"Wonder Woman" Actress Inks Three-Picture Deal with Warner Bros.

"Wonder Woman" Actress Inks Three-Picture Deal with Warner Bros.

Gal Gadot has signed a three-picture deal with WB that will have her star in her own Wonder Woman flick.

In December last year, it was revealed that Fast and Furious Israeli actress Gal Gadot will play Wonder Woman in the upcoming Man of Steel sequel tentatively titled Batman vs. Superman. Well, regardless if you think the actress is a good fit to be the Amazonian princess or not, you'd better get used to it fast, as the actress has signed a three-picture deal with Warner Bros. to play as the iconic heroine.

According to a report by Variety, Gadot's three-picture deal will have the actress portray Princess Diana of Themyscira in a Justice League movie, a standalone Wonder Woman film and, of course, in Batman vs. Superman. Also of note, Israeli entertainment show "Good Evening with Gai Pines" revealed that Gadot will earn $300,000 per film.

Want more Wonder Woman reading? Go give The Escapist's piece on what we don't know about the heroine in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman film a read. Speaking of the Superman sequel, Warner Bros. pushed its release date from July 2015 to May 2016, which will pit it against a as-of-yet untitled Marvel film.

Are you on-board Warner's decision with Gadot as Wonder Woman and Affleck as Batman? Who else do you see the studio snapping up to play the rest of the Justice League members?

Source: Variety

Permalink

I'm concerned this movie will try and appeal to "women" rather than attempting to follow the traditional "comic book movie" thing we have going on.

I fear in their attempts to make this a "comic movie for chicks" they will create a comic movie that doesn't box office very well and in turn result in another reason for Hollywood to not touch female superheroes.

I may be wrong... but they've got a strange beast to work with. Is she a demi-god, does she have an invisible jet, can she fly naturally, does she swing a sword around, does she actually kill people, what about her romantic options, is the outfit going to be "too much", is she going to be a warrior or is she going to be a princess pretending at being a warrior?

I really think she is gonna tank up hard for this role, her being Israeli only makes me think this more likely. Whilst physically strong women are by no means the norm, they are more common than in other Western(ish) countries.

Good for WB for giving Wonder Woman her own movie. That's pretty cool. Now it's just a matter of if the DC movie-verse will be any kind of coherent or good, and if she can pull off playing Wonder Woman.

Hopefully she'll start lifting weights and bulk up before filming. Wonder Woman is supposed to be just as buff as Batman or Superman.

They could've gone with Gina Carano (looks the part, actual fighting experience, does her own stunts, has experience, dated Superman himself already). This is a supermodel with very little experience, and nothing impressive. To me, this makes as much sense as that supermodel cast in the Transformers 3 movie.

I would love to be wrong, but... Warner Bros. is really putting the cart before the horse here. The last Superman movie may have made some money, but it sharply divided its viewers, which can often spell doom for a followup (see Matrix Reloaded, Terminator 3, Exorcist 2, and other movies that derailed their franchise).

What if the follow-up just plain sucks on a Batman & Robin level? (even Batman & Robin made a profit.... *gag*) What if all these lead-ins just collapses under the weight of a rushed movie too concerned with chasing after Marvel's success, with so little regard to who they cast, what the source material established, or how it works on a basic storytelling level?

Because Man of Steel was a supreme mess of a movie. Good looking, sure, but nothing about it made me excited to see a bigger DC universe like Marvel's movies did. I don't think an anorexic Wonder Woman or a scowly Ben Affleck will change my mind.

Abomination:
I'm concerned this movie will try and appeal to "women" rather than attempting to follow the traditional "comic book movie" thing we have going on.

I fear in their attempts to make this a "comic movie for chicks" they will create a comic movie that doesn't box office very well and in turn result in another reason for Hollywood to not touch female superheroes.

I may be wrong... but they've got a strange beast to work with. Is she a demi-god, does she have an invisible jet, can she fly naturally, does she swing a sword around, does she actually kill people, what about her romantic options, is the outfit going to be "too much", is she going to be a warrior or is she going to be a princess pretending at being a warrior?

I'm just hoping they've learned something from the iconic disaster of the TV pilot, which made her both an overly emotional, whiny teen in an adult's body and a psychotic murderer who would make Nolan's Batman cringe.

Also, $300,000 makes sense...for the "cameo." Paying her chump-change for the lead in one of the cornerstones of a multi-picture franchise is criminal.

Abomination:
I'm concerned this movie will try and appeal to "women" rather than attempting to follow the traditional "comic book movie" thing we have going on.

