CW's Wonder Woman TV series synopsis

[Kevin M.]

Ugh, sigh, and ugh again. The sentence that makes me want to vomit is this one, "People aren't looking for characters who have their act together and represent some unrealistic image of success and perfection. Rather, they relate to the journey of self-discovery..." Couldn't be farther from the truth in my case. I'm sick of f-ing "origin" stories. They are frankly too easy and too simplistic. The whole idea of superheroes is they are larger than life figure who embody the best in us -- they are not people we can relate to -- they are people we should constantly aspire to be. But Hollywood doesn't like that concept, preferring to deconstruct perfection and find flaws where there aren't any. 

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/729638/wonder-woman-tv-series-plot-details/

-- 

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Jim Ellwanger]

On Dec 1, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Kevin M. wrote:

> The sentence that makes me want to vomit is this one, "People aren't looking for characters who have their act together and represent some unrealistic image of success and perfection. Rather, they relate to the journey of self-discovery..."

I stopped at this: "...DC Comics' bikini-clad..."

I have examined Wonder Woman's costume in great detail, and I can tell you that it's not a bikini.

--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv>

[Bob in Jersey]

Do we thank Spider-Man in all its various forms for this mindset?  -- BOB

[Kevin M.]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Bob in Jersey <bob.in...@juno.com> wrote:

Do we thank Spider-Man in all its various forms for this mindset?  -- BOB

All of the recent franchises that insist on starting over are to thank/blame. I concede, as a writer it is difficult to write for an invulnerable character, but the trick is to have compelling supporting characters who can advance a storyline. The Bond and Batman franchises learned quickly to make it about the villains and the love interests, but I don't think any version of Superman has ever quite nailed that idea (though Lois and Clark probably came closest of all the on screen adaptations). 

I am not really a Marvel guy, so I've always struggled with Spidey and the Avengers and the X-Men. I thought Jennifer Garner looked amazing as Elektra, but that's all I can really say about that character. 

I get it. All superheroes were awkward youths who were different/isolated, then fate/destiny/radiation played a role, and now they are imbued with superhuman abilities. Got it. Check. Understood. All points registered. Now, MOVE ON and tell a compelling story with all of that backstory as a given. There is no need to make the backstory into the main story. To keep doing so is just laziness on everybody's part. 

-- 

Kevin M. (RPCV)

[David Bruggeman]

The Man of Steel movie will put Superman through this process next year.  With A-listers cast for Supe's parents, it's seems likely that origin story will take a significant part of the film.  And while Zack Snyder is directing, both Christopher Nolan and David Goyer are involved.  

David

---

From: Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: CW's Wonder Woman TV series synopsis

[PGage]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Bob in Jersey <bob.in...@juno.com> wrote:

Do we thank Spider-Man in all its various forms for this mindset?  -- BOB

All of the recent franchises that insist on starting over are to thank/blame. I concede, as a writer it is difficult to write for an invulnerable character, but the trick is to have compelling supporting characters who can advance a storyline. The Bond and Batman franchises learned quickly to make it about the villains and the love interests, but I don't think any version of Superman has ever quite nailed that idea (though Lois and Clark probably came closest of all the on screen adaptations). 

I don't really agree with you Kevin here in general, and in particular I disagree about Bond - at least in its latest (and, with all due respect to  Sir Sean, the best) incarnation, there has been quite a bit of focus on Bond and his backstory, to wonderful effect. In  Skyfall there is also quite a bit of attention paid to the villan's backstory, and they have been quite transparent about trying to make his villainy interior, not exterior.

I know a lot of folks on this list are real comic book guys; I am not (when I was 10 I walked to the corner liquor store and bought 5 comic books with my saved up allowance; my mom threw a fit and forbade me from ever reading them. Unlike lots of kids I guess, I listened to my mother). I only ever got interested in superheros when they started paying attention to the backstory and the psychology (though my understanding is that there is a lot of that in both the Batman and Spiderman comics anyway?).

[Kevin M.]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:46 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't really agree with you Kevin here in general, and in particular I disagree about Bond - at least in its latest (and, with all due respect to  Sir Sean, the best) incarnation, there has been quite a bit of focus on Bond and his backstory, to wonderful effect. In  Skyfall there is also quite a bit of attention paid to the villan's backstory, and they have been quite transparent about trying to make his villainy interior, not exterior.

I thought I was clear that Bond was one of the few exceptions inasmuch as they rebooted the franchise but they made it work. Same with Batman, and they do so largely by granting the premise the hero will prevail and focusing on telling a compelling story of how he will prevail. I don't care if Bond got beaten up as child or that he never got the bicycle he wanted for Christmas, and I like that Bond doesn't seem to care about those things, either. Not to spoil Skyfall for anyone, but by the end of the film, Bond IS Bond, and if you look at the three Daniel Craig movies, there wasn't all that much origin in there, yet audiences were still able to see him evolve into the ultimate secret agent. They were able to do it without showing Bond's parents dying, or Bond getting recruited into MI-6, or Bond's first clumsy attempt to seduce a woman or thwart a villain. We didn't see Bond's novice angst, though we did see him mature in a more subtle manner. And you can't say the same about Reeve as Superman or Spider-Man or the individual Avengers films or the Burton Batman, where we had to have every moment of vulnerability rammed so far down our throats that we expelled them gaseously. 

