Wonder Woman script, what's taking so long?
Ken from Chicago
the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long? The story
pert near writes itself:
Prologue: Diana in a fight scene on Themyscira when Steve Trevor crashes the
party.
Title Sequence
Act 1: Diana gives Trevor (and the audience) the tour of the island
Act 2: Diana fights and destroys a monster who escaped the island--on tv and
becomes a star, and gets the star treatment while touring "Man's World".
Act 3: Diana discovers the dark side of fame and humanity--and that the
monster had laid eggs or spawned or something which have hatched / born.
Act 4: Diana has a big ole battle with multiple monsters and sees in a time
of crisis that not just the worst but also the best of humanity.
Epilog: With monsters dead, Diana decides to stay to make a difference.
See? It's not that hard. It's part SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and part BEHIND THE
MUSIC. You don't have to be some nuclear scientician to knock this out.
Okay, sure, that's only a rough outline, but the rest is just filling in the
logical--and in Whedon's case, brilliant and humorous--details.
-- Ken from Chicago (who not looking for devils in details)
P.S. Diana could also go home and promise to return, but WONDER WOMAN
RETURNS might not be so popular anymore.
badth...@yahoo.com
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> It's been two years since word broke on Buffy creator, Joss Whedon, writing
> the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long? The story
> pert near writes itself:
>
> Prologue: Diana in a fight scene on Themyscira when Steve Trevor crashes the
> party.
>
> Title Sequence
>
> Act 1: Diana gives Trevor (and the audience) the tour of the island
>
> Act 2: Diana fights and destroys a monster who escaped the island--on tv and
> becomes a star, and gets the star treatment while touring "Man's World".
>
> Act 3: Diana discovers the dark side of fame and humanity--and that the
> monster had laid eggs or spawned or something which have hatched / born.
>
> Act 4: Diana has a big ole battle with multiple monsters and sees in a time
> of crisis that not just the worst but also the best of humanity.
>
> Epilog: With monsters dead, Diana decides to stay to make a difference.
>
> See? It's not that hard.
Dude, that's kinda dull and has nothing to do with what Diana is all
about. Joss is taking his time so that every single person makes the
same kind of wisecrack the way they did on Buffy and in Astonishing
X-Men.
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> It's been two years since word broke on Buffy creator, Joss Whedon,
> writing the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long?
I'm happy for the man to take as long as he feels he needs to get it
right. I think it's a tremendously difficult concept to bring to modern
audiences in just the right way, but have a good deal of faith he'll be
able to pull it off. I'm *glad* he's not just knocking it out by the
numbers.
(And I sincerely hope he's gotten copies--now well-marked up by his
notes--of the 60 Perez issues, as well as Morrison's JLA use of Diana,
the Dini/Ross tabloid, and Rucka's Hiketia.)
--
Peace,
George
Pat O'Neill
George wrote:
> (And I sincerely hope he's gotten copies--now well-marked up by his
> notes--of the 60 Perez issues, as well as Morrison's JLA use of Diana,
> the Dini/Ross tabloid, and Rucka's Hiketia.)
As much as I liked Perez's version, that one is a long way from the
warrior woman the vast majority of movie goers will be expecting to
see. The last thing you want is a whole lot of folks coming out of the
theater asking "Since when is Wonder Woman like that?"
Ken from Chicago
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TLudnRj4oroykkPZ...@comcast.com...
> It's been two years since word broke on Buffy creator, Joss Whedon,
> writing the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long? The
> story pert near writes itself:
>
> Prologue: Diana in a fight scene on Themyscira when Steve Trevor crashes
> the party.
>
> Title Sequence
>
> Act 1: Diana gives Trevor (and the audience) the tour of the island
>
> Act 2: Diana fights and destroys a monster who escaped the island--on tv
> and becomes a star, and gets the star treatment while touring "Man's
> World".
Woops, shoulda made this clear this was after (or while) returning Trevor to
the US.
> Act 3: Diana discovers the dark side of fame and humanity--and that the
> monster had laid eggs or spawned or something which have hatched / born.
>
> Act 4: Diana has a big ole battle with multiple monsters and sees in a
> time of crisis that not just the worst but also the best of humanity.
>
> Epilog: With monsters dead, Diana decides to stay to make a difference.
>
> See? It's not that hard. It's part SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and part BEHIND THE
> MUSIC. You don't have to be some nuclear scientician to knock this out.
> Okay, sure, that's only a rough outline, but the rest is just filling in
> the logical--and in Whedon's case, brilliant and humorous--details.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago (who not looking for devils in details)
>
> P.S. Diana could also go home and promise to return, but WONDER WOMAN
> RETURNS might not be so popular anymore.
-- Ken from Chicago
swintronix
"Pat O'Neill" <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1155413621.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think the only expectation had by "the vast majority of movie goers" is
that Wonder Woman is the female Superman. Ask anybody's mom, and that's
pretty much what they know about Wonder Woman. The might remember form the
TV show 30 years ago that she's an Amazon from Paradise Island, and isn't
she Superman's wife?
Ken from Chicago
<badth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155404034.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You mean more like this?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/2b12a67868d4daa9
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Pat O'Neill" <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1155413621.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Pat's right. The mainstream audience knows of Wonder Woman:
--Paradise Island (Women's only)
--Super powers
--Bullet-proof bracelets
--Magic lasso
--Steve Trevor (military pilot)
--Invisible jet
I think the invisible jet could be retconned as Trevor's jet magically
remade by Queen Hyppolata (she's good with magic clay). A side effect of the
magic being it too has the same invisibility cloak as the island. It would
explain why a Wonder Woman who can fly on her own has a jet, and an
invisible one at that.
-- Ken from Chicago
junior-kun
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> It's been two years since word broke on Buffy creator, Joss Whedon, writing
> the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long? The story
> pert near writes itself:
>
> Prologue: Diana in a fight scene on Themyscira when Steve Trevor crashes the
> party.
>
> Title Sequence
>
> Act 1: Diana gives Trevor (and the audience) the tour of the island
>
> Act 2: Diana fights and destroys a monster who escaped the island--on tv and
> becomes a star, and gets the star treatment while touring "Man's World".
>
> Act 3: Diana discovers the dark side of fame and humanity--and that the
> monster had laid eggs or spawned or something which have hatched / born.
>
> Act 4: Diana has a big ole battle with multiple monsters and sees in a time
> of crisis that not just the worst but also the best of humanity.
>
> Epilog: With monsters dead, Diana decides to stay to make a difference.
>
> See? It's not that hard. It's part SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and part BEHIND THE
> MUSIC. You don't have to be some nuclear scientician to knock this out.
> Okay, sure, that's only a rough outline, but the rest is just filling in the
> logical--and in Whedon's case, brilliant and humorous--details.
Needs a better villian than a random monster. Alan Moore commented
that Wonder Woman lacked a good villian when he wrote the Wonder Woman
knock off, Glory. Alan Moore solution was to Lillith, a creepy villian
inspired by Loki from Marvel's Thor comic and the Witch in Disney's
Sleeping Beauty.
Does Wonder Woman have any decent villians?
Pat O'Neill
junior-kun wrote:
> Does Wonder Woman have any decent villians?
Done right, either Dr. Psycho or Mars are pretty damned good villains
for WW.
Martin Phipps
> It's been two years since word broke on Buffy creator, Joss Whedon, writing
> the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long?
I had heard that the script had been approved but the imdb says that
"Whedon is currently writing the script" and that Wonder Woman still
has not been officially cast. It may be that they want the budget to
come in under 100 million so they can make that money back domestically
in the theatres, knowing that Wonder Woman is unlikely to make more
money than Superman or Batman. Here's what Joss Whedon and Joel Silver
have to say.
http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/000495675.cfm?page=2
(Monday, June 19, 2006)
WHEDON: I am having enormous trouble with the ["Wonder Woman"
movie] script. It's going very well and I'm loving life, but
because it's only at script stage and there will be no discussion of
casting before, I don't really deal with that. No, it's weird,
I'm in my office and it's just me.
BENDIS: Are you dressed as Wonder Woman?
WHEDON: Occasionally.
BENDIS: Okay, because that was the other rumor.
WHEDON: Whatever it takes to get me in the mood.
BENDIS: [Laughs]
WHEDON: It's kept me busy for a long time. I'm finally finishing
the second draft. I'm very happy with it, but wow! Wow, this one was
like pulling teeth. It's tough. I would watch "Batman Begins" and
just grumble, just bitch and moan, because he's got everything.
He's got so much of the work done for him. He's got the best
rogues' gallery. He's got the best origin story. Wonder Woman is a
lot more to figure out. But it's coming together.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=4543
(Saturday, July 22, 2006)
In this exclusive interview with ComingSoon.net/SuperheroHype.com from
the San Diego Comic-Con, where Silver was promoting his latest horror
thriller The Reaping starring Hilary Swank, we asked him some of those
unasked questions.