I fear in their attempts to make this a "comic movie for chicks" they will create a comic movie that doesn't box office very well and in turn result in another reason for Hollywood to not touch female superheroes.

There's nothing wrong with a comic book movie targeted at a female audience provided that it is actually done in a manner that real actual human women will find interesting as opposed to designed to appeal to the stereotypical Comic Book Guy's version of what a woman is. There are a ridiculous number of superheros and it would be interesting to see a Superhero movie that was both done well and targeted at a different demographic.

vid87:

Abomination:
I'm concerned this movie will try and appeal to "women" rather than attempting to follow the traditional "comic book movie" thing we have going on.

I fear in their attempts to make this a "comic movie for chicks" they will create a comic movie that doesn't box office very well and in turn result in another reason for Hollywood to not touch female superheroes.

I may be wrong... but they've got a strange beast to work with. Is she a demi-god, does she have an invisible jet, can she fly naturally, does she swing a sword around, does she actually kill people, what about her romantic options, is the outfit going to be "too much", is she going to be a warrior or is she going to be a princess pretending at being a warrior?

I'm just hoping they've learned something from the iconic disaster of the TV pilot, which made her both an overly emotional, whiny teen in an adult's body and a psychotic murderer who would make Nolan's Batman cringe.

Also, $300,000 makes sense...for the "cameo." Paying her chump-change for the lead in one of the cornerstones of a multi-picture franchise is criminal.

Her only "acting" credit is standing and looking pretty in fast and furious. You don't give multimillion contracts to people with no chops.

Trishbot:
They could've gone with Gina Carano (looks the part, actual fighting experience, does her own stunts, has experience, dated Superman himself already). This is a supermodel with very little experience, and nothing impressive. To me, this makes as much sense as that supermodel cast in the Transformers 3 movie.

I would love to be wrong, but... Warner Bros. is really putting the cart before the horse here. The last Superman movie may have made some money, but it sharply divided its viewers, which can often spell doom for a followup (see Matrix Reloaded, Terminator 3, Exorcist 2, and other movies that derailed their franchise).

What if the follow-up just plain sucks on a Batman & Robin level? (even Batman & Robin made a profit.... *gag*) What if all these lead-ins just collapses under the weight of a rushed movie too concerned with chasing after Marvel's success, with so little regard to who they cast, what the source material established, or how it works on a basic storytelling level?

Because Man of Steel was a supreme mess of a movie. Good looking, sure, but nothing about it made me excited to see a bigger DC universe like Marvel's movies did. I don't think an anorexic Wonder Woman or a scowly Ben Affleck will change my mind.

I was thinking the same thing regarding Gina Carano. She's gorgeous, has the right build, can actually hold her own (and then some) in fight scenes and she can act a fair bit, too. I dunno, she seems like a perfect fit.

This movie is a train wreck in the making, an if they mess it up it will spell the doom of a justice league movie. Batman is only in it because he sells loads, Supermans movie was ok but think he should be given his own sequel and not other characters shoe horned into it unless they are just cameos only. Guess she could play WW though would have to bulk up a bit otherwise she just wont be believable. Though im guessing they will just have her be a sexy WW to get people in the cinema. At this moment an untitled Marvel movie sounds better than this movie.

So we are going for the "discount cost" Wonder Woman? well done DC once again.

Alex Co:
Also of note, Israeli entertainment show "Good Evening with Gai Pines" revealed that Gadot will earn $300,000 per film.

Seriously? For the lead role in a trilogy of what will presumably be major blockbusters, that's really not much.

P.S. Thanks

Trishbot:
They could've gone with Gina Carano (looks the part, actual fighting experience, does her own stunts, has experience, dated Superman himself already). This is a supermodel with very little experience, and nothing impressive. To me, this makes as much sense as that supermodel cast in the Transformers 3 movie.

I would love to be wrong, but... Warner Bros. is really putting the cart before the horse here. The last Superman movie may have made some money, but it sharply divided its viewers, which can often spell doom for a followup (see Matrix Reloaded, Terminator 3, Exorcist 2, and other movies that derailed their franchise).

What if the follow-up just plain sucks on a Batman & Robin level? (even Batman & Robin made a profit.... *gag*) What if all these lead-ins just collapses under the weight of a rushed movie too concerned with chasing after Marvel's success, with so little regard to who they cast, what the source material established, or how it works on a basic storytelling level?

Because Man of Steel was a supreme mess of a movie. Good looking, sure, but nothing about it made me excited to see a bigger DC universe like Marvel's movies did. I don't think an anorexic Wonder Woman or a scowly Ben Affleck will change my mind.

