Wonder Woman script review

[CConn]

I think crazy monkey said it very well; Whedon's characterization of Wonder Woman just would've been an entirely different animal than what this script presents.

 

[ultimatefan]

Am guessing Whedon's had less action and more character development...

But considering how it didn't turn out that well financially with Supes, well...

I turned out just firne for Batman Begins, so let´s cut the simplistic "Whedom got dumped cuz he´s a noble artist and the studio´s evil" mentality.

 

[spark627]

Why are you posted liv tyler in every WW thread, enough already. She is an awful choice.

 

[hippie_hunter]

We really don't know at the moment. Silver's said before that he was against a period piece. Some are taking that to mean that this script will be rewritten to fit into modern times, but I don't quite buy that, myself.

I dunno, I'm thinking that Warner Bros bought this script to get these guys on board and easily convince them to change it in the modern day. These are newcommers after all.

 

[CConn]

I dunno, I'm thinking that Warner Bros bought this script to get these guys on board and easily convince them to change it in the modern day. These are newcommers after all.

I really don't see any evidence to assume anything at the moment.

WB bought a script, this script, what they do with it, I haven't a clue.

 

[The Only Woj]

sounds pretty awesome from the review ... and I think the setting fits better than trying to make it in the present.

 

[batman44]

Wow, that script sounds fantastic. I would love to read the whole thing myself.

 

[bosef982]

What we are seeing here is the beginning of the end of comic book movies.

 

[bosef982]

BTW, The Pandora's Box thing is pretty weak, as is the whole Key aspect. Executed well or not, it's cliche and it's expected. These guys did what any hack can do....took the comic book lore and regurgitated it onto a spec script. Doesn't sound like they did a bit of interpretation. Plus, by page 36, did anyone notice that we have not one iota of a clue who the villian is, what Diana's character's path is? Also note tha we dont' see Wonder Woman until page 89...which I'm not against, but still.

Anyway, I'd give this an overall "meh..."

 

[CConn]

What we are seeing here is the beginning of the end of comic book movies.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Love the sound of the script,Diana's arc sounds very good and hopefully the relationship with Trevor will be well written

I love the sound of the Trevor spying scenes and the opening and finale action sequences sound epic

The 40's setting is cool and hopefully whoever directors will set the tone close to Raiders

 

[bosef982]

Care to elaborate?

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.

 

[bosef982]

Love the sound of the script,Diana's arc sounds very good and hopefully the relationship with Trevor will be well written

I love the sound of the Trevor spying scenes and the opening and finale action sequences sound epic

The 40's setting is cool and hopefully whoever directors will set the tone close to Raiders

why would you want the tone to be a copy of something else? that's just going to ruin the film, make it not its own entity, and draw unneccessary comparsions...

 

[Hunter Rider]

why would you want the tone to be a copy of something else? that's just going to ruin the film, make it not its own entity, and draw unneccessary comparsions...

Not at all,it's simply a guideline of how not to become The Mummy.lots of movies have influence elsewhere,it's the content within the tone that counts and Raiders is the peak of a modern action/adventure movie set in the 40's and executed perfectly tone wise

 

[CConn]

Of course.

Of cousre, this is just my opinion.

Of course.

I think you're assuming a lot too. Let's remember that we haven't actually seen the script of this Wonder Woman movie. We've seen a brief description of a single act of it. Written by someone who actually loved the script as a whole. We really don't know if the film's short on characterization. It certain seems to be high on plot and pacing, but then so was BB. We haven't seen Whedon's script either; WB could very well have passed on it simply because it really wasn't that good - Whedon certainly wasn't ever happy with it himself.

I'm not saying either of those things are necessarily true, but they're all every bit as possible as everything you're assuming about the film.

Secondly, to pronounce that the genre as a whole is dead is rather...excessive, IMO. It sounds like something someone would say after seeing Superman IV or Batman & Robin. Even if this script is a continuation of a dumbing down of superhero films (remember, if...we REALLY don't know if that's true at all), I'm sure - SURE - superhero films will rebound at some point. Like they have time and time again in the past.

 

[CConn]

why would you want the tone to be a copy of something else? that's just going to ruin the film, make it not its own entity, and draw unneccessary comparsions...

Most films draw certain elements from other films. Y'know, Nolan wanted BB to look like Blade Runner, Singer drew inspiration of SR from STM and the Fleisher cartoons, even, say, George Lucas drew from stuff like Flash Gordon in making Star Wars. It would be shocking - to me, at least - if the director of Wonder Woman didn't draw from something in his creation of the film. A lot of times people don't even notice the similarities.

