# Whedon off Wonder Woman



## John Crichton (Feb 3, 2007)

http://whedonesque.com/comments/12385#more

*sigh*

Oh well.  It sounds like it wasn't working out anyway.  The interesting part of Joss' statement was that Cobie Smulders (from How I Met Your Mother) was in line to play WW.  Not a bad choice, IMO.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 3, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> The interesting part of Joss' statement was that Cobie Smulders (from How I Met Your Mother) was in line to play WW.  Not a bad choice, IMO.




Except that she's the 2nd best looking woman on the show.  Not that I think Ali would make a good WW....


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 3, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *sigh*




*double sigh*

More is the pity. I have reservations about a WW II Wonder Woman. That could date the character and topic, in addition to being historically cheesy; e.g. I fear for watching her defeat Hitler.

I think he was joking about Cobie Smulders.

What is his next project?


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 3, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I think he was joking about Cobie Smulders.



Possibly, but she does have the look.  



			
				The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> What is his next project?



http://imdb.com/title/tt0481738/

Goners has been mentioned a few times around the web.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 3, 2007)

Thank you for the heads-up.  I was able to ditch my Wonder Woman stock at HSX, and buy Goners stock right after!

I love HSX.com !


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I have reservations about a WW II Wonder Woman.




From Sci Fi Wire:

_"Warner Brothers is in the process of acquiring a spec script for a Wonder Woman film by newcomers Matthew Jennison and Brent Strickland, despite already having a deal with Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon to write and direct a film based on the DC Comics character, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Sources told the trade paper that the purchase is a pre-emptive measure intended to keep the script off the market and to protect itself against any legal action prompted by similarities between the two scripts. The Jennison-Strickland script is reportedly set against the backdrop of World War II, while Whedon's script is set in the present day.

Producer Joel Silver, who is overseeing the project at Warner Brothers, *has no interest in making a period Wonder Woman*, sources said. But executives at the studio were impressed by Jennison and Strickland's writing. Representatives for Warner Brothers and Silver Pictures declined comment. "_


----------



## Klaus (Feb 3, 2007)

Someone should just smart up and adapt Gods & Mortals...

I mean, naked Wonder Woman, people!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 3, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> _Producer Joel Silver, who is overseeing the project at Warner Brothers, *has no interest in making a period Wonder Woman*, sources said. But executives at the studio were impressed by Jennison and Strickland's writing. Representatives for Warner Brothers and Silver Pictures declined comment. "_




Well, that is interesting. but what ever the "creative differences" were, they were enough to prompt Joss to bow out of the project. I wonder where it will go next, as this does not really clear things up.

As for _Goners_, I got this at Wikipedia;



> Goners is a movie with a lot of beautiful inspirational human stuff but it's also a horror movie. Ultimately it's about a darker place in all of us. Rope of Silicon, 2005
> 
> It is a fantasy thriller, it is pretty dark and it's all me. So people will pretty much know what that means if they look at my body of work. But it's a new universe set in the present day with a new concept for me and a new bunch of characters. SuicideGirls, 2005
> 
> ...




I think he's making a mistake with the llamas.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 3, 2007)

On related notes, David Goyer (Blade: Trinity, and former scribe of JSA) is off the "Flash" movie, also citing creative differences.

So WB wants to pull Wonder Woman and Flash into a certain direction, and their respective writers/directors bow out.

Makes you wonder...


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 3, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder...




I hope the studios are not moving back into deliberate camp for super hero movies.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 3, 2007)

Maybe they're freeing the character rights so they can be used on TV?

Maybe we'll see them in other superhero movies?

Maybe we'll see them in a movie about some guy named "Jay", last name "Elay"?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 3, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder...




Not really.  Outside of a few Superman and Batman flicks, DC has never had a good record with movies.


----------



## Jamdin (Feb 3, 2007)

Bummer for I was really looking towards Whedon's Wonder Woman.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 3, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Maybe we'll see them in a movie about some guy named "Jay", last name "Elay"?




Never.  Ever, ever.  At least, not a good one.  X-Men worked (well, sort of, it still focused on certain individuals too much) because they are a team, first and foremost.  The JLA is single heroes with different backstories broght together as a team to stop menaces they can't stop individually.  Unless each member had his or her own movie or two first, JLA just ain't going to happen.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 4, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not really.  Outside of a few Superman and Batman flicks, DC has never had a good record with movies.