"It was after I made 'The Matrix' when I saw the response of the first
tests and I realized the Trinity character was the highest-tested
character," he told us. "This was before they had done 'Charlie's
Angels' or 'Elektra' or any of these movies, and I thought, 'Let's just
go out and try to make Wonder Woman work,' and I could never find a
script that I liked, but we're close now."
And what made him think of getting Joss Whedon to write and direct it?
"I just thought he would be the perfect guy to write it. I love Buffy
and he's a great writer. I sat down with him and asked if he'd do it,
and he wrote me a note where he passed, and in the note, he explained
what the movie had to be. There was no way I was going to let him pass,
so I hammered him until he said, 'Yes.'"
When asked about the general take that Joss took with the movie, Silver
explained, "It's the origin story. It has mythology. Steve Trevor
crashes on the island and they go back to Man's World."
"We have a script and we know where we're going," he responded when
asked about where they are in the casting process. "She'll probably be
someone you never saw before, because she's very young, but I think
we'll have a good time with it."
Silver also responded to whether he has any worries about making the
movie after the weak box office openings for other movies based on the
big DC characters like Batman Begins and Superman Returns. "I love
Batman and Superman, I love them both," he said. "I'm just trying to
get the best version of the movie that I can. It's the trifecta. Those
are the three oaks of DC Comics. I mean, Marvel Comics have tended to
be hipper and cooler in many ways because they were designed to react
against the DC Comics, but the DC Comics characters were the real deal,
so we're trying to get this right."
So it looks like they are finally at the casting stage. There may be
an announcement soon.
Martin
Duggy
> It's been two years since word broke on Buffy creator, Joss Whedon, writing
> the script for Wonder Woman, the movie. What's taking so long? The story
> pert near writes itself:
It pretty near writes itself if you've read any Wondy or watched the
show.
JW claims he hasn't done either and is having trouble with the script
because Wondy doesn't have a history like Batman does.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Mars is too Xena (I know, Mars predates Xena as does Wondy, but to the
non-comic community, it's too Xena)
===
= DUG.
===
Ken from Chicago
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1155464737....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I'm sure in the TWO YEARS since Whedon has picked up a comic and possibly a
dvd. Whedon's too good a writer to NOT do basic research. I could see him
wanting to avoid mimicking previous work, but then again, WW isn't like this
deeply complex character. Her persona can be summed up on two words:
Noblesse oblige
She is royalty, PRINCESS Diana, and yet because of that royal heritage she
feels obligated help the helpless. She feels obligated to give back because
she was given so much. She was also raised as a warrior and feels the need
not just to speak and inspire but to act, and act directly.
It also ticks her off, well, royally, to see people suffer and suffer
needlessly. That's what gets her to stay in Man's World and not just hide
away at home. If there is an internal struggle it's righteous indignation,
royal indignation to just act, to do what's right and for others to do
so--and they don't--that wars with knowing the abuses of literally lording
it over and the dangerous of be authoritarian even with the best of
intentions. That's the lesson she learned from the Greek gods who eventually
left this dimension, mostly, and the cautionary example she's seen in those
Greek gods who keep meddling.
-- Ken from Chicago
Edward McArdle
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
You think the public *remembers* Xena?
It was about fifteen years ago, wasn't it?
--
my URL,
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Ken from Chicago
"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-F27C2D...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Try a third of that. XWP ran from 1995 ending in 2001.
-- Ken from Chicago
Duggy
> I'm sure in the TWO YEARS since Whedon has picked up a comic and possibly a
> dvd. Whedon's too good a writer to NOT do basic research. I could see him
> wanting to avoid mimicking previous work, but then again, WW isn't like this
> deeply complex character.
He still complains that things aren't set out like Batman. Which is
bull. He's just not attached to and doesn't know the story like he
does Batman.
===
= DUG.
===
Wayne S Garmil
complete rewrite on the pilot sequence of the script, then they
wanted a completely new opening sequence the day before shooting
began, then they said that all scenes need to be able to be aired in
any order since they will be using a random number generator to
determine which scenes come when, then they cancelled the movie half
way through filming.
Oh, wait, that was how Weadon had to make Firefly. Nevermind :-)
Wayne
--
_ __ _ __ | I see the girls walk by dressed in
' ) / // / / ) / | their summer clothes; I have to turn
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ | my head until my darkness goes...
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ | -Rolling Stones, "Paint It Black"
Ken from Chicago
"Wayne S Garmil" <wga...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:ebnbt4$man$1...@pcls4.std.com...
Wait til you see Wonder Woman foil Greek gods trying to rob a train!
-- Ken from Chicago
George
>
> George wrote:
>
>> (And I sincerely hope he's gotten copies--now well-marked up by his
>> notes--of the 60 Perez issues, as well as Morrison's JLA use of Diana,
>> the Dini/Ross tabloid, and Rucka's Hiketia.)
>
> As much as I liked Perez's version, that one is a long way from the
> warrior woman the vast majority of movie goers will be expecting to
> see.
Have you read those stories lately? A "long way from the warrior
woman"? Huh? Perez's Diana was more in line with the warrior woman
archetype than nearly any version of WW that had been offered in the
previous 20 years, at least--she (and her "sisters" and mother) are
dressed in armor and carrying shields half the time. Don't let he youth
and (initial) naivete that Perez gave her distract you: his Wonder
Woman knew how to kick ass, and did so with great regularity.
Besides, we both know that what *most* of the public is going to expect
out of a WW movie isn't a warrior woman, but rather one who spins
around a lot, catches things with a shiny lasso, and flies in an
invisible plane, occasionally deflecting bullets off her bracelets and
jumping really far. WW's probably got about as distorted a persona (vis
a vis the comics) in the minds of the general public as any character
this side of Aquaman.
Which is part of why I think any film version now is going to be a
tough act, and why I'm glad Whedon is taking his time.
>
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>
> "Pat O'Neill" <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1155413621.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> George wrote:
>>
>>> (And I sincerely hope he's gotten copies--now well-marked up by his
>>> notes--of the 60 Perez issues, as well as Morrison's JLA use of Diana,
>>> the Dini/Ross tabloid, and Rucka's Hiketia.)
>>
>> As much as I liked Perez's version, that one is a long way from the
>> warrior woman the vast majority of movie goers will be expecting to
>> see. The last thing you want is a whole lot of folks coming out of the
>> theater asking "Since when is Wonder Woman like that?"
>
> Pat's right.
Actually, if you re-read the Perez stories, you'll see he got it
exactly backwards, as I explained in my reply to his post. The general
public doesn't think of WW as a "warrior woman" at all--but that's one
of the things that Perez's version put (back) on the front burner quite
nicely. I agree with your list of the things that the mainstream
audience will tend to know about her:
> The mainstream audience knows of Wonder Woman:
> --Paradise Island (Women's only)
Which Perez's version played in a significantly less campy way than
either the WW TV series or the Crosby made for TV movies had. (And
without the nudge-nudge wink-wink giggles...)
> --Super powers
But generally not mixing it up in a knock down fight. The general
public knows WW has super strength, but they picture her jumping really
high and bending prison bars apart, not swinging broadswords and
chopping off monsters' heads (as Perez's does) or going into serious,
bruised knuckle fighting.
> --Bullet-proof bracelets
Yup. (Notice, too, how Perez played these down a bit--she wasn't using
them every five seconds.)
> --Magic lasso
Yup.
> --Steve Trevor (military pilot)
Yup. Again, Perez took a different approach to the character from what
the mainstream tends to know/expect.
> --Invisible jet
Yup.
>
> I think the invisible jet could be retconned as Trevor's jet magically
> remade by Queen Hyppolata (she's good with magic clay). A side effect
> of the magic being it too has the same invisibility cloak as the
> island. It would explain why a Wonder Woman who can fly on her own has
> a jet, and an invisible one at that.
I hope to Hera Whedon and others involved have the good sense to forget
the invisible jet altogether--the visuals for it will always, always,
always look stoopid, no matter how sophisticated they are. She doesn't
need it--let her fly.
--
Peace,
George
George
>
> Does Wonder Woman have any decent villians?
Ares, God of War.
(Also decent: Dr. Psycho, Circe.)
--
Peace,
George
George
Not that long ago, but you're right: the mainstream movie-going
audience the film should be aimed at won't give a fig that Xena fought
Mars, since precious few of them ever watched Xena. (And those hardcore
Xena fans who would attend a WW film would be savvy enough in the genre
and in mythology to know that Xena had no particular claim on
Mars/Ares--especially not over Wonder Woman.)
I think, for this film to resonate fully, the stakes need to be *huge*.
Wonder Woman needs to take on a god (and his minions, of course) in
widescreen and kick his Olympian ass in order to change the public
perceptions of the character.
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>
> "Wayne S Garmil" <wga...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
> news:ebnbt4$man$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>> What's the delay? I thought it was obvious. First Fox wanted a
>> complete rewrite on the pilot sequence of the script, then they
>> wanted a completely new opening sequence the day before shooting
>> began, then they said that all scenes need to be able to be aired in
>> any order since they will be using a random number generator to
>> determine which scenes come when, then they cancelled the movie half
>> way through filming.
