Wonder Woman script review

[The Question]

Not really.

Yes, really. The Watchmen, which is almost universally thought to be one of the greatest comics of all time, isn't particularly fun. It's actually rather depressing.

Hippolyta, really? Huh. That's where unresearched opinions get ya. My bad.

No problem. It's a fairly easy mistake to make. You just have to remember that in DC, all gods are non corporeal manifestations of humanity's collective unconscious, and can simply simulate a physical form when necessairy.

But, such a conflict has been the center of her recent development, as you say: is she a warrior who kills or a peacekeeper who doesn't? What's her role, what's her responsibility? And I didn't mention America. My point was more of a new world/old world divide. I think we kind of agreed without realizing it on that one.

I don't think so. I really don't see it as an old world/new world divide. The Amazons want her to be a peacekeeper. She set out to teach humanity peace and understanding, and make the world better through teachings and good works. What she's conflicted about is that often she's forced into situations where she needs to fight and sometimes even kill for the sake of more imediate results in more drastic circumstances.

I was thinking more of the possibilities of attachment with Superman and Batman that have been eluded to by various writers. Again, just what I read into her.

I see what you mean. Personally, I've never been fond of either pairing.

Okay.

Okay.

I disagree. Not saying I don't like some of his stuff, but I hear the same snarkiness and self-depreciating humor in a lot of his characters. I'm not actually critcizing, just tried to poke a bit of fun.

I see. Yeah, pretty much all of his stuff has, overall, a smilar sense of humor. But teh characters are still pretty unique and well developed individuals.

Like I said, I'll take your word on that. You know Wonder Woman, I know Batman.

Okay.

I couldn't care less about Nazis, per se. I just enjoy revisionist history in general.

It is nice. I just don't think it's necessairy for Wonder Woman.

That's just petty, and unrelated to our discussion. In other words, beneath you.

Here we go. Ready? Wait for it....

-- END!

I don't see how it's petty. I'd just like you to stop. I asked politely.

WW2 has loads of potential, for instance diana can pick up a tank and throw it into another tank. really show the public she rivals superman for raw strength.

She can do that in a story set in the modern day aswell. And if you just want that for a test of strength, modern day tanks are heavier.

 

[Garzo]

also a lot of the times when I see changes they are unnessary and incite fan rage for no reason, tell me HONESTLY in what shape or form does adding an 's' to superman's belt buckle ENCHANCE the character?

I think Singer viewed Superman's costume as somekind of Kryptonian uniform meant to be majestic -- the outfit of a prince, as opposed to a crime-busting circus outfit sewn together by Ma Kent.

Kings wore there emblems on their chest, on there rings and on their belt buckles, but never on their capes or cloaks. Soldiers offen wear their nation's emblem on their belt buckle, not on their back. U.S. soldiers have a U.S. on their buckle, Soviets used to have a Soviet star on theirs and Germans in WWII had the dreaded swastika on their belt buckle. When I was a kid, I had a Superman belt buckle from Wrangler with the Superman crest on it. I thought it was the coolest thing. I find it makes perfect sense to swap the crest from the back of the cape and put it on the buckle. A plain red (or bordeau) cape looks much more regal than one with a gaudy yellow crest on it -- having it plain makes it look like he's wearing a cape or cloak rather than a flag.

 

[Steelsheen]

tossing my two bits about the review:

that was a pretty good read, not "fantastic beyond belief" as it was hyped up to be but good enough, anything better i guess and it would have to be the actual script itself (*hint hint*). one thing that got me excited was the dscription of our first glimpse of Princess Diana-- incognito at that, then later when she reveals her face to the spectators, i can totally see this in my mind's eye

the next thing that got me really excited are the hover chariots. hover chariots! that has definitely quieted down one of my concerns about showing Amazons in a WW movie. my one fear about depicting the Amazon people was that their technology was still stuck from 3,000 years ago, i am so glad that the writers were logical enough to make a people as advanced and as learned as the Amazons are have a technology that progresses as time moves forward.

and lets not forget the mother of all debate threads: her WW outfit "a combination of her Amazon battle gear and the American flag" = i'm guessing this means the panties are in (as far as the script is concerned )


now here we go.... some of my problems about the script:

Diana stealing the golden lasso, the golden belt (i'm guessing they meant the girdle), the invisible jet... i mean c'mon stealing? that just rubs me the wrong way. i know its to ante up the drama but it feels so unnecessary, i dont know why Diana would force her way out of Themycira like that. if they're gonna use the "love" angle for Steve Trevor this early i'm gonna cringe.

