Rumor: WW Movie Is Not Going To Happen

[Steelsheen]

I am not backtracking on anything. So why don't you quote and highlight some of these chauvinistic comments I have made.

sure.

when you said this:

it was hardly a Charlies Angels like hit...

and this:

Yes I am comparing the WW TV show to the Charlies Angels show because they are pretty much the same thing. Bad 70's T&A/action shows.

that in my book is comes across as pretty chauvinistic. didnt you get it why i did this ---> when you used Charlies Angels to compare WW? everybody knows that Charlies Angels-- then and now-- did well because it sold the image of sex. in that one statement it revealed what you think of the WW TV series and an insight to how you consider the character in general: its all just skin deep.

you even added these:

Though the Charlies Angel show was more successful and spawned two movies one of which was actually successful.

If there are so many fans of WW out there why did it take more than 25 years before she made another appearence in a TV series and only as a supporting character in the JLA cartoon. Why isn't the WW TV show syndicated all on any cable network? The last place I remember seeing it was on the Sci-fi channel years ago.

... which reinforces your train of thought at what qualifies as a better franchise: Charlies Angels came out with movies 2 decades later while WW still doesnt have her own movie and is just a supporting player in an animated TV program. why isnt WW being syndicated on TV? you tell me, maybe because she doesnt look sexy enough in those granny panties for todays' standards. which again reveals the thoughts of a lot of people when they hear the name "Wonder Woman": forget her history, lets see more of those T&A

and this:

People may know WW but I have the feeling most people other than comic fans just consider the character rather lame

.... would most likely reveal your own feelings on the character.

listen, you consider Wonder Woman, or any woman in general, a certain way. i can "hear" it in your posts, i notice it in your train of thought. you have the right to be that way so i'm not gonna say anything more on that. just consider the other side of the coin, there are people out there-- men and women-- who look up to WW as a role model. to try to debase her just so that she would become more marketable is insulting to her lore and to the people who love her because of her lore. but in the same regard she shouldnt be cast aside as a lost cause. there is a lot of potential in the WW franchise to make for a successful trilogy, and her appearance is only a miniscule part of it.

 

[Steelsheen]

If you do work at WB....then I think giving up on WW is a mistake! If they get someone with a solid vision like what Zack Snyder did with 300...and make the WW film an epic film....and keep the budget around 80 million....get an actress like Biel to star as WW and get Zeta Jones to star as her mother Queen Hippolyta...then trust me....WW WILL make money at the BO!

hey long time no see DK

i agree with you on everything... except the Jessica Biel bit , and part of me still wants CZJ to play WW but i know the hollywood system wouldnt allow it . btw $80M? its a little low side, unless that doesnt include marketing, then maybe its plausibly realistic. i'm thinking more along the tune of $100-150M like the way they did for BB.

 

[superion]

that in my book is comes across as pretty chauvinistic. didnt you get it why i did this ---> when you used Charlies Angels to compare WW? everybody knows that Charlies Angels-- then and now-- did well because it sold the image of sex. in that one statement it revealed what you think of the WW TV series and an insight to how you consider the character in general: its all just skin deep.

It's chauvinistic because I considered the WW TV show a bad T&A show. Well don't kid yourself it did use sex to sell itself though not as blantantly as Charlies Angels. What else did that show have going for it the lousy acting, the cheesy lame dialogue or the crummy action and special effects. I read online that a TV reviewer once said of that show that it only had two things going for it and you can guess what he was referring to.

... which reinforces your train of thought at what qualifies as a better franchise: Charlies Angels came out with movies 2 decades later while WW still doesnt have her own movie and is just a supporting player in an animated TV program. why isnt WW being syndicated on TV? you tell me, maybe because she doesnt look sexy enough in those granny panties for todays' standards. which again reveals the thoughts of a lot of people when they hear the name "Wonder Woman": forget her history, lets see more of those T&A

There you go making stupid assumptions again. I never said CA was a better franchise. I quite clearly stated in one of my pevious posts I disliked both shows. I was making a comparision between the two to show the difference between a show that actually did do very well as opposed to your claims that the WW show was "highly successful" and had legions of fans.

.... would most likely reveal your own feelings on the character.

listen, you consider Wonder Woman, or any woman in general, a certain way. i can "hear" it in your posts, i notice it in your train of thought. you have the right to be that way so i'm not gonna say anything more on that. just consider the other side of the coin, there are people out there-- men and women-- who look up to WW as a role model. to try to debase her just so that she would become more marketable is insulting to her lore and to the people who love her because of her lore. but in the same regard she shouldnt be cast aside as a lost cause. there is a lot of potential in the WW franchise to make for a successful trilogy, and her appearance is only a miniscule part of it.

I consider all women a certain way. Wow you are some great mind reader. Once again where did I say that they should debase WW or turn her into some sex object to sell her better? In fact where did I mention looks at all in any of my posts.

 

[Dark Knight]

hey long time no see DK

i agree with you on everything... except the Jessica Biel bit , and part of me still wants CZJ to play WW but i know the hollywood system wouldnt allow it . btw $80M? its a little low side, unless that doesnt include marketing, then maybe its plausibly realistic. i'm thinking more along the tune of $100-150M like the way they did for BB.

Sup Steel. Been busy moving back up north to Bay Area and getting settled with my new job. Wanted to go to Wonder Con up here but I'll just wait until San Diegos Comic Con. Gives me a chance to get away from the lady and hang with the old pals in S.D.! LOL......Yeah I agree...120 million would probably be more realistic for WW....but i heard 300 was made for 80 million? Thats amazing! I'm telling ya..if they go with a younger mid 20's version of WW so we can see her grow into role in sequels.....then Biel has all the tools.