Batman & Robin didn't make a profit it was $12 million short of breaking even if boxofficemojo's production budget and worldwide gross are correct and $42 million short if Wikipedia's production budget is correct.

Yagami_Kira:

vid87:

Abomination:
I'm concerned this movie will try and appeal to "women" rather than attempting to follow the traditional "comic book movie" thing we have going on.

I fear in their attempts to make this a "comic movie for chicks" they will create a comic movie that doesn't box office very well and in turn result in another reason for Hollywood to not touch female superheroes.

I may be wrong... but they've got a strange beast to work with. Is she a demi-god, does she have an invisible jet, can she fly naturally, does she swing a sword around, does she actually kill people, what about her romantic options, is the outfit going to be "too much", is she going to be a warrior or is she going to be a princess pretending at being a warrior?

I'm just hoping they've learned something from the iconic disaster of the TV pilot, which made her both an overly emotional, whiny teen in an adult's body and a psychotic murderer who would make Nolan's Batman cringe.

Also, $300,000 makes sense...for the "cameo." Paying her chump-change for the lead in one of the cornerstones of a multi-picture franchise is criminal.

Her only "acting" credit is standing and looking pretty in fast and furious. You don't give multimillion contracts to people with no chops.

Kind've begs the question why she was picked at all outside the looks and physicality, yet here we are. Still, she's expected to carry a movie solo - how did she not manage to negotiate just a little more? I know money shouldn't be an inherent indicator of quality, but something about this says to me the studio doesn't think much of her or consider WW something to be invested in - it's the mentality of "throw in whoever we can find dirt-cheap."

vid87:

Yagami_Kira:

vid87:

I'm just hoping they've learned something from the iconic disaster of the TV pilot, which made her both an overly emotional, whiny teen in an adult's body and a psychotic murderer who would make Nolan's Batman cringe.

Also, $300,000 makes sense...for the "cameo." Paying her chump-change for the lead in one of the cornerstones of a multi-picture franchise is criminal.

Her only "acting" credit is standing and looking pretty in fast and furious. You don't give multimillion contracts to people with no chops.

Kind've begs the question why she was picked at all outside the looks and physicality, yet here we are. Still, she's expected to carry a movie solo - how did she not manage to negotiate just a little more? I know money shouldn't be an inherent indicator of quality, but something about this says to me the studio doesn't think much of her or consider WW something to be invested in - it's the mentality of "throw in whoever we can find dirt-cheap."

No. Its the mentality of them trying to sink wonder woman. They don't want her to be a success.

Kumagawa Misogi:

Batman & Robin didn't make a profit it was $12 million short of breaking even if boxofficemojo's production budget and worldwide gross are correct and $42 million short if Wikipedia's production budget is correct.

I thought it made over $230 million on a $140 million budget, and that doesn't factor in the, well, massive profits they made from the merchandise and toys (it was designed primarily as a toy commercial and even the actors admit it).

It's just like how Godzilla's remake made a profit... but the poor word of mouth and hate for the film overshadowed any of its success, to the point the franchise was pretty much killed off since any follow-up they knew would be a disaster.

Trishbot:

Kumagawa Misogi:

Batman & Robin didn't make a profit it was $12 million short of breaking even if boxofficemojo's production budget and worldwide gross are correct and $42 million short if Wikipedia's production budget is correct.

I thought it made over $230 million on a $140 million budget, and that doesn't factor in the, well, massive profits they made from the merchandise and toys (it was designed primarily as a toy commercial and even the actors admit it).

It's just like how Godzilla's remake made a profit... but the poor word of mouth and hate for the film overshadowed any of its success, to the point the franchise was pretty much killed off since any follow-up they knew would be a disaster.

You have to remember that the worldwide gross is the total amount of ticket sales and the film studio and the cinema chain each get 50% so a film with a production budget of $140 million needs to bring in at least $280 million worldwide for the studio to break even.

So the film on it's own was not profitable, merchandise is a separate issue and if it did make up for the film's failure at the box office I would have thought that there would have been an earlier Batman film than the Batman Begins reboot 8 years later.

kurupt87:
I really think she is gonna tank up hard for this role, her being Israeli only makes me think this more likely. Whilst physically strong women are by no means the norm, they are more common than in other Western(ish) countries.

Because she is Israeli? Dude, go stand with the "Heimdahl isn't Black!" crowd.

HBaskerville:

kurupt87:
I really think she is gonna tank up hard for this role, her being Israeli only makes me think this more likely. Whilst physically strong women are by no means the norm, they are more common than in other Western(ish) countries.