i dont know about the whole Galina angle. heck if the main purpose was to retrieve the Pandora's Box thats good enough reason alone to set a tournament and find a champion. it would also give Diana a more noble purpose for heading into Man's World. right now it sounds like she's an impetuous child wanting to run away because her parents didnt give her what she wanted.

not sure how to take the whole Pandora's Box and the Key that Hippolyta keeps. i hope it would be as significant as it makes it sound, or at least as cool as those hover chariots

 

[CConn]

[edited]

 

[Kebab gud]

and lets not forget the mother of all debate threads: her WW outfit "a combination of her Amazon battle gear and the American flag" = i'm guessing this means the panties are in (as far as the script is concerned )

or the skirt, or the loincloth...
infact its only the battleskirt's that issent blue with stars

 

[spider-neil]

I think Singer viewed Superman's costume as somekind of Kryptonian uniform meant to be majestic -- the outfit of a prince, as opposed to a crime-busting circus outfit sewn together by Ma Kent.

Kings wore there emblems on their chest, on there rings and on their belt buckles, but never on their capes or cloaks. Soldiers offen wear their nation's emblem on their belt buckle, not on their back. U.S. soldiers have a U.S. on their buckle, Soviets used to have a Soviet star on theirs and Germans in WWII had the dreaded swastika on their belt buckle. When I was a kid, I had a Superman belt buckle from Wrangler with the Superman crest on it. I thought it was the coolest thing. I find it makes perfect sense to swap the crest from the back of the cape and put it on the buckle. A plain red (or bordeau) cape looks much more regal than one with a gaudy yellow crest on it -- having it plain makes it look like he's wearing a cape or cloak rather than a flag.

I understand what you are saying and if that was singers aim then imho he dropped the ball. it's in a directors interest to get the fans on your side as fast as humanly possibly. I wont be a hyprocrite I was NOT best pleased when I heard spidey was going to have organic webshooters but I loved his costume, sure it had changes (different spider on the back er, that's about it really) but they didn't detract from the character.

when I saw the movie I compeletely got why sam went in that direction.
but the changes to superman's cosutme were uncalled for and did nothing but annoy the fans which in turn made bad word of mouth which in turn hurt it's overall box office. you can also point to the lackluster script and hammy villian. getting sidetracked here the long and short of what I'm trying to say is if you are going to deviate from the source material and chances are you are going to have to, bar sin city every comic book to movie characters has had changed then make them nessasary and not just cosmetic changes (for no apparant reason) or sub standand plot decives *cough* supes kid *cough*

there is no reason whatsoever I can see where you can't have a compelling storyline - honestly how intersting was it see lex attempt to destroy the world for personal gain, again. lex made to look like a petty two bit crook.

kick arse action - the plane sequence was good but that's about it.

faithfulness to the source material - no lex corp/DAFT changes to the superman outfit which in no way shape or form enhances his look.

back to wonder woman I think the WW2 setting works beautifully and also because she is immortal (I think) they can move here to a modern setting in any sequels

for me the WW2/pandora's box plot line ticks all the boxes, it just needs a strong cast and faithful look. maybe alex ross' look for WW in kingdom come.

 

[spider-neil]

tossing my two bits about the review:

that was a pretty good read, not "fantastic beyond belief" as it was hyped up to be but good enough, anything better i guess and it would have to be the actual script itself (*hint hint*). one thing that got me excited was the dscription of our first glimpse of Princess Diana-- incognito at that, then later when she reveals her face to the spectators, i can totally see this in my mind's eye

the next thing that got me really excited are the hover chariots. hover chariots! that has definitely quieted down one of my concerns about showing Amazons in a WW movie. my one fear about depicting the Amazon people was that their technology was still stuck from 3,000 years ago, i am so glad that the writers were logical enough to make a people as advanced and as learned as the Amazons are have a technology that progresses as time moves forward.

and lets not forget the mother of all debate threads: her WW outfit "a combination of her Amazon battle gear and the American flag" = i'm guessing this means the panties are in (as far as the script is concerned )


now here we go.... some of my problems about the script:

Diana stealing the golden lasso, the golden belt (i'm guessing they meant the girdle), the invisible jet... i mean c'mon stealing? that just rubs me the wrong way. i know its to ante up the drama but it feels so unnecessary, i dont know why Diana would force her way out of Themycira like that. if they're gonna use the "love" angle for Steve Trevor this early i'm gonna cringe.

i dont know about the whole Galina angle. heck if the main purpose was to retrieve the Pandora's Box thats good enough reason alone to set a tournament and find a champion. it would also give Diana a more noble purpose for heading into Man's World. right now it sounds like she's an impetuous child wanting to run away because her parents didnt give her what she wanted.

not sure how to take the whole Pandora's Box and the Key that Hippolyta keeps. i hope it would be as significant as it makes it sound, or at least as cool as those hover chariots

to be fair she steals that stuff in justice league - secret origns and it works quite well.

 

[green]

This script sounds really unoriginal

 

[StorminNorman]

reading that review makes me angry because that SHOULD have been superman...EPIC

imagine huge vistas with the us army as they face off against a darkseid invasion with supes going one on one with darkseid himself, instead we get a dull tepid story with singer humanising superman (works for spidey and bats but not supes) when he should be putting him on a plinth.

superman was a wasted oppertunity it could EASILY have been so much more.

But Superman is the most human character DC has.

 

[Crooklyn]

HIGHLY debatable.

 

[Experiment626]

Again, a WWII setting would be exceedingly stupid. Wonder Woman has not fought in World War 2 since World War 2. Even if that's the way most people see her, the DC Comics characters has moved on since then. The modern Wonder Woman has completely outgrown that, and is a fully realized character without that motif, and is completely different in the same way that Batman is completely different from his campy 70s shtick.

Why would you even want to backtrack to that? It's like you can't find a way to make her work in the 21st Century, so you have to settle for regressing her. That's like saying, "Let's make a Superman movie where everyone wears fedoras and drive buggies," nevermind that Superman works completely fine in the 21st Century anyway. Same with Wonder Woman. The characters have moved on.

the problem is Wonder Woman doesn't work as a stand alone character in the 21st Century. The current Wonder Woman in the comics is only really memorable when she's in an ensemble situation, be it with big events or the Justice League. The present-day situations would just highly limit the possibilities of her character and what she stands for.

Taking her back to the 40's makes her stand out again, makes her unique once more, now putting her in the middle of WWII would make her the icon that she has always been.

 

[hippie_hunter]

superhero movie tie in aint gonna happen. as for supes we can only hope he has a new challenge if he faces off against zod then I'm not even goig to bother this time.

A superhero tie-in movie will happen.

1. Marvel Studios is making the Avengers and has the rights to Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Ant-Man, Thor, Black Panther, Dr. Strange, and Hawkeye all of which are getting movies. The rights to Black Widow are bound to return to Marvel soon.

2. Warner Bros owns the rights to all DC characters. They are just simply waiting for the right time to get a crossover done right.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

First off, Singer said he moved the emblem because of CGi issues with the cape. So at least he put the second S somewhere else.

Second, If this is just a setup for her coming to modern day American then it's ok. Only one movie should be set in WW2. It ties her and Steve Trevor together. Both of them will need each other to survive in the modern day America. I guess Pandora's Box will unleash some Deus Ex Machina thing that sends them to the future.

 

[The Sage]

Sounds good. I'm disappointed that there is no mention of Diana being formed out of clay but that could be added in. And again, no Ares? Her stealing her weapons doesn't sit well with me. Does sound action packed though.

Of course.

I think we are see a reductionist reaction to movies like Superman Returns. I don't want to blame it...but, Superman Returns I think scared WB. However, I wouldln't say SR is TOO BLAME for this, because Marvel has already started doing this.

They're reducing their films to action-fests that'll do very little character. They're looking at mass production now of these movies to turn quick profits and not making artful films first and foremost.

The Fantastic Four franchise is a perfect example of this, followed then by the X3 debacle. These movies are pointing to the direction that comic book films are headed. Ghost Rider, with its awfully pop-ish look, seems to be embracing the same reductionist, mass audience slave mentality as well instead of providing a compelling, dark cult-ish thriller that'd been truer to the comics. Fantastic Four 2 the jury is still out on...

Batman Begins and Spider-Man seem to be the sole franchises untouched by this...trend of reducing films. I think Superman Returns was the furthest a director could push an alternative version of a hero -- Singer's version of Superman is a quitely radically different than previous versions, while remaining faithful to them at the same time.