>>
>> Oh, wait, that was how Weadon had to make Firefly. Nevermind :-)
>>
>>
>
> Wait til you see Wonder Woman foil Greek gods trying to rob a train!
Joss could do a lot worse than think of WW as personality cross between
Inara and Zoe.
--
Peace,
George
George Peatty
>I think, for this film to resonate fully, the stakes need to be *huge*.
>Wonder Woman needs to take on a god (and his minions, of course) in
>widescreen and kick his Olympian ass in order to change the public
>perceptions of the character.
Okay, how about Wonder Woman v Xena?
Pat O'Neill
George wrote:
> On 2006-08-12 16:13:41 -0400, "Pat O'Neill" <patdo...@verizon.net> said:
>
> >
> > George wrote:
> >
> >> (And I sincerely hope he's gotten copies--now well-marked up by his
> >> notes--of the 60 Perez issues, as well as Morrison's JLA use of Diana,
> >> the Dini/Ross tabloid, and Rucka's Hiketia.)
> >
> > As much as I liked Perez's version, that one is a long way from the
> > warrior woman the vast majority of movie goers will be expecting to
> > see.
>
> Have you read those stories lately? A "long way from the warrior
> woman"? Huh? Perez's Diana was more in line with the warrior woman
> archetype than nearly any version of WW that had been offered in the
> previous 20 years, at least--she (and her "sisters" and mother) are
> dressed in armor and carrying shields half the time. Don't let he youth
> and (initial) naivete that Perez gave her distract you: his Wonder
> Woman knew how to kick ass, and did so with great regularity.
>
But WW comes to "man's world" in the Perez version as an "ambassador of
peace". The public will be expecting a superhero, not a diplomat.
Ken from Chicago
"George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2006081317394475249-geeluvss@netscapenet...
I agree an actual invisible jet is unnecessary entirely. That's why I
tweaked the idea in "my" trailer by having WW touring Man's World, including
a museum, say the Smithsonian and running across the F-22 jetfighter, aka
the "Invisible Jet".
However if TPTB insist on including one, I could see it being retcon as a
remake of Trevor's jet even so much that Trevor could fly it--which could be
a nice plot point for later in the movie. Also I think JLU's version had the
jet invisible from the OUTSIDE but on the inside it was visible, and very
high tech.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
news:pv8vd25gjptul4ja5...@4ax.com...
Collisseum, steel cage or mud pit?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
If Gina Torres wasn't my age, but a decade or so young, I wouldn't mind her
cast as WW. After all, WW is spose to be an "Amazon".
-- Ken from Chicago
George Peatty
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>I think, for this film to resonate fully, the stakes need to be *huge*.
>>>Wonder Woman needs to take on a god (and his minions, of course) in
>>>widescreen and kick his Olympian ass in order to change the public
>>>perceptions of the character.
>> Okay, how about Wonder Woman v Xena?
>Collisseum, steel cage or mud pit?
Yes.
Edward McArdle
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:mcardle-F27C2D...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> >
> > You think the public *remembers* Xena?
> >
> > It was about fifteen years ago, wasn't it?
> >
> > --
> > my URL,
> > http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
>
> Try a third of that. XWP ran from 1995 ending in 2001.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
I *was* joking. Obviously not very well.
James Gassaway
hours after the movie has finished shooting and editing?
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
Martin Phipps
> Is there where I point out that no movie script is done until at least 24
> hours after the movie has finished shooting and editing?
At some point between June 19th and July 22nd, Josh Whedon submitted a
script to Joel Silver that he could run with. In the meantime, a
rumour came out that Josh Whedon wanted Priyanka Chopra for the role.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wonder+Woman+Bollywood&btnG=Google+Search
Either the stidio nixed that idea or Priyanka Chopra turned him down.
Nevertheless, the fact that Josh (presumably) is even thinking about
who to get as Wonder Woman is another indication that the script is
ready. Obviously filming can't begin until Wonder Woman is cast. Now,
the bigger question is whether the movie is even greenlit. As of three
weeks ago, Joel Silver was still enthusiastic, but I don't see it being
ready for 2007 and 2008 might be a busy year for Supergero movies with
Iron Man, Wolverine and the Dark Knight so Wonder Woman might get
pushed back to 2009 with a sequel to Superman Returns coming out in
2010. Warner Brothers would be wise to hedge their bets and not have
their own heroes compete with each other at the box office.
Martin
Christian Smith
<martin...@yahoo.com> wrote
>James Gassaway wrote:
>> Is there where I point out that no movie script is done until at least 24
>> hours after the movie has finished shooting and editing?
>
>At some point between June 19th and July 22nd, Josh Whedon submitted a
>script to Joel Silver that he could run with. In the meantime, a
>rumour came out that Josh Whedon wanted Priyanka Chopra for the role.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wonder+Woman+Bollywood&btnG=Google+Search
>
>Either the stidio nixed that idea or Priyanka Chopra turned him down.
>Nevertheless, the fact that Josh (presumably) is even thinking about
>who to get as Wonder Woman is another indication that the script is
>ready.
>
Joss, Joss, Joss, JOSS!!
;-)
Christian
--
"Wonder Woman is missing, and she's been replaced by Donna Troy, The
Continuity Error That Walks Like A Woman".
Paul O'Brien 11/06/06
Devlin Tay
"Pat O'Neill" <patdo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> But WW comes to "man's world" in the Perez version as an "ambassador of
> peace". The public will be expecting a superhero, not a diplomat.
An ambassador of peace with a lot of superheroics and ass-kicking (and the
occasional head-chopping) on the side. What's your point?
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Shaun
George wrote:
> I'm happy for the man to take as long as he feels he needs to get it
> right. I think it's a tremendously difficult concept to bring to modern
> audiences in just the right way, but have a good deal of faith he'll be
> able to pull it off. I'm *glad* he's not just knocking it out by the
> numbers.
>
I agree... I'm not so familiar with WW that I can really offer an
opinion of what they should do to make this film the right way. Most of
my WW knowledge comes from the Justice League cartoon, to be honest.
Will they do something more rooted in mythology and gods, or something
more concerning a threat to "our" world, or a combination of the two?
Don't know, but I'm guessing this is not an easy character to write for
and make accessible to a mainstream audience. I'm also guessing that,
with the disappointing showing of Supes Returns WB really wants to get
WW right (same with the Flash project). Have some faith in Whedon.
Whenever he gets it made, I think it'll be a great film. Mostly, I'm
just stoked for Batman: The Dark Knight in two years!
Shaun
Shaun
Martin Phipps wrote:
> Silver also responded to whether he has any worries about making the
> movie after the weak box office openings for other movies based on the
> big DC characters like Batman Begins and Superman Returns. "I love
> Batman and Superman, I love them both," he said. "I'm just trying to
> get the best version of the movie that I can. It's the trifecta. Those
> are the three oaks of DC Comics. I mean, Marvel Comics have tended to
> be hipper and cooler in many ways because they were designed to react
> against the DC Comics, but the DC Comics characters were the real deal,
> so we're trying to get this right."
Funny thing, the supposedly "weak" opening for BB ended up causing
"experts" and analysts to eat crow. That film's excellent reviews and
excellent word of mouth caused it to stay strong all summer and end up
grossing over $200 mil. stateside in spite of a much darker, less
accessible film than Burton's. It didn't have a "name" villain, and it
wasn't a film for little kids to go see (we waited for the DVD before
letting my seven year old daughte watch it) and that limited the
audience and the marketing opportunities available. It also had to
compete with the final Star Wars chapter, War of the Worlds, Fantastic
Four (which was probably more kid-friendly), a more kid-friendly,
family WB offering in Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, and a glut of
other typical remakes of old TV shows, etc. and unexpected hits like
Wedding Crashes and 40 Year-Old Virgin. I don't even remember what
Disney had out last summer, but I'm sure they had something.
By comparison, FF's opening weekend (much later in the season) was
hailed as a "savior" to the summer, yet it ended up grossing less than
BB did. The lesson to be learned here is that a quality product with a
recognizable name like WW, or Batman, will do well if it's done right.
FF just wasn't a good movie, and after a big opening it cooled off.
Supes Returns was a divisive movie that disappointed many, and that's
caused it problems too. A better script for a sequel (made for less)
might succeed though.
Shaun
Shaun
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> I'm sure in the TWO YEARS since Whedon has picked up a comic and possibly a
> dvd. Whedon's too good a writer to NOT do basic research. I could see him
> wanting to avoid mimicking previous work, but then again, WW isn't like this
> deeply complex character. Her persona can be summed up on two words:
>
Not to mention, I doubt he'll want to make the mistake Bryan Singer
made in not looking at any Superman comics while considering his
direction for Supes Returns. Assuming Whedon has been doing comic
research, there's so many different takes and retconns for the WW
character that it may take time to decide what he wants to do. Let it
take time.