Because she is Israeli? Dude, go stand with the "Heimdahl isn't Black!" crowd.

He means bulk up. Not do poorly.

It kind of strikes me as odd that she's making $300,000 per/film...is it that she's such a new actress? It's just that...it's my understanding that this is going to be a HUGE budget undertaking and it's expected to make a ton of cash back (expected to) so shouldn't Gadot be making more per movie? Affleck and Caville are more than likely going to get more than that for Batman vs Superman (bigger roles than Wonder Woman presumably) but that doesn't account for the Wonder Woman or, Justice League movies. Maybe I just misread though and, she's getting $300,000 for Superman Batman: Trinity Rising or whatever...

Well I was still hoping for Christina Hendricks to be Wonder Woman, since she said she was interested. Now they're really sure to they not only have a Justice League movie planned, but a Wonder Woman for three movies. But as long as Gal Gadot doesn't stay on a model diet and buffs up a little while snacking on the occasional cheeseburger, I can see her being Wonder Woman. Also $300,000 per films for a lead role in at least one? Tell me Hollywood stopped being greedy as fuck and this is now the average for a lead role and ticket prices are gonna plummet or the people dealing with primadonnas actors and directors backstage are getting paid more now. It's little disconcerting that the star of a female super hero movie is getting a tiny fraction of her male counterparts.

Yagami_Kira:

HBaskerville:

kurupt87:
I really think she is gonna tank up hard for this role, her being Israeli only makes me think this more likely. Whilst physically strong women are by no means the norm, they are more common than in other Western(ish) countries.

Because she is Israeli? Dude, go stand with the "Heimdahl isn't Black!" crowd.

He means bulk up. Not do poorly.

Still a slightly weird statement to make. The fact that she's Israeli doesn't seem especially relevant to the question of whether or not she can (and/or has the inclination to) put on muscle.

On the other hand, I only know one person from Israel, so this is hardly my area of expertise.

Falterfire:

Abomination:
I'm concerned this movie will try and appeal to "women" rather than attempting to follow the traditional "comic book movie" thing we have going on.

I fear in their attempts to make this a "comic movie for chicks" they will create a comic movie that doesn't box office very well and in turn result in another reason for Hollywood to not touch female superheroes.

There's nothing wrong with a comic book movie targeted at a female audience provided that it is actually done in a manner that real actual human women will find interesting as opposed to designed to appeal to the stereotypical Comic Book Guy's version of what a woman is. There are a ridiculous number of superheros and it would be interesting to see a Superhero movie that was both done well and targeted at a different demographic.

While there's nothing wrong with it you're aiming at a sub-set of a sub-set and putting it on the same pedestal as The Avengers and The Dark Knight in expectation of revenue.

It's not going to happen. And then they'll think it's because they used a female lead for a comic book movie.

Just make a comic book movie that has a female lead. Don't try and do anything else with it. Don't even bring much attention to the fact that she's a woman beyond her busting the balls of anyone who takes issue with her being one. That's it.

She's supposed to be a super hero... but you know they'll make her a super hero with "feminine baggage" or whatever female-centric issues they'll want to lump her with.

DataSnake:
Hopefully she'll start lifting weights and bulk up before filming. Wonder Woman is supposed to be just as buff as Batman or Superman.

There might be a limit to how much she can put on. She looks like she has a pretty slender build. That said, they can do wonders (no pun intended) with costume and makeup these days (e.g. Keira Knightly's cleavage in Pirates of the Caribbean), so I'm sure she'll look great.

MetalMagpie:

Yagami_Kira:

HBaskerville:

Because she is Israeli? Dude, go stand with the "Heimdahl isn't Black!" crowd.

He means bulk up. Not do poorly.

Still a slightly weird statement to make. The fact that she's Israeli doesn't seem especially relevant to the question of whether or not she can (and/or has the inclination to) put on muscle.

On the other hand, I only know one person from Israel, so this is hardly my area of expertise.

Way I read it it seems to say that physically strong women are more common (albeit still not the norm) in Israel than in other western countries, which doesn't seem all that weird considering conscription and the harsher environment.

But then again, like you I know only a single Israeli woman and she's no example of a physically strong woman though (still a very nice lady).

more like Wonder Skeleton she need to put some meat on to be Wonder Woman.

I'm simply happy at this point that somebody has resolved to produce a feature Wonder Woman film. I'm more than willing to give this a shot since it hasn't been done before. Now get us a Flash and a real Lantern ... make it snappy!

I love how the wording of this article's title makes the actress sound like she's some kind of octopus.

Did anyone have to do laundry when she inked the deal?

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here