box-office-second-weekendAlex Abad-Santos