Shaun
Shaun
> Obviously filming can't begin until Wonder Woman is cast. Now,
> the bigger question is whether the movie is even greenlit. As of three
> weeks ago, Joel Silver was still enthusiastic, but I don't see it being
> ready for 2007 and 2008 might be a busy year for Supergero movies with
> Iron Man, Wolverine and the Dark Knight so Wonder Woman might get
> pushed back to 2009 with a sequel to Superman Returns coming out in
> 2010. Warner Brothers would be wise to hedge their bets and not have
> their own heroes compete with each other at the box office.
Of course they won't. They also won't have any of those characters
compete with another WB property, their crown property right now: Harry
Potter. Film #5 comes out summer 2007, and #6 will presumably be out
for Xmas 2008. Assuming Ms. Rowling gets her seventh and final book out
in that time, expect the final HP movie in summer 2010. That limits
windows for DC properties to go to the big screen. Dark Knight is
summer 2008, so I don't know where WW or Flash fit into all of this.
2009 I guess, since I know of no other big properties for that year.
The odd man out may be Superman, since it's not known at this point
whether or not there will even be a SR sequel.
I don't think Marvel's plans for Iron Man or Wolverine (or even a
possible X4) will factor into it though. The only Marvel property I
wouldn't want to compete with at the same time is Spider-Man. Spidey's
success thus far would likely bury anything DC does, even Batman. DC
can co-exist with the others though. WW or Flash might actually be good
properties to release in the late winter/early spring or in the fall,
away from the typical crush of big-budget films. Daredevil was released
that way, and it did decent, if somewhat disappointing, business. That
was more due to simply not being a very good movie though.
Shaun
Shaun
Devlin Tay wrote:
> An ambassador of peace with a lot of superheroics and ass-kicking (and the
> occasional head-chopping) on the side. What's your point?
>
That's right... Just ask Max Lord. ;-)
Shaun
Martin Phipps
>
> WW or Flash might actually be good
> properties to release in the late winter/early spring or in the fall
Hmm. With Batman, Superman, Wonderwoman and Flash all having movies
coming out in the same decade, Warner Brothers would be well advised to
scrap whatever plans they might have had for a Batman vs. Superman
movie and go straight to doing a Justice League movie. They would
already have cast Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman and the Flash, although
Batman could be recast as he wears a full face mask (thereby giving
Christian Bale time to do a third Batman movie). The other Justice
Leaguers could be Aquaman, the Green Arrow and the Black Canary, with
two of them familiar to viewers of the previous and up-coming seasons
of Smallville. Martian Manhunter, Hawkman and Hawkgirl would all be
harder to bring to the big screen because they are aliens and would
take away from the uniqueness of Superman. Green Lantern's powers
might be difficult to explain and his origin is too similar to TV's
Greatest American Hero, even though the Green Lantern had it first.
Atom's power might seem too similar to Marvel's Ant Man, who might be
having a movie come out in 2009, even though Atom was, I believe,
first.
But seven Justice League members is enough because they would need to
face only one villain, namely Brainiac. Again, Smallville viewers
would know who Brainiac is and the plot could just be that Brainiac was
someone who Superman faced at some vague time in his past and who is
now back for revenge but Superman can't handle him alone. Having
Superman call on Aquaman, the Flash, the Green Arrow and possibly the
Black Canary for help would conceivably make sense to movie goers
familiar with the characters. Wonderwoman and Batman might have their
own arcs in the movie. I imagine it would only make sense to bring
them in if Brainiac actually succeeded in enslaving the human race, in
which case helping the Justice League defeat Brainiac would be more
important than fighting crime or ridding the world of injustice. Lex
Luthor could also be brought in as a figurehead that Brainiac sets up
as Emperor, figuring that the human race would more easily accept him
than an alien robot as ruler. Lex Luthor could end up being
instrumental in defeating Brainiac, which is standard Supervillain
team-up plot number 4, but might seem fresh to most movie goers.
With scripts for The Dark Knight, Wonder Woman and Flash all in
different stages of development, I can see a Superman sequel pushed so
far back that a Justice League movie would seem to be the better
option. Superman has had five movies all to himself so far, and most
of them ranged from being flops to mediocre hits. (A movie today that
earns over 100 million domestically is a hit but is not a smash hit
unless it passes the 200 million mark.) The problem, frankly, is that
Superman alone is boring. Superman Returns had a lot going for it but
it dragged a lot because, most of the time, he wasn't in any real
danger. I say bring in a villain more powerful than he is in the first
act, have the Justice League assemble in the second act and have them
kick serious butt in the third act. This then avoids the whole problem
with Superman movies having Superman just flying around for an hour and
a half followed by some contrived reason why he has to be threatened
with kryptonite but he gets better and saves the day plots that we've
seen a few times already. Singer could still be asked to direct, but
he'd obviously have time to direct other movies in the meantime.
Martin
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
Cartoons can get away with a lot that live action films can't.
And I far prefer the depictions of Amazons in which their technology is
essentially at the ancient Greek level, sans Purple Rays, mental
radios, and invisible airplane technology. Another key to making WW
work for the modern audience is going to be getting rid of the idea
that she's Batman in a swimsuit with cooler gadgets at her disposal.
--
Peace,
George
George
Actually, she comes to "man's world" in the Perez version on a mission
from the goddesses to prevent the mad god Area from destroying the
planet through the instigation of World War III. She's sent as a
warrior, not an ambassador.
*After* she defeats him, Zeus "decrees" (having been more than a little
convinced by the goddesses) that Diana should stay in Man's World as a
model of Themiscryian virtues--in both peace *and* warfare (i.e.--just
and skillful war when needed); it's only at that point that she becomes
an ambassador, and a reluctant super-hero.
Besides, Paul, prior to Tim Burton, the general public's expectation of
Batman was of a punning goof ball with no fighting skills who did the
Bat-usi. Why should Whedon be any more beholden to outdated and
creatively limiting expectations that Burton (or, more recently, Nolan)
were, when the comics themselves provide ample material for successful
reinvigoration of the character?
--
Peace,
George
George
Cute. But for my money, the WW film should even make a joking
*reference* to Xena, or to little robots that scoot along the hallway,
or to invisible jets, or to spinning into one's clothes, or to white
jumpsuits.
(Okay, okay--I'm willing to make a partial exception to that last one
depending on the actress who gets cast....)
The one bit of WW-mythos nostalgia that I think *could* work, and only
because the lady in question has the acting chops, would be the already
oft-suggested casting of Lynda Carter as Hippolyta. (Even better,
though, cast her as Hera or Artemis.)
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>>> Oh, wait, that was how Weadon had to make Firefly. Nevermind :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wait til you see Wonder Woman foil Greek gods trying to rob a train!
>>
>> Joss could do a lot worse than think of WW as personality cross between
>> Inara and Zoe.
>> --
>> Peace,
>>
>> George
>
> If Gina Torres wasn't my age, but a decade or so young, I wouldn't mind
> her cast as WW. After all, WW is spose to be an "Amazon".
Torres would be a wonderful WW, I agree. Sadly, I don't think the folks
at WB (and I would somewhat understand their position) would want to
get involved in cross-racial casting of this particular iconic
character. Since Joss has a habit of putting his favorite actors in
his various projects, though, maybe we could at least look forward to
Torres as Menalippe or, if they felt like going the really obvious
retro route, as Nubia.
--
Peace,
George
mega...@aol.com
> >> As much as I liked Perez's version, that one is a long way from the
> >> warrior woman the vast majority of movie goers will be expecting to
> >> see. The last thing you want is a whole lot of folks coming out of the
> >> theater asking "Since when is Wonder Woman like that?"
> >
> > Pat's right.
>
> Actually, if you re-read the Perez stories, you'll see he got it
> exactly backwards, as I explained in my reply to his post. The general
> public doesn't think of WW as a "warrior woman" at all--but that's one
> of the things that Perez's version put (back) on the front burner quite
> nicely. I agree with your list of the things that the mainstream
> audience will tend to know about her:
>
> > The mainstream audience knows of Wonder Woman:
> > --Paradise Island (Women's only)
>
> Which Perez's version played in a significantly less campy way than
> either the WW TV series or the Crosby made for TV movies had. (And
> without the nudge-nudge wink-wink giggles...)
>
> > --Super powers
>
> But generally not mixing it up in a knock down fight. The general
> public knows WW has super strength, but they picture her jumping really
> high and bending prison bars apart, not swinging broadswords and
> chopping off monsters' heads (as Perez's does) or going into serious,
> bruised knuckle fighting.
I didn't know she was as strong as Superman. And I didn't know she
could fly by herself. Until John Bryne's run and Justice League. Diana
showing super strength and flight in pop-culture was new. I thought
that she couldn't fly...why would she need a plane???