Now, I think to a degree fans are to blame for this. Either they don't like the emotional complexity of a film like Superman Returns of Spider-Man 2 (which I've seen many fans bash on the basis of lack of action), or they just don't want to think when they watch these movies. I find it ridiculous humorous that peoople think that Ghost Rider is going to be anymore than just pop-trash like Daredevil. But, ti's flashy and actiony looking and it has cute little lines that play upon the "HOW-MANY-TIMES-HAVE-I-SEEN-NICK-CAGE-ACT-LIKE-THIS" characterization...Nick Cage is playing Nick Cage in that movie.

I dislike when people say "finally, a comic book movie that's not afraid to be a comic book." But people forget: it's not a comic book. A film is not a comic book. A film is not a comic book. Again, just in case someone didn't get it, a film is not a comic book. A film should not work or operate like a comic book otherwise...you have a comic book, which a film is not. Are we getting this? When an audience sits down in a theater they want to watch a film, not a comic book.

Of course, fanatics will not see this and that's disheartening. And in the end, it's going to turn out more F4, X3, GR trash rather then providing well-crafted, acted, and inspired films like BB, SM, and yes, Superman Returns (since most detractor's comments are related to teh vision, not the execution of SR). As studios become "safer" with these franchsies, the franchises will become more stereotypical (Jeez, a superhero fighting the Nazis -- how many times have I seen that one, Indiana Jones?).

There is also something to be said about the saturation of comic book films. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, etc....they're saturating the market and this too will eventually kill these movies UNLESS they are able to define for themselves a genre niche in the market which, if they continue to follow the typical and tired conventions of action-films, they will never create.

Comic book movies need to define themselves as something onto themselves, a unique combination of action and character on a parallel arrangement. When people say, "it needs to be like a comic book," it basically comes down to it needs to be simple, fast, and action-packed -- that's an action movie, not a comic book film. If comic book movies are going to have any sort of longeivity, studios need to crack down on the properites and produce only a few OR they have to create in these movies new conventions that distingiusih them from the pack of films out there.

So what I think Whedon leaving WW and these guys script suggest is the general trend in comic book films for the fan base to be ridiculously and horribly resistant (and now studios adopting it) to any sort of risky change even if such change could produce creative art that is actually BETTER than the original.

For example, more people paid to see Superman Returns than Batman Begins. BB is regarded as a success, SR as a failure. Why? Because BB stuck to what fans expected, SR didn't. However, the Superman comics are dead in the water, period. They have been for hte past decade. Yet, here comes Singer, and changes it up and, IMO, makes Superman a more interesting character and more relevant to our modern world than any other idealistic, forgone world of the past which some moralists wish to stick to. It improves the continuity and legend of Superamn, IMO--as I feel Spider-Man's movies have, and in fact, X-Men 1 and 2 improved a bit of the comic books.

However, fans decry these changes...why? Becuase they're changes. It's not a matter if its better or serves the film medium better, it's just a dogmatic expression of "it's different." And as studios embrace these simplistic, mindless "carbon-copies" of the comics, replicating the action-driven narratives that many comics embrace, far-fetched and over-the-top, you'll see the general public become more disatisfied with comic book films...why? Because if the general public wanted the comic book film to resemble the comic book, they'd also be reading the comic books. But they don't, do they? Comics are actually in a bad spot nowadays b/c geenrally, people don't like them and ridicule them with a certain degree of (and sadly legitiamte) foolishness. But the movies have always made it more serious, better executed, and more relevant with social themes about human interaction that the comic books (justifiablly) don't explore for the sake of fun.

This is why comic book films will eventually die out. I had a good hope for them too, but as usual they are becoming cliche, stereotyped, and redundant. Superman, Spider-Man, and Batman will finish out hte marathon and wth the conclusion of the Superamn Returns trilogy, we'll see the end of any major comic book movie developments. We'll see sparks of crap here and there, literally, of crap...

Of cousre, this is just my opinion.

A well-written thesis, though I believe you're jumping to conclusions.

 

[The Sage]

But mostly, I want to see a DC flick that opens the throttle wide and guns it! Gimme a true geek-out adraneline rush, one that so far I've only felt watching Spidey battle Doc Ock, Nightcrawler Bamf around the White House or Wolverine slaughter Stryker's army like sheep. (Well, there were a couple of great moments in Begins, sure, but nothing that wild.)

Y'know, the movie that a Superman relaunch should have been.

