Yeah, but the fact is we'll only really get one Wonder Woman movie, at least for a very, very long time. If this were like comics, where writers can put out reimaginings and retellings and Elseworlds graphinc novels out pretty much whenever they want, then I'd be all for a WWII Wonder Woman movie or a Kane/Finger Batman film.
But if back in 1989 they'd announced their Batman movie would be like the original comics, and if i'd been more than 2 years old, I'd have been upset. The same would have applied for Begins. If they went through all this trouble to relaunch the Batman franchise, and I was expecting to finally see the Batman of Batman: Year One or the Loeb/Sale stories, and got Golden Age Batman, i'd have been dissappointed.
So, in short, you're saying it's NOT inherently a bad a idea. It's simply not an idea you would expect and/or want?
If that's true, that I can understand. That I couldn't blame you for. Like I said in my opening post in this thread, I never really imagined Wonder Woman having a period movie myself. Just as I had never really imagined them making a semi-sequel to the Reeve Superman movies. But I've always been a more accepting fan, and thusly, I enjoyed SR, and really like the prospect of this movie.
Please show me anywhere in this thread...anywhere at all...where I stated "many times" how interested I was in seeing Whedon's vision. I believe I mentioned, once, that my vision of Diana needing to deal with people who are threatened by her preachiness is something that Whedon would handle well. That's my vision. My own. Not his. Hell, I've even openly stated that in some ways it's good Whedon is off the project because now we get flying and comicbook villains back.
And if you're referring to statements I've made in the past while Whedon was still on board, I don't see what that possibly has to do with what I've said now.
I was taking in account your statements in other threads. Doesn't seem like a horribly out of line thing to do, to me, but if it does to you, I apologize.
Others in this thread have been more openly appreciative of Joss Whedon than I have, and yet you home in on me because you know I'm a fan and lest we forget, in your worldview anyone who likes Joss Whedon must automatically have poor taste. Yeah, wow, you just soooooo have the higher ground, here.
For the last goddamn time, that was little more than an illustration of how our personal taste differ. Do I think liking Buffy is in poor taste? Yeah, sure. But I'm not God. There's plenty of things I think are bad that other people gleefully enjoy.
I'm being disrespectful to opinions, and you're being disrespectful to another person? Oh a message board devoted to discussing opinions, and being disrespectful to other people is frowned upon?
Um...yeah. Don't confuse respect with a willingness to agree. I have NO problem with people not agreeing with me, but I do ask - no, demand - that they're at least respectful in their disagreement. Probably too much to ask of most people...but you've always struck me as being particularly intelligent.
Okay. So even though I've given my reasons, and stated my points, I've still inferred that your opinions are "automatically wrong" for some reason. I see.
Just finished reading the script review and trying to get a feel for everyone's opinion before putting my zwei pfennig in and if I forget your names, sorry but I want to get it all down before I lose my train of thought:
The reviewer was certainly enamored with the script, even with its inaccuracies of the Amazonian culture as it applies to Hippolyta but I do have to say that the movie does flow from one time period to the next fairly effortlessly, which isn't always a good thing. The charactor devleopment is going to be very important in this movie, so having some idea of the main villian in the first act is important. Yes, I do know that the script will change from now until its shot but......gotta address what is there.
Its important to remember that in the grand scheme of things, Diana is just one step below Kal in overall abilities and power with the exceptions of her fighting ablities and prowess. She's a warrior born and Kal's going by instinct and sheer power.
I liked the one idea someone had with opening up with the Amazons preparing for battle! Maybe in some sort of flashback sequence with the narration?
Garzo, some of your remarks made in here seem to smack of something I won't address on the boards but I do need to correct you on something: No member of the US Armed Forces wears "US" or an insignia on their uniform belt unless it's with a form of Dress uniform(Class A's, Dress Blues, etc.), and even then, it's very seldom. In the days of the horse drawn Cavalry, it was common place to see it on the buckle of the soldier's/sailor's/marine's gunbelt. And after the number of different nation's soldiers I've fought alongside of and against, very few of them had an insignia on their's. It was mostly officers with waaaaay too high of an opinion of themselves!
And as far as casting Hippolyta,.......It's Lynda Carter or no one! She deserves the role!
Lynda Carter, ugh. A cameo, not Hippolyta. She's not a particularly good actress, much less one suited for an inspiring and wise Queen. The whole WWII angle isnt going to work. Why exactly does WW belong in this period? Because she started here? Well, so what? The JSA, you could argue that, but WW? She can work in any time period and the modern world would be far more interesting.