Paul Howard
news:1155578424.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I haven't kept up with WW but they did change her powers from "gliding with
the wind" to true flight. As for being as strong as Superman (or close to
his strength), that's more recent IIRC.
--
*
Paul Howard
*
New e-mail: drakbibliophile at yahoo.com
*
Drak Bibliophile (Bane Of Book Rustlers), Yahoo Id DrakBibliophile
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! (That's why there are still Dragons Around)
[Polite Dragon Smile]
*
George Peatty
>The one bit of WW-mythos nostalgia that I think *could* work, and only
>because the lady in question has the acting chops, would be the already
>oft-suggested casting of Lynda Carter as Hippolyta. (Even better,
>though, cast her as Hera or Artemis.)
Definitely Hera. Give her a chance to show her bitchy side ..
George Peatty
wrote:
>I didn't know she was as strong as Superman. And I didn't know she
>could fly by herself. Until John Bryne's run and Justice League. Diana
>showing super strength and flight in pop-culture was new. I thought
>that she couldn't fly...why would she need a plane???
Well, I'm a bit out of the loop on this, but the WW of my era flew the way a
glider flies - by riding wind currents. Her ability was qualitatively
different from the other flyers in the DC universe ..
George
That's my point. Most non-comics readers--and even some who are--don't
tend to think of her as being in Superman's class in terms of
super-strength, even if they know she's got it. And, more exactly, very
few people think of her as a warrior of any sort.
> And I didn't know she
> could fly by herself.
Again, that's what I'm saying: I think that's the general perception in
the public at large.
--
Peace,
George
George
No, it's not. Perez established both her power of flight and her
Superman-class strength when he re-launched the character in 1986, no
matter, frankly, what John Byrne says. It's clear in the
stories--absolutely clear.
The "fully powered" version of the character has been around at DC in
multiple books for 20 years.
--
Peace,
George
George
Assuming they go with that particular interpretation of Hera. Others
interpretations present Hera not so much as a bitch as a remarkably
shrewd power-broker, beset with a childish, omnipotent, untrustworthy
husband/brother.
And Whedon rarely writes one-dimensional "bitches," if he ever has.
(Even Glory turned out to have *some* depth....)
--
Peace,
George
Paul Howard
Well that tells you how long it's been since I paid attention to WW in the
comics. I did see the JL cartoon where WW and Superman fight it out.
Eminence
wrote:
>Besides, Paul, prior to Tim Burton, the general public's expectation of
>Batman was of a punning goof ball with no fighting skills who did the
>Bat-usi. Why should Whedon be any more beholden to outdated and
>creatively limiting expectations that Burton (or, more recently, Nolan)
>were, when the comics themselves provide ample material for successful
>reinvigoration of the character?
Because some of the suits think that the only version that'll sell
tickets is the last version that the general public was familiar with?
And that'd be Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman, which means... a feature
film version of 1970s superheroine jiggle TV.
Boobens = box office gold.
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Ken from Chicago
I prefer their technology is magic or so far in advanced it appears
magical--aka the same deal. That said, I think a few gadgets are okay:
--Indestructible truth-telling lasso.
--Bullet-proof bracelets.
--Chakram-like tiara
--Communing bracelets for contacting home.
--Spinning to change outfits--or using her lasso.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
She wouldn't. It wouldn't be necessary.
Altho IF they used it in the movie it could be reconned that Queen Hippolyta
repaired Trevor's crashed plane and a side effect is that it's invisible--or
made a copy that's invisible ... to mortal eyes at least from the outisde.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
I think it's more that Superman was DEpowered down to Wonder Woman's
strength level, tho the flight was definitely an increase.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Which is why the movie should OPEN with her in gladiatorial style fight.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/2b12a67868d4daa9?hl=en
That would establish right off the bat her warrior status.
>> And I didn't know she
>> could fly by herself.
>
> Again, that's what I'm saying: I think that's the general perception in
> the public at large.
>
>
>
> --
> Peace,
>
> George
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Shaun" <sknav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155565405.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
It takes TWO YEARS to write 120 pages (roughly a page per minute of movie)?
C'mon. Even I could come up with a brief outline--in 12 months, much less
two years ... especially if I was being paid for it.
Do the math: 120 pages / 2 years
= 120 pages / 24 months = 5 pages / month
= 5 pages / 30 days = 1 page / 6 days.
Okay, he's been doing AXM, but he can't squeeze an extra page per work week?
It's not rocket scientry.
-- Ken from Chicago (non-rocket scientician)
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>
> "George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2006081412503916807-geeluvss@netscapenet...
>> On 2006-08-13 19:55:59 -0400, "Ken from Chicago"
>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> However if TPTB insist on including one, I could see it being retcon as
>>> a remake of Trevor's jet even so much that Trevor could fly it--which
>>> could be a nice plot point for later in the movie. Also I think JLU's
>>> version had the jet invisible from the OUTSIDE but on the inside it was
>>> visible, and very high tech.
>>
>> Cartoons can get away with a lot that live action films can't.
>>
>> And I far prefer the depictions of Amazons in which their technology is
>> essentially at the ancient Greek level, sans Purple Rays, mental
>> radios, and invisible airplane technology. Another key to making WW
>> work for the modern audience is going to be getting rid of the idea
>> that she's Batman in a swimsuit with cooler gadgets at her disposal.
>>
>>
>
> I prefer their technology is magic or so far in advanced it appears
> magical--aka the same deal.
I want any magic they have to be based on their interactions with the
Olympian gods and goddesses, and don't want them to have any tech
beyond slightly advanced classical Bronze Age tech (or fantasy version
thereof.)
> That said, I think a few gadgets are okay:
> --Indestructible truth-telling lasso.
That's cool with me--it's from the goddesses, woven out of the girdle,
but it's magic (and holy, to Diana) not some high-tech polygraph fiber.
> --Bullet-proof bracelets.
Fine by me--but chalk it up to a special forging process as blessed by
Hephaestus.
> --Chakram-like tiara
Ditto and ditto.
> --Communing bracelets for contacting home.
Silly, for my mileage.
> --Spinning to change outfits--or using her lasso.
Even sillier. Way too associated with the 70s TV show and thus way too campy.
--
Peace,
George
George
> "George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2006081416163464440-geeluvss@netscapenet...
>> On 2006-08-14 14:25:50 -0400, "Paul Howard" <ppauls...@insightbb.com> said:
>>>
>>> I haven't kept up with WW but they did change her powers from "gliding
>>> with the wind" to true flight. As for being as strong as Superman (or
>>> close to his strength), that's more recent IIRC.
>>
>> No, it's not. Perez established both her power of flight and her
>> Superman-class strength when he re-launched the character in 1986, no
>> matter, frankly, what John Byrne says. It's clear in the
>> stories--absolutely clear.
>>
>> The "fully powered" version of the character has been around at DC in
>> multiple books for 20 years.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peace,
>>
>> George
>>
>
> Well that tells you how long it's been since I paid attention to WW in
> the comics. I did see the JL cartoon where WW and Superman fight it
> out.
Four collected trade paperback volumes of Perez's run on WW are now
available. I HIGHLY recommend them to anyone with even a passing
interest in the character--they collect probably the single most
successful relaunch of a major comics character ever--and are great
stories in their own right.
(Yeah, Byrne, I'm lookin at you. :-) )
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
If so, they both got re-powered in parallel over the ensuing years,
since it's always been kept explicitly clear since then that they're on
the same general strength level. (Remember: in the Perez run, they both
duke it out with Apocolyptans in the Perez/Byrne crossover story.)
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
I agree--opening with her in battle training--in as rough a sequence as
possible--will go a long, long way toward disabusing some notions.
And will also be a nice set up for the sequence in which she wins the
Contest in disguise.
(Which they damn well better keep. The recent "origin" back-up in 52
seems to suggest she was just "naturally" appointed ambassador, which
turns her into a royal jock. Ugh.)
--
Peace,
George
George
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:57:27 -0400, George <geel...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Besides, Paul, prior to Tim Burton, the general public's expectation of
>> Batman was of a punning goof ball with no fighting skills who did the
>> Bat-usi. Why should Whedon be any more beholden to outdated and
>> creatively limiting expectations that Burton (or, more recently, Nolan)
>> were, when the comics themselves provide ample material for successful
>> reinvigoration of the character?
>
> Because some of the suits think that the only version that'll sell
> tickets is the last version that the general public was familiar with?
Then they'll be shooting themselves--and a potential franchise that's
more appealing to female audiences than anything they've currently got
going--directly in the foot. And doing so contrary to the evidence of
the Burton and Nolan Batman films.
> And that'd be Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman, which means... a feature
> film version of 1970s superheroine jiggle TV.
>
> Boobens = box office gold.
Not always. And not, I suspect, for a movie now with this particular character.
(Joss ain't gonna be involved with something like that, anyway.)
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
You can't do the math regarding the creative process, Ken. That's why
it's creative.
(And...we have *no* idea of what else may be going on in the man's life
personally or professionally that places other demands on his time
beyond AXM and any ongoing Serenity efforts.)
I understand you want to see the film as soon as possible. So do I--but
pages per day of script is just a silly way of thinking of things.
--
Peace,
George
Eminence
wrote:
>On 2006-08-14 17:28:08 -0400, Eminence <grey.e...@charter.net> said:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:57:27 -0400, George <geel...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, Paul, prior to Tim Burton, the general public's expectation of
>>> Batman was of a punning goof ball with no fighting skills who did the
>>> Bat-usi. Why should Whedon be any more beholden to outdated and
>>> creatively limiting expectations that Burton (or, more recently, Nolan)
>>> were, when the comics themselves provide ample material for successful
>>> reinvigoration of the character?
>>
>> Because some of the suits think that the only version that'll sell
>> tickets is the last version that the general public was familiar with?
>
>Then they'll be shooting themselves--and a potential franchise that's
>more appealing to female audiences than anything they've currently got
>going--directly in the foot. And doing so contrary to the evidence of
>the Burton and Nolan Batman films.
No disagreement here. I'm just preparing for the potentiality of the
worst case scenario.
>> And that'd be Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman, which means... a feature
>> film version of 1970s superheroine jiggle TV.
>>
>> Boobens = box office gold.
>
>Not always. And not, I suspect, for a movie now with this particular character.
>
>(Joss ain't gonna be involved with something like that, anyway.)
Good for him. I hope he can stick to his guns if there's corporate
pressure to produce an amalgam of the worst aspects of the character.
Edward McArdle
that there is a basic problem with Wonder Woman on film.
Her costume won't work.
It looks good in a drawing, but in a film it will keep falling off. This
might mean great ratings, but would probably hinder the plot.
--
my URL,
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Martin Phipps
> After reading the plethora of messages in this thread, it occurred to me
> that there is a basic problem with Wonder Woman on film.
>
> Her costume won't work.
>
> It looks good in a drawing, but in a film it will keep falling off. This
> might mean great ratings, but would probably hinder the plot.
Fine. Cast Tera Patrick as Wonder Woman. Then having the costume fall
off would actually service the plot. :)
Martin
Devlin Tay
"George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> --Bullet-proof bracelets.
>
> Fine by me--but chalk it up to a special forging process as blessed by
> Hephaestus.
The current DCU Wonder Woman's bracelets were forged from Zeus' shield, the
Aegis. Thus accounting for their magical ability to not only deflect
bullets, but also energy blasts that would easily reduce mere mortals to
cosmic ash.
> Even sillier. Way too associated with the 70s TV show and thus way too
> campy.
An alternative would be to make the Amazon salute (the crossing of the
wrists, either at chest level or above the head) the trigger for
transforming Diana into Wonder Woman. Probably accompanied by a Shazam-like
lightning bolt or some such special effects.
But honestly, I don't particularly mind seeing the spin on the big screen.
Lynda Carter made that work, and any actress worthy of wearing that costume
should be able to as well.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Devlin Tay
Carter as Wonder Woman statue that DC Direct is putting out next April?
Absolutely STUNNING! I would not usually spend US$195 on a statue, but I am
finding it VERY difficult not to put in an order right away!
Take a peek: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=8123
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Devlin Tay
"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> It looks good in a drawing, but in a film it will keep falling off. This
> might mean great ratings, but would probably hinder the plot.
It didn't fall off in all of the three seasons of Lynda Carter wearing it.
I do not understand all these naysayers who keep saying Wonder Woman's
costume should be changed for the big screen. For goodness' sakes, why?
That costume is as iconic and as recognisable as Superman's is. Changing it
(except for minor or practical tweaks) would be a huge mistake, in my
opinion.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Devlin Tay
"George Peatty" <peattyg...@copper.net> wrote in message
> Well, I'm a bit out of the loop on this, but the WW of my era flew the way
> a
> glider flies - by riding wind currents. Her ability was qualitatively
> different from the other flyers in the DC universe ..
Ever since her relaunch by Perez way back in 1987, Wonder Woman has had the
power of flight AND super-speed, both granted to her by the fleet-footed god
Hermes.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Ken from Chicago
> On 2006-08-14 20:38:44 -0400, "Ken from Chicago"
> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:2006081412503916807-geeluvss@netscapenet...
>>> On 2006-08-13 19:55:59 -0400, "Ken from Chicago"
>>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>> However if TPTB insist on including one, I could see it being retcon as
>>>> a remake of Trevor's jet even so much that Trevor could fly it--which
>>>> could be a nice plot point for later in the movie. Also I think JLU's
>>>> version had the jet invisible from the OUTSIDE but on the inside it was
>>>> visible, and very high tech.
>>>
>>> Cartoons can get away with a lot that live action films can't.
>>>
>>> And I far prefer the depictions of Amazons in which their technology is
>>> essentially at the ancient Greek level, sans Purple Rays, mental radios,
>>> and invisible airplane technology. Another key to making WW work for the
>>> modern audience is going to be getting rid of the idea that she's Batman
>>> in a swimsuit with cooler gadgets at her disposal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I prefer their technology is magic or so far in advanced it appears
>> magical--aka the same deal.
>
> I want any magic they have to be based on their interactions with the
> Olympian gods and goddesses, and don't want them to have any tech beyond
> slightly advanced classical Bronze Age tech (or fantasy version thereof.)
Well that's just nonsensical. In 2,000 years, despite their reverence for
Athena, they've made NO advances in technology whatsoever? Come on, that's
just a social BIAS the (American) mainstream has against magic or fantasy
having anything beyond medieval-level pre-industrial technology.
That said, given the high level of working reproduceable magic, their need
for many gadgets given their immortality, tropical island existence and
isolation is quite low.
>> That said, I think a few gadgets are okay:
>> --Indestructible truth-telling lasso.
>
> That's cool with me--it's from the goddesses, woven out of the girdle, but
> it's magic (and holy, to Diana) not some high-tech polygraph fiber.
>
>> --Bullet-proof bracelets.
>
> Fine by me--but chalk it up to a special forging process as blessed by
> Hephaestus.
>
>> --Chakram-like tiara
>
> Ditto and ditto.
>
>> --Communing bracelets for contacting home.
>
> Silly, for my mileage.
They should have some method of communication at a distance, be it bracelet,
tiara, necklace, communing gem, scrying pools, crystal orbs, cell phones,
radios, animal familiars, ghosts, talking trees, whatever, something for
long distance communication.
>> --Spinning to change outfits--or using her lasso.
>
> Even sillier. Way too associated with the 70s TV show and thus way too
> campy.
As opposed to Superman's giant stretchy plastic S shield? Still it's not a
dealbreaker.
Devlin Tay
"George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> That's my point. Most non-comics readers--and even some who are--don't
> tend to think of her as being in Superman's class in terms of
> super-strength, even if they know she's got it. And, more exactly, very
> few people think of her as a warrior of any sort.
Wasn't Lynda Carter regularly shown pushing/holding back cars (and even an
armored tank at one point), sword-fighting homicidal robots, wrestling
gorillas, bending steel rods (and guns of all sizes and shapes),
intercepting missiles with her bare hands and even holding up the supporting
structures of an entire roller-coaster ride at one stage? That's
super-strength to me. Any increase in Wonder Woman's power in a big screen
version would just be chalked down by audiences to the need to have
bigger/flashier exciting special effects for a big screen outing.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Ken from Chicago
"Devlin Tay" <prax...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WugEg.6947$b6.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
Considering Diana isn't likely to have a secret identity in the movie, I
could forego the spinning transformation. Considering her superspeed,
changing from her white civilian outfits to her "working clothes" at
superspeed would be sufficient.
-- Ken from Chicago (who could live without an actual invisible jet)
Ken from Chicago
<snip>
>> I think it's more that Superman was DEpowered down to Wonder Woman's
>> strength level, tho the flight was definitely an increase.
>
> If so, they both got re-powered in parallel over the ensuing years, since
> it's always been kept explicitly clear since then that they're on the same
> general strength level. (Remember: in the Perez run, they both duke it out
> with Apocolyptans in the Perez/Byrne crossover story.)
>
> --
> Peace,
>
> George
I read on wiki they also duked it out recently during Infinity Crisis and WW
was holding her own against Supes.
-- Ken from Chicago
Devlin Tay
> Which is why the movie should OPEN with her in gladiatorial style fight.
The Contest itself could be the gladiatorial style fight you seem to crave
for. Just have it show the Amazons fighting each other tooth and nail to
win the right to be the Goddesses' champion. Even the original version
wasn't bloodless - Diana wounded Mala with the gun during the Bullets and
Bracelets trial.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Devlin Tay
"Ken from Chicago"
> changing from her white civilian outfits to her "working clothes" at
> superspeed would be sufficient.
Yeah, but not distinctive enough though. I mean, that's what Superman does
(and if the rumored Flash movie comes to past, that's what he will do too).