 

I know a lot of folks on this list are real comic book guys; I am not (when I was 10 I walked to the corner liquor store and bought 5 comic books with my saved up allowance; my mom threw a fit and forbade me from ever reading them. Unlike lots of kids I guess, I listened to my mother). I only ever got interested in superheros when they started paying attention to the backstory and the psychology (though my understanding is that there is a lot of that in both the Batman and Spiderman comics anyway?).

The only reason the comics seem to pay attention to backstory is that whenever a new writer takes over a book (or a character), he seems intent on reimagining the origin. Then there is DC's much maligned reboot of their entire line of comics which has annoyed a lot of longtime readers. In comic world, the best selling books seem to be when superheroes either team up or fight each other, and no origin is needed for either of those concepts. 

I don't mind looking at the psychology of the heroes, but one doesn't need to start over EVERY TIME in order to gaze into the mind of a hero. At this stage, anybody who needs to know the beginnings of a character who has existed for decades can Google it. To keep rehashing the same moment of a character's life is sloppy writing and not very creative. 

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[PGage]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com> wrote:

I thought I was clear that Bond was one of the few exceptions inasmuch as they rebooted the franchise but they made it work. Same with Batman, and they do so largely by granting the premise the hero will prevail and focusing on telling a compelling story of how he will prevail. I don't care if Bond got beaten up as child or that he never got the bicycle he wanted for Christmas, and I like that Bond doesn't seem to care about those things, either. Not to spoil Skyfall for anyone, but by the end of the film, Bond IS Bond, and if you look at the three Daniel Craig movies, there wasn't all that much origin in there, yet audiences were still able to see him evolve into the ultimate secret agent. They were able to do it without showing Bond's parents dying, or Bond getting recruited into MI-6, or Bond's first clumsy attempt to seduce a woman or thwart a villain. We didn't see Bond's novice angst, though we did see him mature in a more subtle manner. And you can't say the same about Reeve as Superman or Spider-Man or the individual Avengers films or the Burton Batman, where we had to have every moment of vulnerability rammed so far down our throats that we expelled them gaseously. 

Ah yes, I see that now - you were saying Bond and Batman were exceptions to your rule that origin stories are lame. Apologies.

I think still you might be low-balling the amount of back story in the Craig Bond films. In Casino Royale after all we do see the two kills, the first somewhat clumsy, that qualify him for his double-ought, which is pretty close to seeing his first clumsy attempt to seduce a woman.

As a non-superhero lover I am not all that qualified to have an opinion (but I never let a thing like qualification stop me) - what I can agree with on is that the constant re-booting is getting tiresome. I think audiences can accept a different actor as Spiderman (and as I understand it dude has different girlfriends anyway, so no need to worry about a different actress) without going back and re-doing the first installment. I can forgive Burton's Batman trilogy, as he had a very specific take on it. I enjoyed the Ironman films - mostly because I was unfamiliar with the character, but I found Thor and Captain America to be tedious, and Hulk only okay.

Still, for me that is a matter of either poorly told stories, or over-told stories. To the original point, as to whether flawed or perfect superhero characters are more compelling, in general I would go with the flawed.

[Bob in Jersey]

Kevin M., to PGage, in part:

I know a lot of folks on this list are real comic book guys; I am not (when I was 10 I walked to the corner liquor store and bought 5 comic books with my saved up allowance; my mom threw a fit and forbade me from ever reading them. Unlike lots of kids I guess, I listened to my mother). I only ever got interested in superheros when they started paying attention to the backstory and the psychology (though my understanding is that there is a lot of that in both the Batman and Spiderman comics anyway?).

The only reason the comics seem to pay attention to backstory is that whenever a new writer takes over a book (or a character), he seems intent on reimagining the origin. Then there is DC's much maligned reboot of their entire line of comics which has annoyed a lot of longtime readers. In comic world, the best selling books seem to be when superheroes either team up or fight each other, and no origin is needed for either of those concepts. 

I don't mind looking at the psychology of the heroes, but one doesn't need to start over EVERY TIME in order to gaze into the mind of a hero. At this stage, anybody who needs to know the beginnings of a character who has existed for decades can Google it. To keep rehashing the same moment of a character's life is sloppy writing and not very creative. 

For my part, comics stopped being relevant to me sometime around 1980, but it was more due to cost than content.

-- BOB

[Jim Ellwanger]

On Dec 2, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Bob in Jersey wrote:

> For my part, comics stopped being relevant to me sometime around 1980, but it was more due to cost than content.

I only ever read Archie comics and MAD Magazine when I was growing up. Fortunately, the Cartoon Network show based on the latter has so far avoided delving into Alfred E. Neuman's origin story.

[PGage]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Jim Ellwanger <trai...@ellwanger.tv> wrote:

On Dec 2, 2012, at 7:20 AM, Bob in Jersey wrote:

> For my part, comics stopped being relevant to me sometime around 1980, but it was more due to cost than content.

I only ever read Archie comics and MAD Magazine when I was growing up.  Fortunately, the Cartoon Network show based on the latter has so far avoided delving into Alfred E. Neuman's origin story.

I did read MAD - my mother did not define that as a comic book so it passed by her screen.