Wheldon on Wonder Woman 11/22/06

Binker

Superhero
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
7,118
Reaction score
185
Points
73
I don't know if this was posted before but this is what Wheldon had to say on what's happenign currently with Wonder Woman:

Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,1562057_3_0_,00.html

The Wonder Woman update: ''Everything that was hard at the beginning is still hard. I don't feel like I've nailed it yet, and I think the studio agrees. So I'm still plugging away. It's probably not as hard as I think it is, because I'm still a little fired from my TV decade. I should have taken a year off. It's now too late to realize that. But it's a big job. And besides her great origin story, there's nothing from the comics that felt right 100 percent, no iconic canon story that must be told. Batman has it made — he's got the greatest rogues gallery ever, he's got Gotham City. The Bat writes himself. With Wonder Woman, you're writing from whole cloth, but trying to make to feel like you didn't. To make to feel like it's existed for 60 years, even though you're making it up as you go along. But who she, and what the movie, is about, thematically, has never been a problem for me. But the steps along the way, it could be so easy for them to feel wrong. I won't settle. She wouldn't let me settle.''

Now this goes back to why I keep asking "what is so wrong with writing a Wonder Woman movie?".

Wheldon, here's a bit of advice: Perez & Rucka. Look at what they did in their runs on the character to help you on writing the script. Or better yet, get in touch with me.
 
Joss Whedon was on Fanboy Radio tonight, and when asked about the status of Wonder Woman, here's what he said:

Joss Whedon: I'm writing it...I'm still writing it. I know that sounds ridiculous, I know that by this point it must sound like "Rememberances of Wonder Woman Past" or be 1000 pages long, but it's not, I'm just slogging away. So there's really nothing to say, except that I'm the sort of person who likes to do things meticulously.

Fanboy Radio: What's your overall take on the character of Diana Prince? Is she an Intimidating feminist? A caring naturalist? A straight up Super Hero?

Joss Whedon: Yes.

She is intimidating because she's an amazon and a princess, and someone who believes very strongly in what she is, I don't believe she's an intimidating feminist in the way that term is usually used, um...it's not because she's a feminist that she's intimidating, it's cause she's frickin' Wonder Woman. And she can kill you with her pinky ( but she doesn't, cause she's good ) but the thing that is interesting about her is that she's so righteous and so above human nature that she doesn't see these things in herself, and it's not until she does that she's that effective a Super Hero.

Fanboy Radio: Will this be set in WWII?

Joss Whedon:No, It's a modern story...well, as much as her story ever will be.

You gotta have the bracelets, you gotta have the Lasso, and if I have my way, you gotta have the Invisible Jet. The fact is, she is who she is, and I think there is something very cool about all of those things, particularly the bracelets and the lasso. They are very much a part of who she is, especially in my screenplay. I love them very much. So worry not on that front.

He also confirmed Steve Trevor as being part of the story.


Me personally, I'm still all kinds of excited about this. Wonder Woman is my favorite comic book character, and Whedon is my favorite creator. I'd much rather he take his time than churn it out now just to fulfill a contractual obligiation.
 
Thanks Lestat74! :up:

I'm very excited about this Wonder Woman film. I'm a longtime fan of the Amazon princess and a new fan of Joss Whedon and I just hope the two of them will mesh well together. :ww:
 
Great find...

On one hand, it's hard to see how writing Wonder Woman can be hard, but on the other hand, it's very easy to see why making Wonder Woman 'relatable,' something she has, arguably, never been could be difficult.

The concept for his take on her superheroicness is interesting... I'd actually like to see that... as for him reading comics, he said explicitly that there's nothing from the comics that feels "100% right." Not to say that there's no good Wonder Woman comics, but there's no unequivocal Wonder Woman story, and, well... there's not. Different takes, different angles and nothing 100% perfect for a movie. And then you've got this perfectionist with a lot of pressure on him. Yeah, I say Whedon's going to be a while longer.
 
Lestat74 said:
You gotta have the bracelets, you gotta have the Lasso, and if I have my way, you gotta have the Invisible Jet.
Wonder Woman does not need the God Damned Invisible Jet! They threw that piece of crap out in the late 1980s! The modern Wonder Woman FLIES!!!!
 
Dr. Fate said:
Wonder Woman does not need the God Damned Invisible Jet! They threw that piece of crap out in the late 1980s! The modern Wonder Woman FLIES!!!!


