Wonder Woman script review

[thedarks0ldier]

Perhaps if they set the movie in the style of the 1940's, kinda like TAS or the incredibles, people would be quicker to go along with it.

 

[jrpstarwars]

No...

...there is another.

​

Comic book films are not dead yet but they are dying. Hollywood filmmakers and fans alike are losing touch with the human aspect in comic book films. In order to get the 'less super' super heroes to sell they have to do something to glorify plain, average joe humans in the comic book realm. This would level out spectrum. Until they do this, only Batman and Superman will garner any success and maybe Wonder Woman...

... only a live action G.I. Joe movie can ensure success for future comic films.t: t: t:

 

[The Batman]

hmmm? set in WW2?

lame.

Thats why phantom and shadow didnt work, folks...and thats why their characters are not in the public conciousness. why would anyone wanna do that to wonder woman?

 

[Mr. Socko]

^It should only be done for Capt America

 

[The Batman]

exactly. Even then, IMO, it should transition to present day sometime in the flick...

 

[The Question]

Actually, for Cap, I'd prefer the first film set in WWII, and then have the sequel begin with him getting thawed out by either The Avengers or SHEILD. Or, possibly SHEILD, shortly followed by him joining The Avengers.

 

[crazy monkey]

Of course.

I think we are see a reductionist reaction to movies like Superman Returns.... Of cousre, this is just my opinion.

Well, that was a good read. Your opinion is expressed with intellectual precision. Thanks for being literate.

I myself am the biggest advocate of the rift between comics and film. They are two seperate mediums of storytelling, no doubt about that. Therefore, the same methods cannot be applied to each, no more than the same techniques can be used by both a drafting pencil and a paint brush.

That being said, I don't view bad comic book screen adaptations as an emerging trend, but rather a continuing one, and in fact is a trend that is found in most every genre of film.

For example, in the same decade that has given us good flicks like Blade, X-Men 1 and 2, Spidey and its sequel, Batman Begins, and for some, SR, we've also been force-fed misfires like DareDevil, Elektra, FF, Punisher, and for some, SR.

But by closely examining other types of movies, you'll find in the same ten years mesmerizing fantasy films and juvenile fairy tales, crackeling romantic comedies and soppy drivel, sweeping historic epics and bloated flops, razor-edged documentaries and self-serving puppet shows.

If Hollywood is a machine, then it is one designed to chew everything into easily digestable, homegenized oatmeal. But every so often -- in some accidental way only quantum mechanics could explain -- a product comes through that is structred and refined.

So don't sweat it. As long as there are filmmakers and screenwriters passionate about breathing life into comic book panels, there will be superhero movies that tickle your intellect as well as excite your senses. I don't doubt that as they prove to be a greater source of income for studios, then big-shot bosses will assume they know how to squeeze more profit from them by shoving them back in the chewing machine for another go-round. However, I also think, for the present generation at least, that those same men have learned their lesson by the money-pits of the eighties and nineties. Studio heads hate to admit their wrong, but they hate to lose money even more.

One could also argue that the process of adapting comics to film is a new art form, one that has only been allowed to breath in the past few years. Depth of field in 2D illustration wasn't perfected until the Rennaisance -- after thousands (or millions?) of years of human line art. In years to come, comics and film may begin to merge in ways we can't imagine now, and the process will become as basic as drawing a dot on a page and calling it a vanishing point.

Cynicism ages your inner child before its time, if it has one. Don't let a few dissappointing attempts to bring your childhood heroes to life sour your anticipation for future projects. After all, scrutiny reveals the cracks in our idols, so we can't be surprised by the flaws we see in them when they're blown up large enough to fill a movie screen.

-- END!

 

[Experiment626]

hmmm? set in WW2?

lame.

Thats why phantom and shadow didnt work, folks...and thats why their characters are not in the public conciousness. why would anyone wanna do that to wonder woman?

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.

 

[crazy monkey]

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.

So you are willing to pay three, four bucks to read something that you don't enjoy? Because, that's all I meant; they're entertainment.

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.

HA! Okay -- down, boy.

Technically, she's not a biological daughter of Hippolyta, and not a gladiator in the historic sense, true. But she was created by the hands of said goddess, imbued with her abilities and traits, and learned at her feet. And she is a hardened warrior, unafraid of giving her life in battle for her people or for justice. So I was using those terms in a loose, romantic sense -- which is the closest this geek will get to anything 'loose' or 'romantic' this weekend, so cut me some slack, 'kay? t:

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

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

Hey, buddy, you're obviously a fan of the ol' girl. I won't contest your view on the character, but I personally see her as someone who lives in two worlds, fights for blood and honor in one and justice and friendship in the other, and isn't quite sure if she wants to adhere to her Amazon traditions or give her heart to a man she can love. Sorry I forgot to tag my expressions with the obligatory IMO.

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

Yes I do, since they're all the same character.

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

Well, it seems you're more of a fan of hers than I am, so I don't doubt that you do. For me, Diana has always been a fun character, and I personally don't want another Gloomy-Gus DC film. Fun isn't neccessarily juvenile. Ever see The Incredibles?

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.

Yeah, the Nazi's are a tired bunch. However, I'm a sucker for retro-fiction.

-- END!

 

[BrianWilly]

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 Question]

So you are willing to pay three, four bucks to read something that you don't enjoy? Because, that's all I meant; they're entertainment.

It's a bit more complex than that.

HA! Okay -- down, boy.

Technically, she's not a biological daughter of Hippolyta, and not a gladiator in the historic sense, true. But she was created by the hands of said goddess, imbued with her abilities and traits, and learned at her feet. And she is a hardened warrior, unafraid of giving her life in battle for her people or for justice. So I was using those terms in a loose, romantic sense -- which is the closest this geek will get to anything 'loose' or 'romantic' this weekend, so cut me some slack, 'kay? t:

Hippolyta isn't a godess either. What I was saying is that Diana has no gods as relatives at all.

Hey, buddy, you're obviously a fan of the ol' girl. I won't contest your view on the character, but I personally see her as someone who lives in two worlds, fights for blood and honor in one and justice and friendship in the other, and isn't quite sure if she wants to adhere to her Amazon traditions or give her heart to a man she can love.

But she doesn't live in two worlds as you describe her. You may see her that way, but I'm saying that I cannot recall any stories where she's had the personal conflict of balancing the traditions of Themyscira and America. I don't think I've ever seen her not sure as to adhere to her Amazon traditions or not. Now, she does often try to find some balance between her mission to be a teacher of peace and understanding and the fact that she often finds herself beating the **** out of things to do so. But she has not, as far as I can recall, felt a conflict between Amazonian and American culture. Nor do I see why she should, as she's not American.

Also, giving her heart to a man she can love isn't really a factor either. Steve Trevor hasn't been used as a love interest for 20 years.

Sorry I forgot to tag my expressions with the obligatory IMO.

1) I hate IMO, as I also hate LOL, LMAO, ROFL, and so on. It's really not hard to spell words out.

2) I wasn't disputing your opinion simply because I disagreed with you. I was just saying that I don't remember Wonder Woman being like that at all.

Yes I do, since they're all the same character.

No, they're not. The only character who was even remotely like that was Buffy.

Well, it seems you're more of a fan of hers than I am, so I don't doubt that you do. For me, Diana has always been a fun character, and I personally don't want another Gloomy-Gus DC film. Fun isn't neccessarily juvenile. Ever see The Incredibles?

Yes, I did see the Incredibles. I rather liked it, myself. Much better Fantastic Four movie than the actual Fantastic Four movie, I must say. But that's not the point. I'm not saying Diana should be a "gloomy-gus" (nor am I ever saying that phrase again in general), but she's a much more complex character than simply being "fun." She can be, at times, quite fun. She can also be sad, inspiring, creepy, and down right scary at times. She's a character that can be and has been used in many different ways. I'm not saying that she isn't fun, or that fun is a bad thing. I'm just saying that there is alot more to her than that.

Yeah, the Nazi's are a tired bunch. However, I'm a sucker for retro-fiction.

I just don't see why everyone obsesses on the Nazis with Diana, like WWII is what defines her. With Wonder Woman, the Nazis only serve as an example of the barbarism of modern society that she's trying to turn people away from with her words and is forced to stop from harming others with her fists. You can easily have her fighting terrorists or third world dictators and get the same point across.

-- END!

Please stop doing that.

 

[The Question]

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." The characters have moved on.

Exactly. By now, I'm used to Diana showing up at a meeting of the UN and then single handedly foiling an assassination atempt (on herself or someone else, doesn't matter) by lifting the guy over her head and crushing his gun in her hand. Or Diana going on a goodwill tour of the Middle East, giving food and clothing to the needy, and then a little under an hour later tossing around the psychos who've made the people she's helping suffer like ragdolls.

 

[crazy monkey]

It's a bit more complex than that.

Not really.

Hippolyta isn't a godess either. What I was saying is that Diana has no gods as relatives at all.

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

But she doesn't live in two worlds as you describe her. You may see her that way, but I'm saying that I cannot recall any stories where she's had the personal conflict of balancing the traditions of Themyscira and America. I don't think I've ever seen her not sure as to adhere to her Amazon traditions or not. Now, she does often try to find some balance between her mission to be a teacher of peace and understanding and the fact that she often finds herself beating the **** out of things to do so. But she has not, as far as I can recall, felt a conflict between Amazonian and American culture. Nor do I see why she should, as she's not American.

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.

Also, giving her heart to a man she can love isn't really a factor either. Steve Trevor hasn't been used as a love interest for 20 years.

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.

1) I hate IMO, as I also hate LOL, LMAO, ROFL, and so on. It's really not hard to spell words out.

2) I wasn't disputing your opinion simply because I disagreed with you. I was just saying that I don't remember Wonder Woman being like that at all.

Okay.

No, they're not. The only character who was even remotely like that was Buffy.

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.

Yes, I did see the Incredibles. I rather liked it, myself. Much better Fantastic Four movie than the actual Fantastic Four movie, I must say. But that's not the point. I'm not saying Diana should be a "gloomy-gus" (nor am I ever saying that phrase again in general),

Heh!

but she's a much more complex character than simply being "fun." She can be, at times, quite fun. She can also be sad, inspiring, creepy, and down right scary at times. She's a character that can be and has been used in many different ways. I'm not saying that she isn't fun, or that fun is a bad thing. I'm just saying that there is alot more to her than that.

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

I just don't see why everyone obsesses on the Nazis with Diana, like WWII is what defines her. With Wonder Woman, the Nazis only serve as an example of the barbarism of modern society that she's trying to turn people away from with her words and is forced to stop from harming others with her fists. You can easily have her fighting terrorists or third world dictators and get the same point across.

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

Please stop doing that.

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

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

-- END!

 

[spider-neil]

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.

then there are the nazi costumes and period peice vechiles and buildings. top stuff and I loved the script. bring it on!!

 

[Halcohol]

I rather the film wasn't a period piece, but I liked what I read of the characterizations.

It'd have to be a period piece. Were it to be set in the modern-day, Nazis wouldn't really make a very good villain. Neo-Nazis are so 90's.

 

[spider-neil]

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 good post but the above assumes you can't have a compelling narrative and kick arse action but of course spidey and bats showed you can.

I'm sorry I thought supes was dull and didn't meaningfully progress the character so on no level was I satisfied with the movie not on a plot level or an action level.

I was satisfied with the hulk on a plot level but not the action
I was satisfied with x3 on an action level but not the plot

imho it is possible to deliver both, SM-2 BB X2 (ironically lost the plot with SR)

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? so right off the bat you are angering fans for no reason.
spider's organic webs while a drastic departure from the comic proceeds a nessasary narrative.

basically to cut a long story short, changes for changes sake will only upset for the fans for no reason. lack of action - directors fault, lack of plot line - directors faults. there is no reason whatsoever I can see where you can't have a compelling storyline, kick arse action and faithfulness to the source material and I can give you examples if you wish.

if you ask me the biggest threat to the comicbook genre is egotisical directors

 

[Chaos Bringer]

^It should only be done for Capt America

if that...

I do not want to see WW in the '40s or '50s or '60s even...

in'69 sure but putting that character in the past has no relevance to me.

Since WB holds rights to all of these characters what's stopping the tie in?

Why not introduce her in the next Superman film helping him defeat Brainiac or something...something new...something please...anything?

Just not a lame rollback. It'd be like watching Marty McFly in Back to The Wonder Woman (which some sniffing exec proly will read right now and think:YEAH that's a great idea!!)

sigh.

 

[spider-neil]

if that...

I do not want to see WW in the '40s or '50s or '60s even...

in'69 sure but putting that character in the past has no relevance to me.

Since WB holds rights to all of these characters what's stopping the tie in?

Why not introduce her in the next Superman film helping him defeat Brainiac or something...something new...something please...anything?

Just not a lame rollback. It'd be like watching Marty McFly in Back to The Wonder Woman (which some sniffing exec proly will read right now and think:YEAH that's a great idea!!)

sigh.

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.

 

[ultimatefan]

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´m not that pessimistic. I think the success of the first two Spider-Man, the first two X-Men - to some extent, even the third - and Batman Begins are enough evidence that a balance between character and storytelling with action and humor is viable, even necessary. The disappointment with SR comes more from how well-known the character is and how much investment was made, if it had cost around the same as BB - which was still an expensive movie - it would have been considered more successful. Short action-packed cheesefests like Blade Trinity, Elektra and Catwoman have failed at the BO, so I don´t think studios will necessarily lean towards that. FF is apparently trying to make up for the stupid sitcom tone of the first, and this script definitely sounds more like a serious epic than a cheesefest so far. There may be a time to hit the panic button, but I don´t think it´s now.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I´m not that pessimistic. I think the success of the first two Spider-Man, the first two X-Men - to some extent, even the third - and Batman Begins are enough evidence that a balance between character and storytelling with action and humor is viable, even necessary. The disappointment with SR comes more from how well-known the character is and how much investment was made, if it had cost around the same as BB - which was still an expensive movie - it would have been considered more successful. Short action-packed cheesefests like Blade Trinity, Elektra and Catwoman have failed at the BO, so I don´t think studios will necessarily lean towards that. FF is apparently trying to make up for the stupid sitcom tone of the first, and this script definitely sounds more like a serious epic than a cheesefest so far. There may be a time to hit the panic button, but I don´t think it´s now.

I agree it's way to early to proclaim anything,SR stands as an anomaly IMO

BTW by Blade you just mean Trinity right?

 

[ultimatefan]

I agree it's way to early to proclaim anything,SR stands as an anomaly IMO

BTW by Blade you just mean Trinity right?

Oh yeah, I know the first two were successful. But you know, compared to was being done in the early-to-mid nineties - Punisher, Captain America, the Roger Corman FF - even that was relatively serious.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Oh yeah, I know the first two were successful. But you know, compared to was being done in the early-to-mid nineties - Punisher, Captain America, the Roger Corman FF - even that was relatively serious.

Heh indeed,I actually think Blade 2 is more than a cheesy popcorn actioner,i tohught it was a really good and stylish action/horror movie

 

[spider-neil]

Heh indeed,I actually think Blade 2 is more than a cheesy popcorn actioner,i tohught it was a really good and stylish action/horror movie

and you'd be correct for thinking that

 

[mad-sci]

I have to admit, the new script review doesn't half sound bad. The reviewer on LR also reviewed Batman Begins, Casino Royale and gave both top marks (even when people were skeptical about both at the time...), so the fact that he loved the WW script does bode well.

There's also unnamed sources at IESB which state that Joel Silver is REALLy impressed with this script - so much so that he's fast-tracked the film, got these writers onboard and will be naming a new director soon.


My number 1 guess / good choice: Francis Lawrence

(Constantine, I am Legend in Nov. 2007)

Unlike Snyder who's busy on Watchmen, he doesn't have a fixed film after IAL. He's also got links with Silver, AND has proven he's capable of handling big-budget films, with solid characterisation. If IAL is a success in Nov. 2007, expect WW in holiday time 2009.

 

[spider-neil]

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.