Joss Whedon on the villain in Wonder Woman

[ImperfectIcon]

The only reason the panties remain is because of the nostalgia factor. Everyone thinks of Wonder Woman as wearing them. Notice how, in the Perez issues, there were some stories that completely ommited the panties in favor of a more armored look.

True, however she still wears those satin tights most of the time though. I think its still a safe bet to stay with "the classic look". After all Wonder Woman is an emissary if peace isn't she? If not then they should retitle the movie to "Gladiatrix", and then you may have identity conflict with Xena with the public atlarge, and thats undesirable. Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman.

 

[The Question]

True, however she still wears those satin tights most of the time though. I think its still a safe bet to stay with "the classic look".

The problem is, the classic look is quite cheesy and doesn't make much sense for a greek warrior. And it's not like Whedon would be changing the costume imensly. Just using a variation of the costume that has been used many times before in the comics.

After all Wonder Woman is an emissary if peace isn't she?

A greek warrior who's an emesairy for peace. That conflict's always been what made her interesting.

If not then they should retitle the movie to "Gladiatrix", and then you may have identity conflict with Xena with the public atlarge, and thats undesirable. Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman.

Giving her an armored skirt won't turn her into Xena. She'll still be Wonder Woman and act like Wonder Woman. And really, it would look better on screen.

 

[ImperfectIcon]

The problem is, the classic look is quite cheesy and doesn't make much sense for a greek warrior. And it's not like Whedon would be changing the costume imensly. Just using a variation of the costume that has been used many times before in the comics.



A greek warrior who's an emesairy for peace. That conflict's always been what made her interesting.



Giving her an armored skirt won't turn her into Xena. She'll still be Wonder Woman and act like Wonder Woman. And really, it would look better on screen.

Me personally, I don't think her classic look is cheesy and it won't be a problem, but that's just my humble opinion.

If you're going to armor up the tights/skirt then you may as well armor up her top as well, as it would look to me quite ridiculous that the larger body mass called the torso is not protected.

Then you may have to consider other changes as well and before you know it, tadah...Gladiatrix!...can't be taken seriously as an emmisary for peace.

When people think of Wonder Woman, they think of the "classic look" (ie. Lynda Carter TV series or Post Crisis Perez). I do not think that just because Batman got a new look that it would work on Wonder Woman as well. You stick with the classic and you have the character that people identify very quickly. If it aint broken don't fix it!

Oh well...we'll see what we'll see...

 

[The Question]

Me personally, I don't think her classic look is cheesy, but that's just my humble opinion.

If you're going to armor up the tights/skirt then you may as well armor up her top as well, as it would look to me quite ridiculous that the larger body mass called the torso is not protected.

The gold bit of her costume is armor. It's been drawn as metalic for many years. And really, that plus an armored skirt is the sum of armor that greek and roman soldiers wore. They were rather scantly clad..

Then you may have to consider other changes as well and before you know it, tadah...Gladiatrix!...can't be taken seriously as an emmisary for peace.

And you can take someone in star spangled panties seriously as an emesairy of peace? The whole point of Wonder Woman is that she is a paradox. She is a warrior of peace. That contradiction is one of the main points of her character.

 

[ImperfectIcon]

The gold bit of her costume is armor. It's been drawn as metalic for many years. And really, that plus an armored skirt is the sum of armor that greek and roman soldiers wore. They were rather scantly clad..



And you can take someone in star spangled panties seriously as an emesairy of peace? The whole point of Wonder Woman is that she is a paradox. She is a warrior of peace. That contradiction is one of the main points of her character.

She looks less threatening and even less like a warrior, but it does not mean she can't fight. Diplomats don't wear fatigues, LBE's, ammo and rifle do they? Even high ranking generals don't wear battlegear all the time...they have other uniforms eg. ceremonial dress, normal work/office dress etc etc. The right dress and bearing for the right circumstances.

In the comics she does from time to time armor up but evidently not all the time.

 

[The Question]

She looks less threatening and even less like a warrior, but it does not mean she can't fight.

Never said she couldn't. Just saying, the armored skirt wouldn't be that much of a change, and she'd still look like Wonder Woman. And really, it would work better on screen.

Diplomats don't wear fatigues, LBE's, ammo and rifle do they? Even high ranking generals don't wear battlegear all the time...they have other uniforms eg. ceremonial dress, normal work/office dress etc etc. The right dress and bearing for the right circumstances.

Yeah, and Diana ususally wears red robes when she's at the U.N.

In the comics she does from time to time armor up but evidently not all the time.

But it's still a variation of her regular costume. It wouldn't be that much of a change for that to be her look on the movie.

 

[ImperfectIcon]

Never said she couldn't. Just saying, the armored skirt wouldn't be that much of a change, and she'd still look like Wonder Woman. And really, it would work better on screen.

I'm not convinced.

 

[Red Mask]

Then let's wait for them to produce the costume.

 

[Bishop2]

I'm having bad flashbacks to James Cameron's horrible Spider-Man treatment. Cameron's a talented guy, but that thing was abysmal and was only made worse by the use of some generic villian Cameron made up instead of one of the Rogues gallery.

This is a bad call on Whedon's part.

 

[ImperfectIcon]

I'm having bad flashbacks to James Cameron's horrible Spider-Man treatment. Cameron's a talented guy, but that thing was abysmal and was only made worse by the use of some generic villian Cameron made up instead of one of the Rogues gallery.

This is a bad call on Whedon's part.

We will know if/when WW hits the cinemas in 2007.

 

[thealiasman2000]

Knowing Whedon, the movie will suck, but all of the Internet people will say it's good nonetheless.

 

[Nightwing 52]

Knowing Whedon, the movie will suck, but all of the Internet people will say it's good nonetheless.

Serenity was a decent film, hopefully Whedon can deliver the same treatment for this one. Sure the idea of creating his own villain isn't off to a great start, but we still don't know what he/she will look like nor how it'll bring Diana's attention. Bad or not, I'm giving it a chance before I judge.

 

[Abaddon]

I'm having bad flashbacks to James Cameron's horrible Spider-Man treatment. Cameron's a talented guy, but that thing was abysmal and was only made worse by the use of some generic villian Cameron made up instead of one of the Rogues gallery.

This is a bad call on Whedon's part.

Cameron did use Spidey villains,he just changed their names and origins.