Wonder Woman Thread Reborn! - - Part 11

[Rodrigo90]

Naw. I'm a God, man!

 

[Rodrigo90]

Well I'm suggesting Amber Heard...you know why?

BECAUSE I SAW THIS PIC, THAT'S WHY!!!!!

 

[gkokujin]

^ give her some prosthetic boobs and its a go.

 

[phoenixflight]

Well I think Gemma can 'look' just as much like Wonder Woman as any other actress cast in the role... it's about making the role hers once the actress has it!!!

 

[Midnight Black]

...then get a director who won't do that. So you get the superior talent and superior recognition of someone like Lawerence or Blunt or Knightly. If the director doesn't understand the appeal of the character, then the movie will suck anyway, and getting an actress with less presence and skill will help nothing except fans' personal visualizations.

Now where are these character actor-driven blockbusters? Are you thinking about ensemble films?

Whether their ensemble or not, blockbusters can be character or method acting driven.....Once again it depends on the story and the actor in the film/role.

If you want Lawrence that is fine. However, all I'm saying is don't overlook an actor just because their not "popular" or haven't won an oscar....yet. There are many fine actors that have not won oscars or even been nominated or aren't household names. I for one don't think that a WW film's success depends on the actress having won an oscar or being nominated. WW can work with a good or great lesser or unknown actress and a great supporting cast and script.

It's not like I'm saying cast one of the WWE Divas or anything. I think Atwell and Alexander were great in their Marvel movies and had a great cast around them. If one of them got the role I believe they would do well.

Guess it all comes down to what you feel an actor should possess to be considered bankable, a draw, or at the very least "good."

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

Hansel and Gretel is getting a sequel as far as I know. ..COTT wasn't a failure because of her and wasn't a failure anyway. Sequels success didn't have anything to do with her.

POP flopping or whatever wasn't her fault.

Just because her agent sucks at getting her jobs in things that aren't great doesn't mean she wouldn't hit gold at being WW.

exactly. i like how selective some people can be just because it suits their agenda.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

You gotta get a girl that's about 4-10 years old NOW. By the time Warner finally gets going on it Gemma Arterton will be 60.

Seriously, Marvel's already got a script for blankin' Miss Marvel . I don't see how more people could give a whatever about Miss Marvel than Wonder Woman. They don't. Because Marvel doesn't ask if anyone wants a Thor movie. They just make a Thor movie and get you to care through it.

THIS is the "Marvel Method" that Warner needs to actually do. Wonder Woman doesn't have any disadvantage that Ironman did when he started in movies. And now he's in his 3rd, succesfull movie.

 

[theOVOXO]

I guess this is confirmation of some small hope.
comic book movie .com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=79156

Even Geoff Johns doesn't wanna talk about Carano playing Wondy.

 

[Mad Love]

Hansel and Gretel is getting a sequel as far as I know. ..COTT wasn't a failure because of her and wasn't a failure anyway. Sequels success didn't have anything to do with her.

It's only getting a sequel because of the international BO and its by a small studio who doesn't have a ton of franchises like WB. Do you really think WW can fail domestically for WB?

I didn't say COTT was a failure but it wasn't her franchise to carry. She wasn't the star. She didn't have much to do with its success as the sequel showed by getting rid of her.

 

[Mad Love]

exactly. i like how selective some people can be just because it suits their agenda.

lol, you can say the same thing about people who want Gemma Arterton but some people can't handle negative things said about their favorite picks.

Gemma Arterton is a mediocre actor and isn't a close match to the character the same way the Caviil is Superman, Hemsworth is Thor, Jackman is Wolverine. I don't think she has much of a chance, but that's just by opinion or as you like to call it "agenda".

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

 

[BestGirl]

It's only getting a sequel because of the international BO and its by a small studio who doesn't have a ton of franchises like WB. Do you really think WW can fail domestically for WB?

I didn't say COTT was a failure but it wasn't her franchise to carry. She wasn't the star. She didn't have much to do with its success as the sequel showed by getting rid of her.

Outside of Lawrence, how many actresses can be said to have carried a movie to success?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Most actors regardless of gender can't make a movie a success solely based on their name. The primise has to be appealing. The biggest actors today who have that sort of power are RDJ, Will Smith and Tom Cruise. Because even Smith and Cruises disappointments make a lot of money. Women don't get to star in many widely appealing movies so it's hard to compare box office.

Lawrence hasn't played in enough hit movies to lable her a draw but she is on her way to becoming an A-lister and so is Emma Stone for that matter.

Why do some people on here believe that Wondy needs to be played by an A-lister? Spider-Man, Captain America (Evans was not an A-lister) and Thor were not played by A-listers and those films did just fine.

Also why are we still talking about an actress who is never going to play Wonder Woman? It's pie in the sky thinking that she wants the role.

 

[Midnight Black]

Give the role to the best actress suited for it, regardless of name, status, experience, etc. etc. Best actress in the role that captures WW and not the studio or director's interpretation of WW "oh she's a modern day career woman that finds out she is secretly from another world" or "A business woman turned rogue vigilante that uses her companies advances in tech to fight crime and protect the amazon rainforest."

Give me the WW that I know and I'll be happy

 

[Mad Love]

Outside of Lawrence, how many actresses can be said to have carried a movie to success?

All the one who have. In terms of those who people fan cast for WW, well I don't know all the actresses who have been suggested.

Olivia Wilde and Emily Blunt both had successful female leads.

I don't think Lawrence is a likely choice but she has a better shot than Arterton.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

Most actors regardless of gender can't make a movie a success solely based on their name. The primise has to be appealing. The biggest actors today who have that sort of power are RDJ, Will Smith and Tom Cruise. Because even Smith and Cruises disappointments make a lot of money.

Why do some people on here believe that Wondy needs to be played by an A-lister? Spider-Man, Captain America (Evans was not an A-lister) and Thor were not played by A-listers and those films did just fine.

this is why.

Women don't get to star in many widely appealing movies so it's hard to compare box office.

Also why are we still talking about an actress who is never going to play Wonder Woman? It's pie in the sky thinking that she wants the role.

you tell us. aren't you from the future?

 

[BestGirl]

All the one who have. In terms of those who people fan cast for WW, well I don't know all the actresses who have been suggested.

Lol, okay.

Olivia Wilde and Emily Blunt both had successful female leads.

I don't think Lawrence is a likely choice but she has a better shot than Arterton.

But were Blunt and Wilde the main leads in their movies? Usually a man is the main star and the woman plays a more supporting role.

 

[DrCosmic]

Give the role to the best actress suited for it, regardless of name, status, experience, etc. etc. Best actress in the role that captures WW and not the studio or director's interpretation of WW "oh she's a modern day career woman that finds out she is secretly from another world" or "A business woman turned rogue vigilante that uses her companies advances in tech to fight crime and protect the amazon rainforest."

Give me the WW that I know and I'll be happy

There's different valid interpretations of Wonder Woman. She's not like Batman/Superman where she's been mostly the same for 20-60 years.

Most actors regardless of gender can't make a movie a success solely based on their name. The primise has to be appealing. The biggest actors today who have that sort of power are RDJ, Will Smith and Tom Cruise. Because even Smith and Cruises disappointments make a lot of money. Women don't get to star in many widely appealing movies so it's hard to compare box office.

Lawrence hasn't played in enough hit movies to lable her a draw but she is on her way to becoming an A-lister and so is Emma Stone for that matter.

Why do some people on here believe that Wondy needs to be played by an A-lister? Spider-Man, Captain America (Evans was not an A-lister) and Thor were not played by A-listers and those films did just fine.

Also why are we still talking about an actress who is never going to play Wonder Woman? It's pie in the sky thinking that she wants the role.

You want someone with draw who has A-list potential. That's true of the films you named. It's true of every superhero film. WW is the only one where people seem to name TV actors, and people who have never wowed an audience or created a believable lovable character.

Outside of Lawrence, how many actresses can be said to have carried a movie to success?

I don't know if Lawrence has done that. The only actress who's really done so just on her name is Sandra Bullock. Maybe Julia Roberts at one time. There are a few actresses with real pull, outside of the old standbys like Andrews, Mirren, Close and near-40s types like Jolie, Anniston, Swank and Witherspoon. In the young age bracket: Lawrence, Knightley, Portman, Hathaway, Stone, Page, and yes, Stewart. Anna Kendrick is almost there imho. Of those, all (except possibly Stewart) have A-list potential. No surprise there's a lot of overlap there. Obviously, some are tied up in other superhero extravaganzas, but the issue is, fans generally don't want quality actresses as much as they want pin up girls. People are much more interested in Hayley Atwell's bazongas behind the Ws than the performance she gave on CA:TFA. For many, casting a Wonder Woman to fill out the suit is much more important than casting a Diana to give the character real heart. This is understandable because even in the comics, Diana often doesn't have real heart.

Whether their ensemble or not, blockbusters can be character or method acting driven.....Once again it depends on the story and the actor in the film/role.

If you want Lawrence that is fine. However, all I'm saying is don't overlook an actor just because their not "popular" or haven't won an oscar....yet. There are many fine actors that have not won oscars or even been nominated or aren't household names. I for one don't think that a WW film's success depends on the actress having won an oscar or being nominated. WW can work with a good or great lesser or unknown actress and a great supporting cast and script.

It's not like I'm saying cast one of the WWE Divas or anything. I think Atwell and Alexander were great in their Marvel movies and had a great cast around them. If one of them got the role I believe they would do well.

Guess it all comes down to what you feel an actor should possess to be considered bankable, a draw, or at the very least "good."

Like I said, I don't want Lawrence necessarily, and I have no problem with actors who aren't popular or have won Oscars so long as they show the potential to be very popular and win Oscars. This is what was done for previous superhero films, I wouldn't want any less for Wonder Woman.

So... are you saying these character-driven blockbusters are entirely theoretical? I mean, anything is possible, but in learning to do something new, you make mistakes, missteps and you go back and try again. Is that what you want for WW? Her to be someone 'trying out' some new storytelling techniques? Trying out and actress and hoping they do better than they've ever done rather than getting an actress that always does well?

On Casting Diana

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. They should be casting 'Diana' with the small caveat that the actress should be able to manifest some physicality. When we first meet the character, when she's in her version of the forgetten prison, or the solitary tugboat, we should instantly be able to identify and feel for this character. When this character talks, and emotes and vocalizes her struggle, we should be on board from then. Before there's any costume to fanwank over, or any sexiness to normal wank over, there should be a character that we can instantly identify with. That's the primary concern, especially for a female-led action film. Making her not a sex object first, but a person first, so that even when she become this incredible super-hawt superheroine, that's not how we define her. The Ws or Eagle and stars/whatever have meaning for us as more than just decoration for her breasts and buttocks. That's the key. The few successful female-centric western action films have done this. Tomb Raider. Kill Bill.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

this is why.
you tell us. aren't you from the future?

Stop being childish.

You think that it's likely that an actress who already has two franchises and other film roles is going to take time out of her busy career to somehow fit in another one time consuming shoot. I will play the "highly unlikely" card and you can play the over zealous fanboy whom unoriginally casts the latest "it girl" card. I think Lawrence is the real deal and I'm a big fan but I'm not annoyingly fancasting her for every role.

I guess it is a change of pace from Rachel McAdams fancasting...so theres that.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

I'll stop being childish when you stop being a presumptuous now it all. the only reason she was brought up in the first place was given the history of female leads in these sort of films and WB's likely apprehension given anything not related to nolan/bale in these sort of films. the combination of those things makes a wonder woman property different from a thor or a captain america. if you don't think she'd give the project instant credibility i don't know what to tell you. whether Lawrence is for it, gets her name thrown around the project is another story. i wouldn't know. I'm not her agent but you evidently are.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'll stop being childish when you stop being a presumptuous now it all. the only reason she was brought up in the first place was given the history of female leads in these sort of films and WB's likely apprehension given anything not related to nolan/bale in these sort of films. the combination of those things makes a wonder woman property different from a thor or a captain america. if you don't think she'd give the project instant credibility i don't know what to tell you. whether Lawrence is for it, gets her name thrown around the project is another story. i wouldn't know. I'm not her agent but you evidently are.

Another childish post. Yes you go on pretending that you don't know how Superhero Hype works.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

i don't want to fight anymore. sorry.

 

[theOVOXO]

On Casting Diana

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. They should be casting 'Diana' with the small caveat that the actress should be able to manifest some physicality. When we first meet the character, when she's in her version of the forgetten prison, or the solitary tugboat, we should instantly be able to identify and feel for this character. When this character talks, and emotes and vocalizes her struggle, we should be on board from then. Before there's any costume to fanwank over, or any sexiness to normal wank over, there should be a character that we can instantly identify with. That's the primary concern, especially for a female-led action film. Making her not a sex object first, but a person first, so that even when she become this incredible super-hawt superheroine, that's not how we define her. The Ws or Eagle and stars/whatever have meaning for us as more than just decoration for her breasts and buttocks. That's the key. The few successful female-centric western action films have done this. Tomb Raider. Kill Bill.

Good post, i completely agree 100%. Diana should be the compassionate, headstrong, stubborn, intelligent, and lovable Wonder Woman we've all come to known. This is why I liked the representation of her in the 2009 movie and in the new 52. She would go above and beyond just to save those who can't fend for themselves. I could care less about all that other stuff, just give me a good and enjoyable Wonder Woman movie that shows why she is a "Woman Wonder"

 

[Mad Love]

"compassionate, headstrong, stubborn, intelligent"

Can't these adjectives also apply to Superman and Batman?

On the same train of thought, what do you identify as Diana's quirks? Is Diana a more colorful/Marvel-like character than Superman or Batman? Is she just as serious?

 

[Venomfan]

this guy does amazing wonder woman art
http://jeffach.deviantart.com/art/Wonder-Woman-318122254