I agree about Diana not needing a secret ID but if she does have a secret ID
in the big screen version, she'd need a distinctive way of transforming from
Diana Prince to Wonder Woman. Any big screen alternative would have to top
the spin from the TV series that we're all familiar with.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Devlin Tay
"Ken from Chicago"
> I read on wiki they also duked it out recently during Infinity Crisis and
> WW was holding her own against Supes.
Damn near beheaded him with her tiara in order to snap him out of web of
lies Max Lord planted in his head. Even with one of her wrists broken by
him during the fight. That's how powerful Wonder Woman is these days.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Ken from Chicago
Why would she be in disguise? Part of the opening fight would be established
she is the best--and everyone on the island already know it. That's why they
could attack en masse with all their Amazonian strength and she still won.
The tour she takes Trevor on of the Island would not just show off the
island but Trevor, as well as herself, that she's NOT all brawn and no
brain.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Precisely. 1 page every 6 days would be a really bad case scenario. Online
posters routinely write a page a day much less a week. You do the outline,
fill in the suboutline, the plot and then the dialogue.
Prologue: Diana wins a gladiatorial fight on Themyscira Trevor crashes.
Act 1: Diana gives Trevor (and the audience) the tour of the island
Act 2: Diana fights and destroys a monster who escaped the island--on tv and
becomes a star, and gets the star treatment while touring "Man's World".
Act 3: Diana discovers the dark side of fame and humanity--and that the
monster had laid eggs or spawned or something which have hatched / born.
Act 4: Diana has a big ole battle with multiple monsters and sees in a time
of crisis that not just the worst but also the best of humanity.
Epilog: With monsters dead, Diana decides to stay to make a difference.
I came up with that 3 years ago--and I'm a rank amateur. You telling me
Whedon couldn't? Yeah, right.
-- Ken from Chicago
Devlin Tay
entering the Contest. All the other contestants were in disguise because
the Contest was supposed to be deadly serious, and they weren't supposed to
hold back from hurting each other, as they might if they could see who it
was they were fighting.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Ken from Chicago
Strapless or off the shoulder with pants, kinda like Stan Lee's version of
WW.
Altho I go without the headpiece.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> On 2006-08-13 18:13:39 -0400, George Peatty <peattyg...@copper.net>
> said:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:46:13 -0400, George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I think, for this film to resonate fully, the stakes need to be *huge*.
>>> Wonder Woman needs to take on a god (and his minions, of course) in
>>> widescreen and kick his Olympian ass in order to change the public
>>> perceptions of the character.
>>
>> Okay, how about Wonder Woman v Xena?
>
> Cute. But for my money, the WW film should even make a joking *reference*
> to Xena, or to little robots that scoot along the hallway, or to invisible
> jets, or to spinning into one's clothes, or to white jumpsuits.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en&
Wonder Woman runs across movie set where Lucy Lawless looks at her and
comments, "Nice outfit."
EXTERIOR SHOT: Diana arrives at a fashion shoot and walks into a tent and
someone walks in afterward.
"Diana, why are you spinning around?"
"The woman with the camera asked me, to show off my outfit."
> (Okay, okay--I'm willing to make a partial exception to that last one
> depending on the actress who gets cast....)
>
> The one bit of WW-mythos nostalgia that I think *could* work, and only
> because the lady in question has the acting chops, would be the already
> oft-suggested casting of Lynda Carter as Hippolyta. (Even better, though,
> cast her as Hera or Artemis.)
Agreed. Altho casting her as Circe might be fun since she'd could be the
lead villain of the piece. She could rant about how she used to do good but
grew tired of it and the whole self sacrifice and is in it for herself now.
Ken from Chicago
> On 2006-08-14 15:13:48 -0400, George Peatty <peattyg...@copper.net>
> said:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:01:49 -0400, George <geel...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The one bit of WW-mythos nostalgia that I think *could* work, and only
>>> because the lady in question has the acting chops, would be the already
>>> oft-suggested casting of Lynda Carter as Hippolyta. (Even better,
>>> though, cast her as Hera or Artemis.)
>>
>
> Assuming they go with that particular interpretation of Hera. Others
> interpretations present Hera not so much as a bitch as a remarkably shrewd
> power-broker, beset with a childish, omnipotent, untrustworthy
> husband/brother.
>
> And Whedon rarely writes one-dimensional "bitches," if he ever has. (Even
> Glory turned out to have *some* depth....)
> --
> Peace,
>
> George
>
Oops, I forgot Hera often portrayed as evil (WW, HERCULES, etc.). Yeah, that
could be a nice fun role for LC, really get to chew up scenery.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Maybe use the magic lasso trick from the comics.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Oh, well that makes sense.
Tho again, I think their own sense of Amazonian and warrior honor would
prevent them from holding back--especially if ordered by both Queen
Hippolyta as well as Princess Diana. Diana would probably be most ticked off
realizing they were holding back, just because she was royalty, INSULTED
that they would think she COULDN'T defend herself against a real attack. Her
indignation if nothing else would drive them to fully fight and not hold
back.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Why would there be a Contest? The gladiator style battle would a regular
event, maybe annually or quarterly, with each season they fight in the style
suited to Spring, Summer, Winter, and Fall: magically creating Spring
rainstorms, Summer heat, Winter snows and Fall being the default "normal"
season.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
She definitely needs pants, tho the bare shoulder look seems too ingrained
to change.
-- Ken from Chicago
Devlin Tay
"Ken from Chicago"
> Why would there be a Contest?
In the original pre-Crisis version, the Contest was held to choose the best
Amazon warrior who would have the honor to bring Steve Trevor back to the
outside world and to aid the Allies in their fight against the Nazis. In
the post-Crisis version, the Contest was held to choose the champion who
would aid the Gods in their attempt to stop the mad War God Ares from
launching World War III and destroying the world in the process. "The
Contest", especially the post-Crisis version, was deadly serious business, a
special one-off event of far greater import than the regular gladiatorial
games that the Amazons use to hone their warrior skills.
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
Devlin Tay
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> She definitely needs pants, tho the bare shoulder look seems too ingrained
> to change.
If her costume needed to be changed at all, it should be changed into
something that looks recognisably Ancient Greek - something like the armor
that George Perez gave her:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~memad/BodyImages/FullArmor.gif Sorry it's not a
particularly good scan though.
And then there's that golden armored look that Alex Ross designed - which
looks GREAT but impractical for any movie shoot:
http://www.joeacevedo.com/images/figurezone/dcdfigures/dcdkcww2.jpg
Devlin
Adelaide, Australia
trike
Ugh, that's horrible. Not only is it an ugly statue and a dull pose,
it looks nothing like Lynda Carter. The face looks more like Sylvester
Stallone than Carter.
Doug
Daibhid Ceanaideach
rec.arts.comics.dc.universe. The speaker: "Ken from Chicago"
<kwicker1...@comcast.net>
>
> "George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:2006081421325616807-geeluvss@netscapenet...
>> On 2006-08-14 20:38:44 -0400, "Ken from Chicago"
>> <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>> I prefer their technology is magic or so far in advanced
>>> it appears magical--aka the same deal.
>>
>> I want any magic they have to be based on their
>> interactions with the Olympian gods and goddesses, and
>> don't want them to have any tech beyond slightly advanced
>> classical Bronze Age tech (or fantasy version thereof.)
>
> Well that's just nonsensical. In 2,000 years, despite their
> reverence for Athena, they've made NO advances in
> technology whatsoever? Come on, that's just a social BIAS
> the (American) mainstream has against magic or fantasy
> having anything beyond medieval-level pre-industrial
> technology.
>
> That said, given the high level of working reproduceable
> magic, their need for many gadgets given their immortality,
> tropical island existence and isolation is quite low.
Agreed. That's why I'm cool with the purple ray. It's
technology they'd find useful, and it's different enough from
Man's World tech to suggest Amazonian science has developed
independently (unlike the invisible plane and mental radio).
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"The need to compile lists is a personality disorder,
as is the need to assert the superiority of some things
over other things."
-Jeremy Hardy
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
It's a staple of the genre, Ken, that isolated societies function
perfectly fine with relatively stagnant technology for as long as the
needs of the plot conceit require them to--don't over think it. (The
genre also include secret isolated societies that go in the other
direction, of course, and become supremely technologically
advanced--ala Gorilla City or Feithera--but that's just as much of an
absurd outcome.)
The reason I object to things like the Purple Ray and Invisible Jet is
that they create serious tonal problems and thematic disconnects for
the mythological underpinnings of the Wonder Woman story--not because
I'm doing some serious analysis of the likely history of their
technological development.
But if you wanna go that way: why would they *need* to develop more
advanced tech? They live in an utterly sustainable culture, they trade
with no one, they have a rich and creative artistic tradition, they
engage in no warfare with other cultures, their own politics are
remarkably stable, etc. etc. There's not much necessity birthing
invention here, really. (Sure--that's "nonsensical," but it's
nonsensical as part of the fundamental conceit of the place--one either
suspends one's disbelief on such things or one doesn't.)