Mix the Perez and Rucka runs, the whole thing writes itself. Hell, Perez Post Crisis origin is more or less as good a treatment as you're gonna get.
Without a compelling antagonist or a significant conflict your character is a complete tool. Look at how strong Neo's arc was...
BTW, when the **** did I ever claim Aoen Flux or Ultraviolet had compelling antagonists or significant conflicts? Oh right, I didn't, that's just you putting imaginary words in my mouth. I wouldn't know anything about those movies, because sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I wouldn't know...
When did you ever claim compelling antogonists or significant conflicts were more important than action and sex appeal? In fact, how did angaonists or conflict size get into this discussion at all? You said, more or less, "Let's focus on action and sex" and I disagreed with you. No big whoop.
But since you've now brought up antagonists and signifcant conflict, I agree that those are also important... yes, equally as important as identifying with the character arc.
I want Gladiator good, not Spiderman II "good". You appearantly want a hug.
Hmmm... I do want a hug. I also know that Diana is not Aragon or Maximus. Her goal is to NOT fight, she's an emissary of peace. Having a big bad guy breaking up stuff should not in itself be enough to have Diana go buck wild on their behind, she's just not built like that and it's completely contrary to what the character concept is about.
So, you think that having a great bad guy would have saved Aeon Flux and Ultraviolet (both of which had signifcant conflicts)? That you would have loved a Wonder Woman on that level of quality... maybe if the budgets were bigger, and MORE special effects and BIGGER explosions would have made those movies better, yea, even worthy of being a Wonder Woman movie?
Are you an actual fan of the character?
Furthermore, are any fans of the character (those who read her comics, or perhaps if she was their fave from all of JLU), any fans, are they interested in a WWII movie, or is it just people who really aren't into the character who like that option?
You cannot achieve harmony without dominance. Rule of 3's. Devine Ratio. Failing to focus on one or the other leads to diluted wine, and as Bruce Lee said, nobody aquires a taste for diluted wine.
I'm just saying that there is way more to Diana than big action and sex apeal. I'm not saying that either of those are bad things, but if you have the potential to do something more, why not go for it?
Go for what? Self pity? Remorse over her power and how it isolates her? Just say no to emo.
Again, I never said anything like that. Diana is not Peter Parker. Diana's problems and life are nothing like Peter Parker's. Nor are they anything like Superman's.
The only "problem" of Diana's that I care about is how is she going to overcome her antagonist. I'm here for mythology, not high drama. I don't want to relate to my heroes, I want to be in awe.
Again, Diana isn't all about action. Sure, it's part of her life, but it's only one part. Centering the entire movie on a fragment of who she is just seems like taking the easy way out.
Because what you really want is a character on the movie screen you can relate to in order to validate your own existance. "Oh look, I'm not such a big loser after all, because Peter Parker is a loser too" Marvel has cashed in on this pandering technique for 40 years,it's 2 dimensional, manipulative, and indicitive of formulaic storytelling.
So if you had a hug, your existance would be validated, and you wouldn't require emotional nurturing from my super-hero movies.
...Having a big bad guy breaking up stuff should not in itself be enough to have Diana go buck wild on their behind, she's just not built like that and it's completely contrary to what the character concept is about.
I never once said that she should do anything like that. In fact, I said in a fair amount of detail what I'd like to see, and it was nothing like that at all.
The only "problem" of Diana's that I care about is how is she going to overcome her antagonist. I'm here for mythology, not high drama. I don't want to relate to my heroes, I want to be in awe.
I'm not saying that she should be relatible. Internal conflict doesn't mean that you've gone through the same stuff. And what I said would make good for Diana's character arc was a veiwpoint that's fairly unique.
Would you mind actually LISTENING to what I'm saying? I've said time and time again that what you're describing as what I want is not what I want at all.
"Oh look, I'm not such a big loser after all, because Peter Parker is a loser too" Marvel has cashed in on this pandering technique for 40 years,it's 2 dimensional, manipulative, and indicitive of formulaic storytelling.
It's none of those things. Before the Marvel Silver age, real character depth in comics was a rarity. Stan and Jack, along with Will Eisner, Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, and other creators of the same ilk of those days helped save the medium from being forever cursed to be nothing more than bad entertainment for children.
Uh-oh, what ever you do, don't go read the first 4 issues of the monthly title, because that's what she's doing.
Oh but it's Donna, so it doesn't count right?