She doesn't need the gimmick of an invisible jet.
He wants help?
Read "Kingdom Come". Keep reading it until he gets it.
She's the mythological feminine version of Superman.
She's an immortal demi-goddess created by her 'mother' to be the emissary of the Amazons to the world of men. Her sense of right and wrong is hard-wired into her. Of course she helps the weak and fights evildoers and I'm sure she hasn't anything nice to say to politicians either.
She can fly (can't all mythologic creations do that?) and trying to hide a damned invisible jet is stupid. Psst, it's not really there, and if she's in it she shouldn't be seen either.
If it's set in the modern era, there should be references to her fighting against the evil of the Nazi's, after which she went home to live until she felt the need to come back and straighten out the world again. (Thanks Rumsfeld) and she could then decide if she wants to be more human, etc.
How hard can this be?
Whedon is trying too hard.
If he has a good story, it should write itself, as he says.
 
The problem is her rogue's gallery. It sucks. Using one of the Greek Gods (like Ares) seems really corny.

I would say Cheetah, but I think it would sent more of a message if the villian was Male.

In a way, this movie should be like The Terminator with Sarah Conner against incredible odds.

As powerful as WW is, she cannot be made more powerful than the antagonist of the movie either by way of physical ability or mental ability.

So I think the way to go, is going against someone who is her intellectual equal or superior who knows her strengths and weaknesses and tries to exploit them. In this sense, Superman The Movie can be a model as well.
 
raybia said:
The problem is her rogue's gallery. It sucks. Using one of the Greek Gods (like Ares) seems really corny.

I would say Cheetah, but I think it would sent more of a message if the villian was Male.

In a way, this movie should be like The Terminator with Sarah Conner against incredible odds.

As powerful as WW is, she cannot be made more powerful than the antagonist of the movie either by way of physical ability or mental ability.

So I think the way to go, is going against someone who is her intellectual equal or superior who knows her strengths and weaknesses and tries to exploit them. In this sense, Superman The Movie can be a model as well.

You mean like Dr. Psycho? He his mental powers would give him that kind advantage over WW. Plus his sexist attitude (he's practically a rapist) would make for a contrast with WW's feminist beliefs. There no bad character, only bad writers (except stilt-Man) and I think at least one servicable villain can be found amongst WW's rogues gallery.
 
The Overlord said:
You mean like Dr. Psycho? He his mental powers would give him that kind advantage over WW. Plus his sexist attitude (he's practically a rapist) would make for a contrast with WW's feminist beliefs. There no bad character, only bad writers (except stilt-Man) and I think at least one servicable villain can be found amongst WW's rogues gallery.


Maybe Dr. Psycho is the one. I'm not very familar with him. How should he be presented in a live action WW Movie?

Do you give him a costume? I wouldn't think so, but with his powers, there could be a sequence ala Matrix, where WW is in a world of his making.

Maybe there she goes up against some of the threats of Greek Mythology. Threats that even Diana only knows of through myth.
 
raybia said:
Maybe Dr. Psycho is the one. I'm not very familar with him. How should he be presented in a live action WW Movie?

Do you give him a costume? I wouldn't think so, but with his powers, there could be a sequence ala Matrix, where WW is in a world of his making.

Maybe there she goes up against some of the threats of Greek Mythology. Threats that even Diana only knows of through myth.

Dr. Psycho dosen't have a costume in the comics, he's just a well dressed midget. Here is the best pic I could find of him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww55.png

I don't think he has to be a midget in the movie, if he was just kinda short that's fine too.

So he could fir the bill of the kinda foe you were talking about earlier, plus in theory he could be really creepy, he often uses his mental powers to violate women without actually touching them in the comics, so in theory he could be creepy foe who is the polar opposite of WW. He could be creepy or campy depending on how they protray him.

What mythical character did you have in mind?
 
The Overlord said:
Dr. Psycho dosen't have a costume in the comics, he's just a well dressed midget. Here is the best pic I could find of him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ww55.png

I don't think he has to be a midget in the movie, if he was just kinda short that's fine too.

So he could fir the bill of the kinda foe you were talking about earlier, plus in theory he could be really creepy, he often uses his mental powers to violate women without actually touching them in the comics, so in theory he could be creepy foe who is the polar opposite of WW. He could be creepy or campy depending on how they protray him.

What mythical character did you have in mind?

I'm visualizing many of the creatures from the old stop motion Greek tales of the 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythological_creatures

Centaurs, Cerberus, The Gordons, Harpies, etc.

The scarier, more formiable, the better.
 