The same could be said of TV shows. _The Flash,_ for example.

But compared to Marvel live-action TV shows (only one success: _The Incredible Hulk_ starring Bill Bixby), they're ahead.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 4, 2007)

It is odd and sad how much trouble the studios have with making a decent hero flick.


----------



## ToddSchumacher (Feb 4, 2007)

I think its a combination of a few factors.

One: These moves require a LOT of money, as as the studios put up the money they, rightly, should have a say on how it is spent.

Two: There is difference in how regular people view comic books and the stories told, and how comic fans know how it is. Heck, even the difference in how comic readers read comics 30 years ago and now might have different views on any given hero.

Three: the studios, who want to get their money back, want as many regular people (or teenagers under 13) to see the film as possible. That means giving them (regular people) a story that the producers think will work. Not one that we (real fans) think is good.

And, of course, this even applies to movies that aren't super hero ones.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 4, 2007)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> I think its a combination of a few factors...




Yet, somehow they still seem more inept with them than with your average RomCom.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 4, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Yet, somehow they still seem more inept with them than with your average RomCom.




Well, to be honest, Romantic Comedy is easier to do well.  It is a well-understood genre, that doesn't have nearly the budget or adaptation issues.

The number of people on the business end of movies who understand the comics/superheroes genre is smaller.  The number who understand the comics, and also understand how to adapt a comic into a decent movie, is even smaller.  So, even with a good director (or writer or producer) just about every time the studio suits get involved, it is the addition of input from somenone who probably means very well, but who does not understand what it takes to succeed with the movie.


----------



## Gnome Quixote (Feb 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The number of people on the business end of movies who understand the comics/superheroes genre is smaller.  The number who understand the comics, and also understand how to adapt a comic into a decent movie, is even smaller.  So, even with a good director (or writer or producer) just about every time the studio suits get involved, it is the addition of input from somenone who probably means very well, but who does not understand what it takes to succeed with the movie.



For an excellent (and very, very funny) illustration of this, see the portion of _An Evening With Kevin Smith_ in which Smith discusses the difficulties he had in developing a (never-produced) Superman screenplay for Warner Bros., based on the Death-and-Return storyline of several years back. If you're even a casual comics fan, some of the demands made of him by executive producer Jon Peters will literally boggle your mind.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 5, 2007)

Gnome Quixote, oh come on. I mean everyone knows that polar bears and spiders are the fiercest creatures in the animal kingdom.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 5, 2007)

Execs micromanaging again, creates scope creep and increases cost.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The number of people on the business end of movies who understand the comics/superheroes genre is smaller.  The number who understand the comics, and also understand how to adapt a comic into a decent movie, is even smaller.  So, even with a good director (or writer or producer) just about every time the studio suits get involved, it is the addition of input from somenone who probably means very well, but who does not understand what it takes to succeed with the movie.



So how did Sam Raimi did it?

Before he took the helm of the first _Spider-Man_ movie, the only credits I know that he has were the syndicated _Hercules: The Legendary Journey_ and _Xena: Warrior Princess_ TV series. Definitely campy that would make many fans to reject him as the _Spider-Man_ helmer.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 5, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So how did Sam Raimi did it?
> 
> Before he took the helm of the first _Spider-Man_ movie, the only credits I know that he has were the syndicated _Hercules: The Legendary Journey_ and _Xena: Warrior Princess_ TV series. Definitely campy that would make many fans to reject him as the _Spider-Man_ helmer.



 Evil Dead and Darkman movies come to mind...


----------



## Klaus (Feb 5, 2007)

Latino Review has a review of the script WB purchased (you can get a link at the News page of Circvs Maximvs).

Boy, it sucks. Diana's only power is her strength, and she steals her uniform (the golden girdle allows her to walk in disguise, the lasso of truth and the tiara that controls the invisible plane).


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 6, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Evil Dead and Darkman movies come to mind...



Never got around to see _Evil Dead._

_Darkman_ ... mehhhh.   

