Jump to content

Beginning on August 1, 2017 all free accounts will have the same avatar size as all paid accounts. This means you will be able to upload larger avatars on that day if you have a free account and this will no longer be a paid perk.

Cochofles

Wonder Woman | 06/ 02 /17 | Dir. Patty Jenkins | Starring Gal Gadot | 412.4 million dollars [821.2 million worldwide]!

Recommended Posts

Back in the day, when Bigelow still hadn't won acclaim (and an Oscar) for The Hurt Locker, and based on the stuff she did in Near Dark and Strange Days, I thought she would be a great choice for a potential Wonder Woman. I think Angela Bassett's role in Strange Days is one of the great (unknown) action heroines in cinema history. Too bad that film (which granted, had many flaws) was not a hit. Bassett was a rarity: A powerful, flawed, layered action heroine who was sexy in a very understated, regal, non-cliched way, and who also happened to be African American.

Bigelow has directed action films so I think she could handle a superhero film. I'm trying to think of other directors who could helm Wonder Woman. Nicolas Winding Refn wants to do it with Christina Hendricks as Diana/Wonder Woman although I'm unfamiliar with his work so cannot say if he would be a suitable candidate,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if fuzzy memories of the popular 70s TV show make some people think that Wonder Woman, the character that's been around in comic book form since the 40s, is some pushover who can only schlepp around some shiny rope, deflect bullets with her bracelets, and fly in some invisible plane. (Some non-comic-book fan people I know think, based on their memories of the TV show, that Wonder Woman would not work on film because of the camp element that the TV show added to the character. But Batman also has a ridiculously campy TV show, and that didn't keep people from making hits out of 6 big-budget Batman films) She also seemed like all she could do was jump, push lowly thugs around, and look gorgeous.

Wonder Woman's powers, granted by the gods of the greek pantheon: The physical strength of the earth (she's gone toe-to-toe with Superman) she's as fast as the god of speed, Hermes, (and has outrun The Flash several times), trained all her life by ancient amazons to become the best warrior, bar-none, in the DC comics universe, and her lasso of truth is not only able to dispel any lies, deceit or deception on any creature, but it's indestructible and can extend indefinitely. She has a fantastic background of mythology, which could actually make for lots of kickass stories onscreen. Interestingly, the same fanboys who always told me her mythological background is precisely what would impede a potential WW film from working, are the same people who raved and hyperventilated about the "awesomeness" of Thor, a big budget film based on a myth-based superhero. Of the people I know who hated Thor, not a single one mentioned mythology as the reson for not liking the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if fuzzy memories of the popular 70s TV show make some people think that Wonder Woman, the character that's been around in comic book form since the 40s, is some pushover who can only schlepp around some shiny rope, deflect bullets with her bracelets, and fly in some invisible plane. (Some non-comic-book fan people I know think, based on their memories of the TV show, that Wonder Woman would not work on film because of the camp element that the TV show added to the character. But Batman also has a ridiculously campy TV show, and that didn't keep people from making hits out of 6 big-budget Batman films) She also seemed like all she could do was jump, push lowly thugs around, and look gorgeous.

Wonder Woman's powers, granted by the gods of the greek pantheon: The physical strength of the earth (she's gone toe-to-toe with Superman) she's as fast as the god of speed, Hermes, (and has outrun The Flash several times), trained all her life by ancient amazons to become the best warrior, bar-none, in the DC comics universe, and her lasso of truth is not only able to dispel any lies, deceit or deception on any creature, but it's indestructible and can extend indefinitely. She has a fantastic background of mythology, which could actually make for lots of kickass stories onscreen. Interestingly, the same fanboys who always told me her mythological background is precisely what would impede a potential WW film from working, are the same people who raved and hyperventilated about the "awesomeness" of Thor, a big budget film based on a myth-based superhero. Of the people I know who hated Thor, not a single one mentioned mythology as the reson for not liking the movie.