InkSlinger said:
She doesn't need the gimmick of an invisible jet.
He wants help?
Read "Kingdom Come". Keep reading it until he gets it.
She's the mythological feminine version of Superman.
She's an immortal demi-goddess created by her 'mother' to be the emissary of the Amazons to the world of men. Her sense of right and wrong is hard-wired into her. Of course she helps the weak and fights evildoers and I'm sure she hasn't anything nice to say to politicians either.
She can fly (can't all mythologic creations do that?) and trying to hide a damned invisible jet is stupid. Psst, it's not really there, and if she's in it she shouldn't be seen either.
If it's set in the modern era, there should be references to her fighting against the evil of the Nazi's, after which she went home to live until she felt the need to come back and straighten out the world again. (Thanks Rumsfeld) and she could then decide if she wants to be more human, etc.
How hard can this be?
Whedon is trying too hard.
If he has a good story, it should write itself, as he says.

Well, he never said 'good' he said "feel 100% right." He also indicated that he's already read Kingdom Come. Everyone knows the basics of Wonder Woman, including Whedon. The issue is making a movie that covers the basics, conflicts with nothing and is comeplling to everyone, not just 'good' but 'compelling' aka "100% right." That kind of thing doesn't write itself. Every good story needs a good internal conflict, and that's a hard thing to find in Wonder Woman, and hard thing to make feel "100% right" instead of tacked on to make the character 'more interesting.'

Whedon could come out with an okay movie that fans would love tommorrow, but that's obviously not what he's trying to do, and he's made that pretty clear every time he's spoken about it. Whedon understands the basics of Wonder Woman, but I wonder if everyone here understands the basics of making movies...

(WARNING: LONG ANALYSIS OF WONDER WOMAN AS IT RELATES TO MODERN FILMMAKING)

Regardless, Wonder Woman's rogue's gallery presents yet another compelling problem in that not only are none of them even remotely iconic, but none of them are tied to her directly... in this case, most painfully, none of them are tied to her origin. All of her villains are created in completely seperate events with which she has little or nothing to do.

Dr. Psycho is a threat to Wonder Woman, yes, we get it, but who cares? Who is this guy and what does he have to do with her mission to man's world... he's not inextricably tied to the story and we have little reason to care about him, and thus, little reason to care about how long it takes for Wondy to actually get to him and KO him in one punch.

Cheetah, at a stretch, is also a threat, but what does she have to do with anything? Outside of the development of a Barbara Minerva subplot which AGAIN has nothing to do with Wonder Woman's mission or reason for leaving the island, why should we care about her fights? Her rage? And what does that have to do with why Diana leaves Themiscira?

And then, of course, Ares. Let's forgo the hypocricy and futility of *fighting* the God of War... let's just skip to the fact that making a statement against war at this point in history overshadows anything you would be trying to say or tell about Wondy, you're stuck with a political story which is NOT what Wonder Woman should be.

There may be another worthwhile Wondy villain I've missed... but I can't think of them. The classic themes of Wondy have all been covered here: Forced to fight friends, battling against being subjected by men and of course, fighting for world peace. Each typical played out plot point a lesson in redundant cliche, and if use any one of these as the benchmark to the world of what Wonder Woman is (say, in a big summer movie) we reduce Wonder Woman to an unempathizable spokeswoman in the style of Aeon Flux, Elektra, Ultraviolet and Patience "CINO" Pierce. We effectively de-power Wonder Woman's franchise by sticking with story points that have already been told better and do not represent ALL that Wonder Woman is and is supposed to be. That's why the current storyline in Wondy's relaunch is "Who IS Wonder Woman???" It's also why you're not buying her book now. Are you? I thought so.

So what are our options? Well, the first thing is we have to realize that taking what is percieved to be a 70s pop icon and turning her into a modern marvel requires precision, it has to be "100% right." That means, that you need a story that establishes who Diana fundamentally is, not just as details off a bio, but as a direct results of her experiences. Think of all the things you know about Wondy. Now make them into a series of personal experiences. Not easy, eh?

The movie needs to show those 'whys' so clearly that the audience says "Wow, if I was in that position I would have done the same thing." The audience will root for the hero(ine) from an emotional connection, not from a desire to see the smartest, most beautiful, most powerful or most shoved-down-their-throat character come out on top. The twist is that the time where everyone wants perfect Mary-Sue heroes is gone... it was called the silver age... People are generally looking for someone they can look up to that still has faults as they do. No faults --> No emptahy ---> might as well be a cardboard cut out or a robot doing it... there's no audience conenction.