-- END!

Sounds like you want all flash and no substance. No thanks. I'll take more substance and less flash.

Geek moments mean nothing to me if they're surrounded by crud. I should've geeked out when I saw Robin's "Nightwing-like" costume in Batman & Robin, but it was immersed in such a crappy story that it meant nothing.

Geez, reading this...why do people hate Michael Bay again?

 

[BrianWilly]

the problem is Wonder Woman doesn't work as a stand alone character in the 21st Century. The current Wonder Woman in the comics is only really memorable when she's in an ensemble situation, be it with big events or the Justice League. The present-day situations would just highly limit the possibilities of her character and what she stands for.

Taking her back to the 40's makes her stand out again, makes her unique once more, now putting her in the middle of WWII would make her the icon that she has always been.

The only people who ever say that -- ever -- are the ones who haven't been reading the right modern Wonder Woman comics. George Perez's reboot of her is a classic, even today, and that was twenty years ago. Jimenez, Rucka...hell, even Messner-Loebs (and I hated Messner-Loebs) all put incredibly definite, memorable takes on Diana that made her the character she is today.

When you ask modern comic book readers about Wonder Woman, no one thinks friggin' Nazis and World War II. They think Amazon, warrior princess, feminist, mission of peace, ambassador, and one of the most powerful superheroes in existence. Her villains are gods, mythological beasts, and psychotic mindrapists. Which just reminds me; does no one remember that Wonder Woman is, first and foremost, a feminist icon? Where exactly does that fit into all these big explosions and tanks and Nazis?

That's what I've been thinking. I don't think it's a bad choice to set it modern-day, but I really think, too, that her icon status lies in that WWII setting. IT after all, is an origin story, and if WB decides to put out sequels, those can be modern day, at least her background will have been already developed.

Batman's "iconic status" to the general public lied in a campy-ass seventies TV show where he and his faithful chum POWed their way across a sunlit "Gotham," until Tim Burton changed that. I thought that was the point of this movie, too, to bring Wonder Woman's current status to the forefront of public perception.

 

[BrianWilly]

Reading that script again...Phillipus beats Diana in the contest?? What the hell? So basically Diana is a fake, a false savior who didn't even earn her place and had to steal her way to Man's World?

Yeah. Wonderful.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

That´s what seperates me from the majority of people that write his scripts.
You all want to see action, thrills, kick ass action...
Me?
I say all that inerant to the genre, so i don´t even think about that, what i want is for the characters (WW, in this case) to be real, as real as she can be, to have realistic problems, to have realistic toughts.
If you are an Amazon, with a mission in a land you never seen before, talking a genre you never laid eyes on (nothing states that she ever saw a man before), how do you deal with that?
How is WW sexualy?
It´s a fairly normal question, because she lived all her live on a island with women.
This is the type of movie that i always look for in a comic book, dramatic, serious, adult, and almost never get it, besides Hulk, X-Men and Batman Begins.

This script might make a fun movie, but it isn´t IT, not even close.

 

[Steelsheen]

Reading that script again...Phillipus beats Diana in the contest?? What the hell? So basically Diana is a fake, a false savior who didn't even earn her place and had to steal her way to Man's World?

Yeah. Wonderful.

no dude, read it again. Diana beats Phillipus BUT when revealing her identity to her mother (she was incognito remember?) Hippolyta forbade her to go to Man's World. Phillipus, being 2nd runner up, took Diana's place instead, or so the royal plan goes.

the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[BrianWilly]

My mistake. I somehow read it as "Phillipus, who beat Diana in the contest" instead of "who Diana beat."

 

[Steelsheen]

tis cool.

 

[The Sage]

That´s what seperates me from the majority of people that write his scripts.
You all want to see action, thrills, kick ass action...
Me?
I say all that inerant to the genre, so i don´t even think about that, what i want is for the characters (WW, in this case) to be real, as real as she can be, to have realistic problems, to have realistic toughts.
If you are an Amazon, with a mission in a land you never seen before, talking a genre you never laid eyes on (nothing states that she ever saw a man before), how do you deal with that?
How is WW sexualy?
It´s a fairly normal question, because she lived all her live on a island with women.
This is the type of movie that i always look for in a comic book, dramatic, serious, adult, and almost never get it, besides Hulk, X-Men and Batman Begins.

This script might make a fun movie, but it isn´t IT, not even close.

Minus the gender misspell, I whole heartedly agree with you. As I said earlier, it sounds good. But this is a spec script so I expect more out of the final draft when it's all said and done.

 

[The Batman]

from what can be gathered from the review, Wonder Woman is much grander and epic in scale compared to Phantom or Shadow.

i kinda have faith in this script. It does not sound necessarily like just another WWII movie. I mean come on, Amazons v.s. Nazis! There's no better way to launch the greatest female superhero of them all than in a fantastical greek epic set in man's greatest war.

I just don't see Wonder Woman working well in a contemporary setting, she's not a small-scale character figure like Batman or Spider-Man (they tried it with Superman and it was very underwhelming) who deep inside are really human beings (which is why they can carry character driven narratives) Wonder Woman (and Superman) should be handled as the iconic demi-God that she is. She and her story just doesn't fit in with the self-centered, emo world that is the present day. I think putting her back in the 40's and making her deal with something as grand as WWII would be a fitting way to re-introduce her.

And thats why you're not working in hollywood.

I'm sorry folks, are we really so lazy in thinking up ways to bring diana to the 21st century that we have to say leave her in the past? Thats why people dont talk about the shadow or the phantom, or the green hornet. Thats why Captain Marvel cant beat supes at anything sales wise like he did in the 40's. They didnt adapt to modern day. They became novelty acts.

It's sad that some of you want the same thing for wonder woman.

 

[The Batman]

Sounds like you want all flash and no substance. No thanks. I'll take more substance and less flash.

Geek moments mean nothing to me if they're surrounded by crud. I should've geeked out when I saw Robin's "Nightwing-like" costume in Batman & Robin, but it was immersed in such a crappy story that it meant nothing.

Geez, reading this...why do people hate Michael Bay again?

Yeah. people in this thread are giving fans who want more faithful films a very bad name.

 

[The Guard]

s would be the opposite -- not 'expensive' enough. In other words, smaller and more character driven, whereas the WB obviously want a bigger spectacle film. I say, go for it.

I dunno. It's possible, but I seriously doubt Whedon's WONDER WOMAN was "small". It's not like WB and Whedon (or Silver and Whedon) didn't talk about his ideas before/and as he wrote the script. Had it been too small, this would likely have been recognized months ago. Odds are it just cost way, way too much money. That, or it just wasn't good.

Beau, you make some decent points, but I too think you're overreacting a bit. I don't know that Hollywood has EVER been about making "artful" films over action fests, so I don't see any trends we didn't know about before. For every potential GHOST RIDER there's an IRON MAN. I don't know that any of the comic book films have all that much in the way of character development/conflict, etc. If WB just wanted to, as you put it, mass produce films like WB and THE FLASH, wouldn't those films already be in production?
FANTASTIC FOUR is not a great movie, but, well, it's Fantastic Four. It changes stuff, like any comic book film does (Doom, mostly) and it was cheesy fun (with a bit of depth to the concept) that set up a larger story. Odds are RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER will be a bit more serious. I wonder if you've read much GHOST RIDER, given your diatribe against it. What we've seen from Mark Steven Johnson's project seems to have a similar tone to what I've seen of Ghost Rider over the years in the comics. I fail to see how the Spider-Man franchise hasn't also been "reduced" a bit.

SUPERMAN RETURNS was an oddity. Before SUPERMAN RETURNS, comic book films didn't take themselves terribly seriously, save Bryan Singer's other entries in the genre, the X-Men franchise. Outside Singer's movies, none of them, in my mind, really reach the level you seem to aspire for them. Maybe BATMAN BEGINS, and elements of SPIDER-MAN and SPIDER-MAN 2. I think, if anyone, general audiences are to blame for reducing films to their bare essences, not fans. Fans have little to no power in Hollywood. Ok, Nic Cage is playing Nic Cage in GHOST RIDER. Sort of how Michael Caine played Michael Caine in BATMAN BEGINS and THE PRESTIGE. Cage is a good actor in general, not just a familiar face. He emotes well, he evokes emotion, and plays the moment pretty well. I see no reason to bash him, especially without seeing his performance. I've seen some very good Cage films over the years. They're not all CON-AIR (which he wasn't horrible in).

Every genre "saturates" the market. I don't see how superhero films doing it makes it a horrible thing. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a slightly less impressive HULK film than no Hulk film at all. Comic books are more than action and character...they are visually fantastic mythology. This is where comic book films can distance themselves from other films...not just in terms of quality. And really, I don't think five or six comic book films from several different studios is "saturation".