 

[Garzo]

sounds pretty good and at least an origin story set in WWII leaves the door wide open for a sequel set in the modern day. In fact, Wonder Woman's history allows for lots of interestingly diverse stories that could end up as sequels or prequels or combined in a single film like Highlander. You could do the same with a Captain America movie. The only problem I see is the whole WWII Nazi angle -- which lets face it, it's getting old. It doesn't matter that it was part of her origin story (Superman and Batman also battled Nazis in the day), it's just that after so many serious WWII films, the "battling evil Nazis" has become one of the biggest Hollywood cliches ever and a big safety net for these kinds of films, beginning with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which fell back on the successful formula of its much more 'original' predecessor, as well as The Rocketeer. Aside from the plethora of WWII pics that come out every year, we have stuff like "Hannibal Rising: Hannibal vs the Nazis" and the upcoming "Magneto vs the Nazis" and even the WWII-like "Sky Captain."
I think a yearning for the WWII era and the 'heroes' of the "Greatest Generation" has a lot to do with the international mess the U.S. finds itself now. America is no longer seen as a nation of heroes. A character like Wonder Woman who wears the American flag won't fly in this day and age, not outside the U.S. -- and international box office still counts for at least 50% of a film's overall take. That's why I think Josh Whedon may have been on the right track by updating her with a slightly different costume and making her a super Amazon, modern-day Xena as opposed to a super Amazon who works for the CIA or U.S. military, waves (and wears) the Red, White and Blue, and fights along our brave boys. What are they going to do in the sequel, send her to Iraq?
It's like Captain America. I dig the stuff Ed Brubaker has been writing of late, but a Captain America film would never fly in an international way -- never. At a major comic shop in Germany, Captain America was recently voted the least popular super hero -- and not because of Brubaker's excellent writing, or because the Red Skull is German, but rather because of what the hero represents. And this despite the fact that Captain America has joined the opposition in the current Civil War series (which not too many people are crazy about).

 

[BrianWilly]

Uh, if Hippolyta put the lasso of truth around Steve when he told them his story, why in the fck wouldn't they believe him?

Not impressed. And not interested in a WW2 story in the least.

 

[zer00]

Uh, if Hippolyta put the lasso of truth around Steve when he told them his story, why in the fck wouldn't they believe him?

Not impressed. And not interested in a WW2 story in the least.

Don't worry.

You liking Whedon pretty much proves you hate anything...good.

 

[BrianWilly]

Yeah, good point!

 

[The Question]

Wow finally something that is not afraid to be a comic book...great

But it's not a comic book. It's a movie. There's no way it could possibly be a comic book or anything like one.

Comics are supposed to be fun, dammit!

No, they're not. Comics are supposed to be comics. That's it. They can be depressing psychological thrillers, upbeat comedies, horror, or whatever. But there's no one thing they're supposed to be.

She's an ultrahot, kick-ass, half-goddess gladiator.

She's not hald godess and she's not a gladiator. Gladiators were slaves and prisoners of war who fought to the death for the amusement of the people of Rome. Diana is a greek warrior. And, as I said, she's not hald godess. Really, she's more of a Golem than anything else. And in any event, there's way more to her than that.

Sure, she's torn in her loyalty to two cultures.

No, she's not. She never had been. I don't see why she would be.

Sure, she's the little mermaid who wants the safety of home but is drawn to the wonder of the modern world.

Again, no. I've never seen her longing for the safety of home.

Sure, I'd love to see her written as a real woman and not just some flippant, wise-cracking, whiny Whedongirl.

You do realize that that sentence only really describes one of the characters that Whedon's created, right?

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!

While I certainly don't see that as a bad thing, I would like a little more than that too.





Also, to talk about the script myself:


I really hate the idea of the movie being set during WWII. I really don't see why Diana needs to fight Nazis. And i personally prefer her in modern times.

 

[jrpstarwars]

What we are seeing here is the beginning of the end of comic book movies.

No...

...there is another.

​

 

[CConn]

But it's not a comic book. It's a movie. There's no way it could possibly be a comic book or anything like one.

I think someone here needs to watch a few more comics.

 

[IKnowSomeJudo]

Waiting to read the script myself. I don't trust this El Mayimbe guy.

If you get it, please let me know.

 

[The Question]

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.

I really disagree with you on Superman Returns. I really don't think it's as great as you say. It was an alright movie, but in retrospect I just don't like it very much. Not because I didn't get the emotional complexity or anything. I hated Lex's characterization, I disliked the constant references to the previous films, and parts of the plot, like Superman's reason for leaving Earth, bugged me a little. It wasn't a bad film, but it wasn't a great one and I think it could have been better. And I really don't think the Superman comics are dead in the water, nor have they been for ten years. There have been some truely great Superman stories, especially in the past ten to fifteen years.