And that leads us to Whedon, who I think we all get it: he writes some kickbutt female characters, agonizing over the perfect Wonder Woman script... cuz it's gotta be "100% right." For the fans. For the suits... for the gals who don't know anything more than the 70s theme song... it's got to be perfect.

That means we need a new story that encompassess all the crucial aspects of Diana's origin. We need a new villain that does everything, emotional and story-wise that Dr. Psycho, Cheetah AND Ares can do, and we need a Diana that's as down to Earth as your next door neighbor, while still being a credible demi-god. That's a hard script to write, but Whedon keeps saying he's getting there... I think I'll wait it out and see what happens.
 
The modern Wonder Woman still uses her invisible jet.
 
GL1 said:
Well, he never said 'good' he said "feel 100% right." He also indicated that he's already read Kingdom Come. Everyone knows the basics of Wonder Woman, including Whedo. The issue is making a movie that covers the basics, conflicts with nothing and is comeplling to everyone, not just 'good' but 'compelling' aka "100% right." That kind of thing doesn't write itself. Every good story needs a good internal conflict, and that's a hard thing to find in Wonder Woman, and hard thing to make feel "100% right" instead of tacked on to make the character 'more interesting.'

Whedon could come out with an okay movie that fans would love tommorrow, but that's obviously not what he's trying to do, and he's made that pretty clear every time he's spoken about it. Whedon understands the basics of Wonder Woman, but I wonder if everyone here understands the basics of making movies...

(WARNING: LONG ANALYSIS OF WONDER WOMAN AS IT RELATES TO MODERN FILMMAKING)

Regardless, Wonder Woman's rogue's gallery presents yet another compelling problem in that not only are none of them even remotely iconic, but none of them are tied to her directly... in this case, most painfully, none of them are tied to her origin. All of her villains are created in completely seperate events with which she has little or nothing to do.

Dr. Psycho is a threat to Wonder Woman, yes, we get it, but who cares? Who is this guy and what does he have to do with her mission to man's world... he's not inextricably tied to the story and we have little reason to care about him, and thus, little reason to care about how long it takes for Wondy to actually get to him and KO him in one punch.

Cheetah, at a stretch, is also a threat, but what does she have to do with anything? Outside of the development of a Barbara Minerva subplot which AGAIN has nothing to do with Wonder Woman's mission or reason for leaving the island, why should we care about her?

And then of course, Ares. Let's forgo the hypocricy and futility of *fighting* the God of War... let's just skip to the fact that making a statement against war at this point in history overshadows anything you would be trying to say or tell about Wondy, you're stuck with a political story which is NOT what Wonder Woman should be.

There may be another worthwhile Wondy villain I've missed... but I can't think of them. The classic themes of Wondy have all been covered here: Forced to fight friends, battling against being subjected by men and of course, fighting for world peace. Each typical played out plot point a lesson in redundant cliche, and if used as the benchmark to the world of what Wonder Woman is (say, in a big summer movie) we reduce Wonder Woman to an unempathizable spokeswoman in the style of Aeon Flux, Elektra, Ultraviolet and Patience "CINO" Pierce. We effectively de-power Wonder Woman's franchise by sticking with story points that have already been told better and do not represent ALL that Wonder Woman is and is supposed to be. That's why the current storyline in Wondy's relaunch is "Who IS Wonder Woman." That's also why you're not buying her book now. Are you? I thought so.

So what are our options. Well, the first thing is we have to realize that taking what is percieved to be a 70s pop icon and turning her into a modern marvel requires precision, it has to be "100% right." That means, that you need a story that establishes who Diana fundamentally is, not just as details off a bio, but as a direct results of her experiences. Think of all the things you know about Wondy.

The movie needs to show those 'whys' so clearly that the audience says "wow, if I was in that position I would have done the same thing." The other twist is, the time where everyone wants perfect Mary-Sue heroes is gone... it was called the silver age... Everyone's looking for someone they can look up to that still has faults like them. No faults --> No emptahy ---> might as well be a cardboard cut out or a robot doing it... there's no audience conenction.

And that leads us to Whedon, who I think we all get it: he writes some kickbutt female characters, agonizing over the perfect Wonder Woman script... cuz it's gotta be "100% right." For the fans. For the suits... for the gals who don't know anything more than the 70s theme song... it's got to be perfect.

That means we need a new story that encompassess all the crucial aspects of Diana's origin. We need a new villain that does everything, emotional and story-wise that Dr. Psycho, Cheetah AND Ares can do, and we need a Diana that's as down to Earth as your next door neighbor, while still being a credible demi-god. That's a hard script to write, but Whedon keeps saying he's getting there... I think I'll wait it out and see what happens.

Wow, I cannot believe I actually read all of that.

Anyway, a terrific anaylsis. I agree with your comments, and the main problem is lack of a compelling antagonist. Maybe Wheldon should get some advice from Cameron, since he is great with strong female characters.

I really think that Wheldon is either going to have to create a brand new villian (which I don't think I like that idea) or he is going to have to do a major modification of an current WW villian. I really like the idea of Dr. Psycho, or at least his powers, but I agree that he would have to rewritten in a way that gives him a connection to Diana. If I was Wheldon, I think I would get together with a comic book writer who is familar with WW (Perez?) to help him.

Clearly, Wheldon is perplexed. I know I am when it comes to WW, but thank God he cares enough about her to do it right or not at all.
 
Ah, another thing I forgot to mention... The invisible jet isn't what you saw ont he 70's show or on the Superfriends Cartoon. Even wikipedia knows this.

Perfect world: The villain has the would-be-IJ and uses it as a weapon/transport/base and Wonder Woman ends up claiming it for the climax of the movie (Say, how she GETS to the villain, by hijacking his own stuff).
 
GL1 said:
Ah, another thing I forgot to mention... The invisible jet isn't what you saw ont he 70's show or on the Superfriends Cartoon. Even wikipedia knows this.

Perfect world: The villain has the would-be-IJ and uses it as a weapon/transport/base and Wonder Woman ends up claiming it for the climax of the movie (Say, how she GETS to the villain, by hijacking his own stuff).


That would be the best way...If he insists on having it. I for one, would rather not have it and give her the ability to fly.
 
Oh that's right, he DID say that Wondy wouldn't be able to fly... that's one thing that I actually disagree with outright. I see his point in trying to make her something other than Superman-lite... I also see that unless Space is involved, it really doesn't matter that Wondy can't fly... but I also see that Wonder Woman is a character that can fly effortlessly in the comics, just like the gods. Demi-godding down doesn't appeal to me... of course, I hate magic, and the Harry Potter movies were alright.
 
GL1 said:
Oh that's right, he DID say that Wondy wouldn't be able to fly... that's one thing that I actually disagree with outright. I see his point in trying to make her something other than Superman-lite... I also see that unless Space is involved, it really doesn't matter that Wondy can't fly... but I also see that Wonder Woman is a character that can fly effortlessly in the comics, just like the gods. Demi-godding down doesn't appeal to me... of course, I hate magic, and the Harry Potter movies were alright.


Yeah, thats going to be disappointing. Unfortunately, I don't feel good about this movie but I hope I'm wrong. I think Wheldon is of a handful of people who could make a successful WW but I still disagree with his decision to keep WW grounded.
 
GL1 said:
Oh that's right, he DID say that Wondy wouldn't be able to fly... that's one thing that I actually disagree with outright. I see his point in trying to make her something other than Superman-lite... I also see that unless Space is involved, it really doesn't matter that Wondy can't fly... but I also see that Wonder Woman is a character that can fly effortlessly in the comics, just like the gods. Demi-godding down doesn't appeal to me... of course, I hate magic, and the Harry Potter movies were alright.
I said it before and I'll say it again - Wonder Woman doesn't need the God damned Invisible Jet. It's an outdated piece of crap, a relic of the Silver Age. The fact that people associate it with her does not mean it should be in the movie, not when it was dropped from her comics almost 20 years ago. It holds back her evolution as a character and, simply put, the Invisible Jet is just plain stupid. Nobody takes that invisible piece of junk seriously, and we want people to take Wonder Woman seriously if her film is to succeed.
 
Interesting posts. Though any good filmmaker could make Circe into an iconic and viable super-villain.
 
Joss Whedon sucks and should stop being a *****, clear and simple. The guy is a professional writer, you take a piece of work, and you write it in alotted time, and you go on websites and ***** about it. Secondly it sounds like the movie is going suck because they don't have the balls to make a good WW movie, wtf is a wonder woman movie if it isn't about gods and goddesses, that's the whole frickin point, Ares would be an ill villian. Either way I don't look forward to snappy dialouge and "modern" villians... **** that... and another thing **** the invisible jet...

-Going 4 years strong, always keeping it real :cmad:
 
Why give Wonder Woman the invisible jet when she can fly? It's stupid. It's like giving Batman a car when he can already swing from rooftop to rooftop, or glide.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,164
Messages
21,908,478
Members
45,703
Latest member
BMD
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"