Well, since I specifically said Diana, yeah, your comment is totally pointless. Funny enough, I think the first four issues illustrate pretty clearly the level of restraint I like to see Diana have.
Fan enough to buy the monthly title, how about you?
And I think that's the cheapest easiest way to deal with the dichotomy. "She's a hypocrite." I think some layers of the movie should deal with the difference between a dichotomy, a paradox and a hypocricy. But, that would involve making a deep high quality movie.
Because what you really want is a character on the movie screen you can relate to in order to validate your own existance.
"Oh look, I'm not such a big loser after all, because Peter Parker is a loser too" Marvel has cashed in on this pandering technique for 40 years,it's 2 dimensional, manipulative, and indicitive of formulaic storytelling.
So if you had a hug, your existance would be validated, and you wouldn't require emotional nurturing from my super-hero movies.
Wow... I've never had anyone judge me so harshly with so little information. Pulling the reader's emotions into the character is fomulaic? 2 Dimensional? What kind of bizarro logic is this? Imitating real people in storytelling is one of the most dynamic three dimensional things you can do, BY definition. You might as well be saying the sky is green.
I want to be drawn into a movie... if the character is awe-inspiring as well, that's cool, but I can think of cooler things that any moviemaker can show me every day of the week. And for me, imagining Wondy getting bodyslammed while outwitting Ares is a lot more fun and cheaper than anything movies could possibly do. But when the moviemaker puts emotion into those characters, images and events, they become an interaction instead of just a show.
It's not about validation, it's not about nurturing -- certain people, especially creative ones, tend to want more than just a good show, we want a good experience.
Wonder Woman's dichotomy -- the fact that she's both a warrior and a pacifist, that she teaches absolute compassion but is also willing to decapitate someone if necessary, that she is composed of complete serenity and the capacity to go to war with an axe in her hand -- is exactly why I like her more than Superman and Batman combined.
Wonder Woman's dichotomy -- the fact that she's both a warrior and a pacifist, that she teaches absolute compassion but is also willing to decapitate someone if necessary, that she is composed of complete serenity and the capacity to go to war with an axe in her hand -- is exactly why I like her more than Superman and Batman combined.
I am amazed, amazed I tell you, to see how much discussion there is on these boards concerning Wonder Woman. (See how amazed I am?)
Do you realize the bulk of the threads are about Wonder Woman?
Casting is the largest with several combinations, script has several different threads running and there are a few about the antagonists.
Amazing. And we see aurguments that run several web pages across between Manhunter and GL1, The Question, CCon, SufferingSappho and The Sage that just bugger the imagination when you consider they have been argueing over and over again about the same meaningless point. We all want to see a kick-ass action movie with some socially redeeming tender moments. 'Nuff said.
I'm with green.
I can't wait to see an actual script and movie and a committment to make the movie.
(Sorry guys, it's my turn for sarcasm on this one.)
Now if we could just see some movement from DC about a Captain Marvel movie...
I want Steve and Diana to have a lot of attraction, but then eventually -- possibly in a sequel -- to wind up with Etta. It'd be very politically correct or whatever.
I want Steve and Diana to have a lot of attraction, but then eventually -- possibly in a sequel -- to wind up with Etta. It'd be very politically correct or whatever.
Suppose Etta and Steve were already dating when he crashlands on Themyscira. He finds himself meeting this beautiful angel who saves him and takes him back to America, yada yada, he's infatuated with this mysterious woman who appears time and time again to help him out, even though he's already in a relationship. Etta Candy, as we all know, is not very shapely or beautiful, unlike Diana, and she jealously confronts Diana about it who was heretofore completely clueless about the way appearances and weight shape the way people in this world -- particularly the women -- think of themselves and each other. And this hurts Diana because she had always thought of all women as her sisters and to see one that she had become friends with lash out at her over a man is something she never expected to happen. Cue drama, character development, etc etc. This is actually sort of in the comics, too.
Anyway, throughout the course of the movies, Diana finds herself incredibly attracted to Steve too since they're always sharing adventures together, but eventually he realizes that even though he loves and idealizes her, the woman he really wants to be with is Etta no matter what her physical appearance is, thus teaching everyone a Very Important Lesson about loving someone for their inner self and everyone lives Happily Ever After.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Don't confuse respect with a willingness to agree. I have NO problem with people not agreeing with me, but I do ask - no, demand - that they're at least respectful in their disagreement. Probably too much to ask of most people...but you've always struck me as being particularly intelligent.
t:
