Wonder Woman Thread Reborn! - Part 5

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]365209[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]354615[/split]

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Thing ring do your thing.

 

[Lily Adler]

Oh! So it takes 1,002 posts before Thread Manager is summoned.

 

[Isub_Zero]

When doing the Amazon origin you don't have to focus on it more then 5-10 minutes, IMO. You can explain everything with a Voice Over and some photoes' stills or if you really wants to... some fast scenes from their origin. This kind of approach for the origin wouldn't be the first time something like this was done... Look at the Mommys films for examples.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'm just ready for the Amazon Princess to be visually updated into the 21st century. I talking about the lasso and the bullet deflecting stuff. Something eyepopping like the wonder spin was to the 70s WW.

 

[Matt.S99]

What route story wise would you guys want the movie to go in? Perez Run? Jimeinez, Simone etc?

 

[batdude]

Either Perez or Rucka would probably work best. The only thing is neither really featured Steve Trevor so you might need a new love interest.

 

[DrCosmic]

It helps answer an important question: where in the world did these people come from? The tournament works for all those things you mentioned when it's accepted, but it requires an information dump within an information dump for most, and that's rarely compelling. Take Thor for instance- the Frost Giant event was all they needed to establish the character, but without the brilliantly condensed intro the whole world lacks context and groundedness.

And I guess that's my counterpoint, the tournament, like Superman's rocket, invites questions. Who were these people and where did they come from, what are the rules for these abilities so that I can have narrative tension later? The difference is that the rocket question has been answered so many times it's really and truly common knowledge. You have to establish the world that the character lives in, one where alien races are real and gods still sit atop their thrones. The Tournament, as sufficient for the character as it is, doesn't do that.

It would have to come down to plot and the villains she'll be fighting. Explaining the origins of the Amazons and the tournament is a considerable amount of time. For once I'd like to see a mainstream superhero that doesn't require an origin. If he or she can do what's right the audience will buy into it quickly. The reluctant hero archtype is old and tired.

A wacko who shoots a crowd of people is obviously a villain. A person who stops such villains and saves people is a hero. People who question them by their gender or appearance is obviously bent. (Forget that video where a Batman fan tried to entrap a paedophile. That was stupid of him.)

I don't know how to explain all of this, but in general, I think fans underestimate how much they know. Just because you show a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy' does not mean the audience will buy into it. They make recognize a hero, that doesn't mean that they will like them, be interested in them, care if they live or die, or pay money to see them.

But the Frost Giants play a part in the climax of the story. Even without the entirety of who and what they are, for the revelation about Loki and the finale to make sense you needed them explained.

I'm not saying don't ever explain the Amazons but unless Doom's Doorway is involved, I don't think how and why the Amazons are on a island is that important as a standalone feature. Just like Bats' training without Ducard is essentially B89. You don't need to know why he's so awesomely trained. Just that he is.

Batman is different because you can intuitively understand how he learned skills, just like everyone else on the planet does. If Diana is lifting buildings... what says she doesn't have the power to instantly end conflicts. If Diana can do it, why doesn't she call on a few dozen of her homegirls to do the same feats. You have to establish the world, or else no one will care about the characters. You can't leave room for the audience to wonder 'well if X, why not Y?' or you'll lose them. (Well, maybe a little, but then you have to cover it up with excitement so that they can't possibly think about it during the movie)

The Frost Giants serve the purpose you describe, they also serve the purpose of establishing Thor as a character at the beginning. That's just good storytelling, using a single entity to explain both a technical and emotional story point. Contrast this with the type of one-line explanations fans appreciate.

Again, I'm sure it can be done, but I don't think that just starting the tournament and having Hippolyta spout a constant stream of exposition is very attractive or interesting.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Either Perez or Rucka would probably work best. The only thing is neither really featured Steve Trevor so you might need a new love interest.

For commercial reasons, it's safest to use Steve Trevor. He's one of the Wonder Woman world's more well known peripheral details. Fans of the Lynda Carter series (which almost solely defines WW in the public's mind) will be familiar with him.

Steve also provides something that will appeal to younger boys. It's easier to sell WW to the very young male audience (who isn't interested in sex yet) if a man's man like Steve respects her. Having military involvement will also benefit the movie the way it did for Michael Bay's Transformers series. It'd be easier to portray big battles with the military's backing, and the movie could throw in lots of eye candy for the Modern Warfare crowd.

I'd use a lot of elements from Perez, since he did so much to define the epic mythology of Wonder Woman. But I wouldn't let so many people hold her hand through things, the way Perez did. One thing that irked me about his early issues is that Diana had the Olympians, Julia Kapetelis, and occasionally Steve and his military friends around all the time, saving Diana or keeping her from taking charge as I thought she should have. I'd try to portray a more grown up and confident heroine who's trying to prove herself out in the strangeness of Man's World.

A part of me wants the Diana Prince identity that Perez never used, since it's such a familiar part of her public image. Also, because I feel that Steve Trevor should be used no matter what. It allows for more fish out of water moments, and for Diana to have relatively normal relationships with regular people. But explaining how she passes background checks and manages to work for the military is going to be HARD. The original Golden Age explanation of Diana coming across an exact look alike who wanted to sell her identity and run away strains credibility. I don't know if a more plausible explanation has ever been written, without relying on factors that are completely external to WW's corner of the universe.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

you could work the espionage route from the seventies series and have her work WITH the government.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

I think that the tournament is too important to omit. WW haters bash the character for supposedly not having a consistent mythology, even though the tournament has been a pretty consistent part of the character's major portrayals. The original Golden Age comics, the Lynda Carter series, the Perez reboot, and the 2009 DVD movie.

And no, I don't think you can skip the origin. Fanboys always say you can skip X character's origin, but they're so much more familiar with the backstories than the mainstream public that will make up more than 99% of the movie's audience. You can get away with not showing the origin of Superman and Batman a little more, since they've had so many more adaptations over the years. Even so, Batman Begins shows the benefit of starting from the beginning, while Superman Returns shows how risky and dangerous it can be to leave young new viewers in the dark.

Audiences want to be brought onboard and taken for a ride. They want to know and love the characters they're watching. A movie like Superman Returns (which I'm not even bashing here, I think it's flawed but overly criticized by the fan community) was like a slap in the face to new viewers. Imagine being a young kid sitting in the theater for your first Superman movie. Then the movie starts by telling you that you already missed everything that makes him Superman. That's a turn off right there.

Even Superman couldn't avoid that pitfall. I seriously doubt Wonder Woman, who hasn't had a major public adaptation in more than three decades, can.

The tournament also demonstrates important things about the character. It shows her strong desire to escape her sheltered life on Themyscira to see the world, and underlines her conflicts with ther mother. Not to mention that the tournament will also allow for some more kickass action scenes. It's too good to just throw away.

 

[Red Mask]

I don't know how to explain all of this, but in general, I think fans underestimate how much they know. Just because you show a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy' does not mean the audience will buy into it. They make recognize a hero, that doesn't mean that they will like them, be interested in them, care if they live or die, or pay money to see them.

If the audience doesn't like a hero for doing noble, brave acts then they've become too jaded. We're not selling Watchmen, Megamind, or Despicable Me here.

And I've never met somebody who applauded a criminal for shooting up a crowd of people.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Batman is different because you can intuitively understand how he learned skills, just like everyone else on the planet does. If Diana is lifting buildings... what says she doesn't have the power to instantly end conflicts. If Diana can do it, why doesn't she call on a few dozen of her homegirls to do the same feats. You have to establish the world, or else no one will care about the characters. You can't leave room for the audience to wonder 'well if X, why not Y?' or you'll lose them. (Well, maybe a little, but then you have to cover it up with excitement so that they can't possibly think about it during the movie)

The Frost Giants serve the purpose you describe, they also serve the purpose of establishing Thor as a character at the beginning. That's just good storytelling, using a single entity to explain both a technical and emotional story point. Contrast this with the type of one-line explanations fans appreciate.

Again, I'm sure it can be done, but I don't think that just starting the tournament and having Hippolyta spout a constant stream of exposition is very attractive or interesting.

Weirdly, I don't disagree with the points your making, but I do disagree with the amount of emphasis you place on what world building people expect.

I think fantasy movies allow you to get away with a lot of non-world building if it's not important to the immediate story. Take Inception for example. We only get a very small amount of world-building yet we know this device isn't something very few people know about. The movie leaves a lot of questions about how Cobb and his associates fit into the larger narrative of how they got such a weapon and how exactly others use it since it's something businessmen have been trained to resist.

I'm not saying the Amazons shouldn't be explained but as an origin story, I don't think all the how and whys need to be answered since the protagonist, Diana, isn't actually involved in it(that's more Hippolyta's story), and the antagonist of the film doesn't involve it(unless it's like the animated movie). Diana's story really begins at the tournament. Her actions propel the story from that point forward.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

you could work the espionage route from the seventies series and have her work WITH the government.

That seems to be what the DCnU origin involves. She has Steve as her handler upon first arriving so the government is directly tied to her. Diana Prince doesn't seem to exist though.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

The Amazons' origins can be handled quite easily and quickly, IMO. Start with snippets of an ancient battle, along with a voiceover from Hippolyta that explains things. It's not boring exposition if it's presented as an entertaining series of scenes.

That's how Fellowship of the Ring started. It had the task of explaining Sauron the rings, things that existed long before Frodo came along.

 

[NigelHalsey]

How about Shailene Woodley for a young Diana.

 

[Isub_Zero]

Shailene's body looks too fragile IMO. It reminds me Olivia Wilde's body in a way, so... Can we get someone a bit more robust here?

 

[Airwings]

Now that people think that Neve Campbell is too old for the part (just want to tell you that she DIDN'T look that way in Scream 4, but just right)..... how about Emma Roberts after some months at the gym?
Emma can replace the old Mischa Barton suggestion that floated around some years ago.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Now that people think that Neve Campbell is too old for the part (just want to tell you that she DIDN'T look that way in Scream 4, but just right)..... how about Emma Roberts after some months at the gym?
Emma can replace the old Mischa Barton suggestion that floated around some years ago.

Huh? This thread's going downhill fast.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

So I was thinking of what city to use as representation of Gateway City.


I thought Philly would probably be a good city.

 

[Airwings]

Huh? This thread's going downhill fast.

You either think Emma Roberts is a bad actress, or just a little girl. The latter will change atleast. And a Wonder Woman film might lay 10 years into the future.
But then I guess people will come and claim she's too old.

 

[BruceWanner]

Emmy Rossum, anyone?

 

[Any Carolina]

Emily is my favorite yet.

 

[DrCosmic]

If the audience doesn't like a hero for doing noble, brave acts then they've become too jaded. We're not selling Watchmen, Megamind, or Despicable Me here.

Not too jaded for someone who takes the time to tell a good story, instead of just expecting/demanding everyone to automatically something just cuz.

And I've never met somebody who applauded a criminal for shooting up a crowd of people.

Most action movies feature just that. It just so happens that the criminal is doing it for the greater good and the crowds of people are 'evil.'

Weirdly, I don't disagree with the points your making, but I do disagree with the amount of emphasis you place on what world building people expect.

I think fantasy movies allow you to get away with a lot of non-world building if it's not important to the immediate story. Take Inception for example. We only get a very small amount of world-building yet we know this device isn't something very few people know about. The movie leaves a lot of questions about how Cobb and his associates fit into the larger narrative of how they got such a weapon and how exactly others use it since it's something businessmen have been trained to resist.

I'm not saying the Amazons shouldn't be explained but as an origin story, I don't think all the how and whys need to be answered since the protagonist, Diana, isn't actually involved in it(that's more Hippolyta's story), and the antagonist of the film doesn't involve it(unless it's like the animated movie). Diana's story really begins at the tournament. Her actions propel the story from that point forward.

Inception did a LOT of worldbuilding, though. You knew exactly how Cobb and crew fit into the universe and what the device did. They showed it to us. What they didn't do was explain how they all got there, because that wasn't important to any of the characters. Exposition without exposition. Top notch writing.

Her story does begin at the tournament, but without context, the tournament doesn't make sense. Why a tournament to find an ambassador? Why should I care who wins? Why not just send ten or twelve amazons? The tournament stands on a fictional and sometimes contradictory culture. It can't be presented as is. There has to be buy in first.

Without context, the tournament is something the audience is demanded to accept just cuz. It needs some set up, or it needs to be reconstructed in order to be more familiar/similar to some real life event.

Of course it can be done. Perhaps the tournament is a flashback that occurs later in the film. We already care about Diana and just want to know how she got here. But the tournament can't be the introduction, because the tournament itself has a story that is not intuitive to the audience.