So, how does someone like Sam Raimi with mediocre cult film credits did so great for the _Spider-Man_ film franchise?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 6, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Latino Review has a review of the script WB purchased (you can get a link at the News page of Circvs Maximvs).
> 
> Boy, it sucks. Diana's only power is her strength, and she steals her uniform (the golden girdle allows her to walk in disguise, the lasso of truth and the tiara that controls the invisible plane).



Refresh my comic book lore, how did _Wonder Woman_ acquire an invisible plane? Something so modern doesn't fit right with the Greek mythos.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Never got around to see _Evil Dead._
> 
> _Darkman_ ... mehhhh.
> 
> So, how does someone like Sam Raimi with mediocre cult film credits did so great for the _Spider-Man_ film franchise?



 Actually, they are excellent cult film credits, but that's beside the point.  

If memory serves, he was true to what Arad and the other Marvel/Sony suits wanted for the movie.  Another name comes to mind that came from cult movies: Peter Jackson.  Everyone's gotta start somewhere.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Refresh my comic book lore, how did _Wonder Woman_ acquire an invisible plane? Something so modern doesn't fit right with the Greek mythos.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Plane

Damn John Byrne for bringing back this forgettable piece of comic history...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Feb 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Never got around to see _Evil Dead._
> 
> _Darkman_ ... mehhhh.
> 
> So, how does someone like Sam Raimi with mediocre cult film credits did so great for the _Spider-Man_ film franchise?



They took a chance with him but his resume on hit TV shows and his cult following went a long way.  I also think I heard somewhere where the Mavel people had him on their short list.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 6, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> They took a chance with him but his resume on hit TV shows and his cult following went a long way.  I also think I heard somewhere where the Mavel people had him on their short list.



They also liked his experience with media and the fantasy realm and the effectiveness of his budgeting and production. It's far more difficult to make good films on shoestring budgets than it is to make good films when someone gives you a ton of cash.


----------



## Villano (Feb 6, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> So how did Sam Raimi did it?
> 
> Before he took the helm of the first _Spider-Man_ movie, the only credits I know that he has were the syndicated _Hercules: The Legendary Journey_ and _Xena: Warrior Princess_ TV series. Definitely campy that would make many fans to reject him as the _Spider-Man_ helmer.




As a Raimi fan, I was wondering why he was given such a high profile movie (although I tend to forget that he's been slowly moving into mainstream films with movies like A Simple Plan and The Gift).  I think you mentioned the biggest factor yourself:  Hercules and Xena.  They were insanely popular and made a great deal of money.  To a studio, that's all that really matters.

And I don't think that the choice really bothered comic fans since Raimi is a self-professed fan himself.  He tried to do The Shadow (before that movie came out), but couldn't get the rights.  He also lobbied to take over the Batman franchise, but they gave it to Schumacher instead...and we all know how that turned out.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Plane
> 
> Damn John Byrne for bringing back this forgettable piece of comic history...




As a survivor of his writing the book, the Wikipedia paragraph describing his time on it can't convey the sheer wrong-headedness of his run.  Paradise Island can travel through time?   Time is altered so that everyone now "remembers" Hippolyta (WW's mom) as the original Wonder Woman of WW2?  Wonder Woman is a goddess?  She killed a duplicate of Doomsday by herself?  The original Wonder Girl (now Troia) was WW's twin sister, who is cursed to live an infinite series of horrible lives in which she is killed, reborn, and made to suffer again and again?  Aliens give WW an invisible jet?  And why does a woman who can fly need a jet?  Byrne also said in interviews that he was going to marry her off, but since that didn't happen, I assume the editors shot that down. 

I haven't read the new series, but I've heard that WW now changes her costume by spinning around like on the TV series, so maybe I shouldn't give the DC editors too much credit for good sense.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 6, 2007)

That happened in the last issue by Phil Jimenez. Diana claims she learned that from her mother...

I actually don't *hate* the idea of a time-travelling Hyppolita becoming the Golden Age Wonder Woman, though. But the Donna Troy thing was just terrible.