Do comics get poked fun at? Yes (generally by those ignorant of their reality), but to indicate that they lack depth these days...that's simply not true. If anything they've gotten deeper (Except when Jeph Loeb writes them now). Comic books do explore these themes...just not in the same format. There are some great comics out right now, and several great recent runs as well (Wonder Woman among them, see Rucka's run). Often, you seem to decry anything that isn't perfect as crap, and by that logic, yeah, comic book movies that aren't perfect will continue to be made. That's almost a sure bet.

As far as WONDER WOMAN drawing from other movie sources...yes, other films draw elements from other films, but when we see that opening battle/voiceover in WONDER WOMAN, I really don't want to go "This is clearly taken from LORD OF THE RINGS", or "This is clearly taken from GLADIATOR". I want to see something that exists because I'm watching a Wonder Woman film, not a "big summer blockbuster".

And as for period pieces failing...STAR WARS is set "a long time ago" and has done very well for itself. Seriously though...three INDIANA JONES movies did fine. So did the television series. A fourth one is on the way. Ditto THE ROCKETEER. So have many period films (TITANIC, SCHINDLER'S LIST, ROAD TO PERDITION). THE PHANTOM failed because it's, frankly, an absurd and somewhat esoteric concept that was played way too campy in an era where moviegoers were tiring of camp in action films. To this day I'm still not sure why THE SHADOW failed. Maybe because of the samp, though I think it may be because it didn't know what it was, and was uneven, and that leaked into the reviews of it, and thusly, no one wanted to see an already foreign concept that was getting bad reviews.

Could this Wonder Woman spec script work? Sure, if the dialogue is good and the story is good. This review tells me neither of these things. Generally when LR reviews a script...you hear something about characterization, the psychology behind the story, etc. I didn't hear any of that here, and that kinda worries me. Some things sound good (the attempt to make WONDER WOMAN a more mythological piece). I do have a few minor issues with the script, based on what I've heard:

-"Man's" motivations for attacking the Amazon are a little thin. Exactly how long is this voiceover? And why does it remind me of Lord of The Rings?

-These compassionate, strong warriors...whose job it was to stand for good and fight evil...fled? Huh?

-So, is Themyscira a real place, or mythical, or what? You can crash there, apparently.

-Why the hell are the Amazons holding a contest to see who goes to do something incredibly important? Why not just all go? Or send a search party? And exactly how long does it take Trevor to crash? I really hope Galina's not the villain.

-Why hover chariots? What's wrong with real ones?

-Why don't they believe Steve? Do they not know the lasso's powers?

-Diana steals?

-Is the Invisible Jet the thing Steve stole, or do the Amazons have invisible jets?

-The overall villain/threat (Other than the Nazis)/stakes. There's evil galore in the world, and there was during WWII as well. We don't need a box that unleashes it. That's just...lame. And if these writers KNOW the legend...the box was opened long ago, and there's nothing inside, save one thing. Pandora's Box, according to legend, contained all the bad things in the world: sickness, misery, etc...but Hope was retained. And if the box is so damned dangerous...wouldn't it make more sense to you know...destroy The Key?

-Sigh...Galina's the villain, isn't she? Defected to man's world or some such...

Granted, this script sounds like it got the obvious things right. But that's not hard to do at all. There are thousands of Wonder Woman comics that feature these aspects. Wonder Woman being hot, and utilizing Wonder Woman's costume, Invisible Jet, and having her use her bracelets is obvious, obvious stuff. It's like having Bruce Wayne be handsome, having Batman wear his costume, drive The Batmobile, and use bat-gadgets and a Utility Belt. These are obvious aspects of the characters that almost no one could possibly screw up. Let alone writers commited to writing a Wonder Woman script. But I don't see anything about what they got right BEYOND right. I don't see what they EXPLORE with the character. That kind of makes me wonder.

That said...Wonder Woman doesn't have to be tied to Nazis, any more than Superman has to be tied to the Japanazis. I'm a firm believer that a WONDER WOMAN film can be many things. She can work as a contemporary character, and she can work in the WWII era. I'd love to see a generational tale...for instance, her mother fighting the Nazis in WWII, and then forward to Diana taking up her mother's quest in the present day. Come to think of it, I'd love to see WONDER WOMAN played as the hero quest, period.