> Come on, that's just a social BIAS the (American) mainstream has
> against magic or fantasy having anything beyond medieval-level
> pre-industrial technology.
I have no such bias. I *love* techno-magic fantasies, in fact. Just
don't think it suits the needs of the WW milieu--or, especially, of
what needs to be done with a WW movie, which is going to need to
present (as Perez's revamp needed to) a clear, consistent, easily
grasped, "essentials" view of the trappings of her world.
>
> That said, given the high level of working reproduceable magic, their
> need for many gadgets given their immortality, tropical island
> existence and isolation is quite low.
Exactly.
>>
>>> --Communing bracelets for contacting home.
>>
>> Silly, for my mileage.
>
> They should have some method of communication at a distance, be it
> bracelet, tiara, necklace, communing gem, scrying pools, crystal orbs,
> cell phones, radios, animal familiars, ghosts, talking trees, whatever,
> something for long distance communication.
Scrying pools and animal familiars work fine for me. Perez had Diana
and Hippolyta send letters back and forth to each other using pigeons
(blessed by Hermes)--it was a simple, elegant, and even poignant in a
way. But I so do *not* want a scene of Wonder Woman furrowing her brow,
hand to her temple, with a voice over saying "Mother! Can you hear my
thoughts?" Ugh. How very Velveeta.
Besides, too much communication, too easily accomplished, works
directly against the poignancy of Diana's outsider status in Man's
World. She shouldn't be able to mystically IM home every time she's
feeling sad or challenged in the film.
(Aside: remember when going away to college meant--blessedly--*not* be
able to, or being expected to--be in touch with one's parents more than
once every week or so?)
>
>>> --Spinning to change outfits--or using her lasso.
>>
>> Even sillier. Way too associated with the 70s TV show and thus way too campy.
>
> As opposed to Superman's giant stretchy plastic S shield? Still it's
> not a dealbreaker.
What in the world ever gave you the impression I'd ever defend
Superman's cellophane S-Shield weapon from Superman II? That's one of
the most horrible moments in a truly awful movie. And her spinning
around to change outfits would be similarly awful in a modern film.
(Even Carter found it silly back in the day--and tiresome.)
Seriously: if they want this film to be anything more than a cult hit
in certain gay male campy circles (not that there's *anything* wrong
with that--seriously--but this film could have broader appeal), they're
going to have to be very careful to stay away from many of these kinds
of things.
Again, I assume Whedon knows this. In addition to hoping that he's been
given copies of some of Perez's, Dini's, and Rucka's work on the
character, I hope he's put up a big poster from one of the Joel
Schumacher Batman films in his office as a negative reminder.....
--
Peace,
George
George
>
> "George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>>> --Bullet-proof bracelets.
>>
>> Fine by me--but chalk it up to a special forging process as blessed by
>> Hephaestus.
>
> The current DCU Wonder Woman's bracelets were forged from Zeus' shield,
> the Aegis. Thus accounting for their magical ability to not only
> deflect bullets, but also energy blasts that would easily reduce mere
> mortals to cosmic ash.
Bingo. Perfect--I'd forgotten that.
>
>> Even sillier. Way too associated with the 70s TV show and thus way too campy.
>
> An alternative would be to make the Amazon salute (the crossing of the
> wrists, either at chest level or above the head) the trigger for
> transforming Diana into Wonder Woman. Probably accompanied by a
> Shazam-like lightning bolt or some such special effects.
Why should she *need* to change? Doesn't that assume she's going to be
both Diana Prince and Wonder Woman in the film? I really hope Whedon
jettisons the entire secret identity concept just as Perez did. I don't
really see why Diana can't change her clothes like everyone else does,
one star-spangled leg-hole at a time.
>
> But honestly, I don't particularly mind seeing the spin on the big
> screen. Lynda Carter made that work, and any actress worthy of wearing
> that costume should be able to as well.
I'll say it again: the spinning thing is *hugely* popular in segments
of the American male gay community, fondly remembered, oft-referenced,
etc. It's become far too loaded with that camp-nostalgic sensibility to
work in a serious film approach to the character. (Same goes for the WW
diving outfit, the motorcycle outfit--basically everything Jimenez
brought back in his final issues.)
Don't misunderstand: I love some of these things too, in the right
tonal context. But having WW spin around and go all flash-bulby to
effect an outfit change is going to be working in the exact same vein
as the nipple/crotch/butt shots of Batman getting dressed in the
Schumacher films, and that would seriously narrow the range of the
film's appeal.
Having said that, I think they better get a damn good costumer--Diana
and all her sisters should look as fabulous as possible in as many
different outfits as possible (dictated by genuine plot points and
changes of scene/action) as they can.
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>> I agree--opening with her in battle training--in as rough a sequence as
>> possible--will go a long, long way toward disabusing some notions.
>>
>> And will also be a nice set up for the sequence in which she wins the
>> Contest in disguise.
>>
>> (Which they damn well better keep. The recent "origin" back-up in 52
>> seems to suggest she was just "naturally" appointed ambassador, which
>> turns her into a royal jock. Ugh.)
>>
>
> Why would she be in disguise?
In the tournament to determine who will become the goddesses' agent in
Man's World? Because her mother has protectively forbidden her from
competing. It's an essential part of the character that she disobeys
her mother and Queen here for her own concept of the greater good.
> Part of the opening fight would be established she is the best--and
> everyone on the island already know it. That's why they could attack en
> masse with all their Amazonian strength and she still won.
I think you're conflating two scenes we discussed above. I agree the
movie could well open with a battle sequence--I imagine that as a
battle training sequence in which we see that Diana is the best of the
best. Later in the film, after Trevor arrives and the goddesses reveal
their mission, I imagine the Contest taking place in which she competes
and wins in disguise because of her mother's edict.
What I'm objecting to in the current comics version of her origin (such
as we've gotten of it) is a line in the 8 page backup of the issue of
52 which featured it, which implies that Diana was just "naturally"
chosen as the missionary. I think it's essential she win the right, not
be handed it because of past demonstrations of prowess.
--
Peace,
George
George
>
> "George" <geel...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
>> That's my point. Most non-comics readers--and even some who are--don't
>> tend to think of her as being in Superman's class in terms of
>> super-strength, even if they know she's got it. And, more exactly, very
>> few people think of her as a warrior of any sort.
>
> Wasn't Lynda Carter regularly shown pushing/holding back cars (and even
> an armored tank at one point),
Yup.
> sword-fighting homicidal robots, wrestling gorillas,
I don't remember these specifically, but no doubt she was.
> bending steel rods (and guns of all sizes and shapes),
Constantly. That and jumping really high and far were her most frequent
feats of obvious super strength, I'd wager.
> intercepting missiles with her bare hands and even holding up the
> supporting structures of an entire roller-coaster ride at one stage?
> That's super-strength to me.
To me, too, Devlin. But my point is what's noticeably absent from your
list of memories (with gibes with my own):
I don't really recall her every punching someone into next week. I
don't recall her ever ripping a building in half. I don't recall ever
seeing her chop some monster's head off with a broadsword. I don't
recall ever seeing her sweat, grunt, or even get dirty as she tussled
with some bad-guy-or-gal of the week.
Batman gets to hit people. (Superman should get to more than he has.)
Daredevil really gets to hit people. Wolverine really, really gets to
hit people (as does Colossus). Wonder Woman needs to, as well, in order
to come across as a warrior.
I've no real worries on this score, given that we're dealing with the
man who wrote Buffy and Faith and Zoe and Melaka Fray into existence,
and who let them sweat, grunt, and get dirty while kicking ass.
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> Precisely. 1 page every 6 days would be a really bad case scenario.
> Online posters routinely write a page a day much less a week.
Gee, might that be because they're spending most of their time posting
things online like you and I, rather than getting paid to write
screenplays, produce, and develop other projects? :-)
>
>
> I came up with that 3 years ago--and I'm a rank amateur. You telling me
> Whedon couldn't? Yeah, right.
I'm telling you A) there's a world of difference between outlines and
fully scripted screenplays, with full dialogue, stage and camera
directions, special effect desires/instructions, etc. etc. and B) more
importantly, that it's utterly foolish to try to quantify and formalize
the creative process this way. It's art, not a timetable--it gets done
when it gets done.
--
Peace,
George
George
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
Pants? Are you insane, man? :-)
And what's the with double standard here: they didn't put Brad Pitt in
pants to play Achilles, or Colin Farrell in them to play Alexander? Why
should Wonder Woman have to alter her traditional costume?
--
Peace,
George
El Puerco
news:1155617743.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Edward McArdle wrote:
>> After reading the plethora of messages in this thread, it occurred to me
>> that there is a basic problem with Wonder Woman on film.
>>
>> Her costume won't work.
>>
>> might mean great ratings, but would probably hinder the plot.
>
> off would actually service the plot. :)
If she could muster a facial expression besides "bored," I might agree with
you.