One thing that muddled DC's continuity was that, after Crisis on Infinite Earths, some characters were rebooted, but others (read: Titans) weren't. That could've been avoided simply by stating that the "reboots" took place some time in the past. Then you could still have Wonder Woman saving a baby girl from a burning building and taking her to Paradise Island, where she grew up to be Wonder Girl. This shouldve been done with Hawkman, too.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 7, 2007)

The real shame of this is that Whedon really knows how to do female protagonists.  The only one who comes close is JJ Abrams.  I couldn't think of anyone better to do this movie and now I have zero interest.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 7, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> As a survivor of his writing the book, the Wikipedia paragraph describing his time on it can't convey the sheer wrong-headedness of his run.




My god, that is bad stuff. I've only have a casual interest in the book or character, so I did not follow it during this run and now I'm glad I did not. Wow.

Mostly my thoughts were and are those of John Crichton; Whendon has a proven track record and could have handled a flick about a woman with vast butt kicking powers. Most in Hollywood can barely handle movies about men with butt kicking powers.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 7, 2007)

This is a good thing.  Now maybe it has a chance to be good.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 7, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> This is a good thing.  Now maybe it has a chance to be good.




A good thing. Whendon being off...

I don't think you and I define these terms the same way.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 7, 2007)

SWEEET!!!! 16 posts in before the Whedon hating posts started to begin. What is you don't like firefly, buffy, angel? his vision on astonishing xmen? Fray?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 7, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> SWEEET!!!! 16 posts in before the Whedon hating posts started to begin. What is you don't like firefly, buffy, angel? his vision on astonishing xmen? Fray?



 People aren't allowed to dislike Whedon?

I mean, I like the guy's stuff(mostly, not a fan of Buffy and co at all), but really...I didn't see any serious hating.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 7, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> People aren't allowed to dislike Whedon?



Sure, you can hate but it's nice to have a reason behind it.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I mean, I like the guy's stuff(mostly, not a fan of Buffy and co at all), but really...I didn't see any serious hating.



I think he was referring to Flexor's post.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 7, 2007)

Villano said:
			
		

> As a Raimi fan, I was wondering why he was given such a high profile movie (although I tend to forget that he's been slowly moving into mainstream films with movies like A Simple Plan and The Gift).  I think you mentioned the biggest factor yourself:  Hercules and Xena.  They were insanely popular and made a great deal of money.  To a studio, that's all that really matters.



Interesting. I never thought of _Spider-Man_ being a high-profile film project, anymore than _Batman._




			
				Villano said:
			
		

> As a survivor of his writing the book, the Wikipedia paragraph describing his time on it can't convey the sheer wrong-headedness of his run.  Paradise Island can travel through time?   Time is altered so that everyone now "remembers" Hippolyta (WW's mom) as the original Wonder Woman of WW2?  Wonder Woman is a goddess?  She killed a duplicate of Doomsday by herself?  The original Wonder Girl (now Troia) was WW's twin sister, who is cursed to live an infinite series of horrible lives in which she is killed, reborn, and made to suffer again and again?  Aliens give WW an invisible jet?  And why does a woman who can fly need a jet?  Byrne also said in interviews that he was going to marry her off, but since that didn't happen, I assume the editors shot that down.
> 
> I haven't read the new series, but I've heard that WW now changes her costume by spinning around like on the TV series, so maybe I shouldn't give the DC editors too much credit for good sense.



All of these are giving me a headspin.

It would be interesting what the film mythos is going to based on. That's why I ask if putting _Wonder Woman_ in the modern age and try to marry it with the ancient Greek myths ... can be done without making sound like Hilary Duff/Britney Spears "girl-to-womanhood" film.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 7, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Interesting. I never thought of _Spider-Man_ being a high-profile film project, anymore than _Batman._



They are both super-high profile.

If those aren't high-profile film projects what do you consider high-profile?


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 7, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> People aren't allowed to dislike Whedon?
> 
> I mean, I like the guy's stuff(mostly, not a fan of Buffy and co at all), but really...I didn't see any serious hating.



It just seems silly that people go into a post of something they don't like just to say "i dont like it". When the subject of the post has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 7, 2007)

So if a thread says that Wheadon is off Wonder Woman I can't state in a public forum that I think this is a good thing?


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 7, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> So if a thread says that Wheadon is off Wonder Woman I can't state in a public forum that I think this is a good thing?