Wonder Woman's powers were not as TV budget friendly compared to Batman, the lasso to me could work more like a weapon as could the tiara. Only thing I'm unsure about is the invisible jet because she can fly and wouldn't work well on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know...stupid question maybe. But I would love to see what you guys think. I know that there's a pervading sense of mistrust regarding female-centered superhero (or superheroish) films, mostly due to how badly Catwoman, Elektra, and Aeon Flux did. But are audiences really averse to watching women doing superhuman feats and fending off villains? Charlie's Angels, Kill Bill, Tomb Raider and Salt all did well. Now, when it comes to Angelina, an argument could be made as to how her presence alone helped those last two films, and how Tarantino's name was what helped KB and how the first Charlie's Angels had all those stars, plus the built-in audience of the TV show, but, is it really a case of audiences not wanting to see women in these scenarios? Because Angelina, Tarantino, and the women in CA all had flop films, and the second CA decreased, which means that it's not necessarily their names alone what made the above-mentioned movies succeed.

It's just interesting that of all the iconic superhero properties (truly iconic, I mean, with over 4 decades of universal recognizability and pop-culture saturation), only Wonder Woman has not had a big-budget film made. Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Hulk...all the iconic usual suspects have had a movie, plus at-the-time B-listers like Iron Man, Green Lantern, relatively recent properties like Wolverine and Elektra, and even at-the-time unknown characters like Blade.

This is an uber-hypothetical scenario-Let's say James Cameron directed and, say, Gerard Butler or Javier Bardem played Ares, and some really gorgeous, talented unknown played WW, and WB gathers a top-notch team for everything from the score to the cinematography...would audiences still ignore a WW? I ask this because among my comic book geek friends, I keep hearing that a WW film would never work, people would never pay to see that, women superheroes don't appeal to the masses, etc.

What do you guys think?

Any concept put into the right hands can become a hit and any concept put into the wrong hands can become a dud. To answer your question, yes if done right (yes I know so cliche, but it's true).
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Bigelow suggested? She never made a movie with an impressive female lead. Her interest is squarely in male heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Bigelow suggested? She never made a movie with an impressive female lead. Her interest is squarely in male heroes.

True, but her supporting character (Mace, played by Angela Bassett) in Strange Days was so badass. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody would take the character seriously.

Why exactly? Is it because of her costume? Because that's extremely easy to fix.

There's a reason that all of those other characters have starred in big budget films and Wonder Woman hasn't.

Only Superman, Batman and GL had big budget films. Most of the DC characters remain unused till this day and there's plenty of potential for a good movie to be made about some of them.

The studios know it isn't viable. Do you really think general audiences would sit and watch Wonder Woman whipping out her lasso of truth or whatever without breaking out laughing?

What exactly is so funny about her lasso? There are plenty of ways to make it look good visually.

Only thing I'm unsure about is the invisible jet because she can fly and wouldn't work well on film.

It's not essential and could be easily skipped imo. Edited by telcontar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I present to you Catwoman, Elektra, Barb Wire and Tank Girl.

Those flopped because they were atrocities, plain and simple, not because they were about female superheroes.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as WW is hot, then yes.

That didn't help Catwoman. Or Elektra. Or Barb Wire.

If that was all it took, then Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman would have been the biggest TV show of all time and lasted more than two seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede all those points, but Wonder Woman is iconic unlike those other examples so I'm thinking that's good for at least $100m right there. Add the hotness factor (which would help when marketing) and the obligatory action packed trailer as is common with superhero movies, then I think that's good for another $50m?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede all those points, but Wonder Woman is iconic unlike those other examples so I'm thinking that's good for at least $100m right there. Add the hotness factor (which would help when marketing) and the obligatory action packed trailer as is common with superhero movies, then I think that's good for another $50m?

The lead actress being "hot" will certainly help with men and lesbians checking the film out, but they need to make sure that 'hotness' does not override their vision for the film, otherwise we'll get another Barb Wire/Catwoman fiasco. The script is key here. If you make WW yet another "sultry" dominatrix with superpowers, audiences won't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.