Of course you can, but it would be nice to know what you don't like about his work.  Otherwise, just like a one word post about "things sucking" it's just blather that doesn't really contribute to the thread at all.  I expect that at AICN, but not here.

But that's just me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Interesting. I never thought of _Spider-Man_ being a high-profile film project, anymore than _Batman._




*All-Time USA Box Office*

1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824 
2. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665 
3. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036 
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459 
5. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444 
6. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628 
*7. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375*
8. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555 
9. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252 
10. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893

Four hundred million dollars' worth of Americans would appear to disagree...

-Hyp.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Feb 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It just seems silly that people go into a post of something they don't like just to say "i dont like it". When the subject of the post has nothing to do with whether you like it or not.



 I can understand that...but really, sometimes opinions are just opinions. 

...besides, I'm the guy who still goes and defends Lucas and Star Wars in the threads that pop up, so I know what you mean...


----------



## Vigilance (Feb 8, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> All of these are giving me a headspin.
> 
> It would be interesting what the film mythos is going to based on. That's why I ask if putting _Wonder Woman_ in the modern age and try to marry it with the ancient Greek myths ... can be done without making sound like Hilary Duff/Britney Spears "girl-to-womanhood" film.




This is why Joss has said repeatedly that this was a hard script to write.

She's an iconic character, but her origin is not nearly as strong and easy to tell as Batman, Superman or Spiderman. 

She also doesn't even really have an arch-nemesis.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 8, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> It just seems silly...




(Shrug) People hate. It is what we do. It is who we are. Like breathing.


----------



## Vigilance (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *All-Time USA Box Office*
> 
> 1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
> 2. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
> ...




I think what Reg was talking about was that no one expected Spider Man to be a high-profile movie franchise before the first one came out. Certainly a change from James Cameron to Sam Raimi said that the studio didn't expect it to be one of the most profitable film franchises of the last decade. 

It's a big deal NOW, but it wasn't then.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think what Reg was talking about was that no one expected Spider Man to be a high-profile movie franchise before the first one came out.




Ah, I see.

Then I'm not sure I understand the point... he doesn't understand how a director with no high-profile film credits was picked to helm a project nobody expected to be high-profile?  Or he doesn't understand how a director with no high-profile film credits helming a project nobody expected to be high-profile managed to turn it into a high-profile movie?

-Hyp.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> I think what Reg was talking about was that no one expected Spider Man to be a high-profile movie franchise before the first one came out. Certainly a change from James Cameron to Sam Raimi said that the studio didn't expect it to be one of the most profitable film franchises of the last decade.
> 
> It's a big deal NOW, but it wasn't then.



Hmm, see I thought it was a big deal back then, too.  The movie was in production hell for years and when it was finally announced the fan base (which is huge) went nuts and ate up every design, photo and trailer.  Remember the debate over the Green Goblin helmet?


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *All-Time USA Box Office*
> 
> 1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
> 2. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
> ...



I mean the project, not the final product. I'm very surprised the mainstream liked it.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 8, 2007)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> This is why Joss has said repeatedly that this was a hard script to write.
> 
> She's an iconic character, but her origin is not nearly as strong and easy to tell as Batman, Superman or Spiderman.
> 
> She also doesn't even really have an arch-nemesis.



 I keep pointing to George Pérez relaunch of Wonder Woman, back in 1987.

- Wonder Woman was created by the goddesses of Olympus as a champion against the all-destroying ambition of Ares, God of War. She was sculpted from the clay of Paradise Island by Queen Hyppolita and infused with the soul of Hyppolita's unborn daughter.

- Wonder Woman's nemesis, Ares, has the potential to be a villain of Darth Vader proportions, with his dark armor and unseen face.


----------



## mmu1 (Feb 8, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I keep pointing to George Pérez relaunch of Wonder Woman, back in 1987.
> 
> - Wonder Woman was created by the goddesses of Olympus as a champion against the all-destroying ambition of Ares, God of War. She was sculpted from the clay of Paradise Island by Queen Hyppolita and infused with the soul of Hyppolita's unborn daughter.
> 
> - Wonder Woman's nemesis, Ares, has the potential to be a villain of Darth Vader proportions, with his dark armor and unseen face.




Hehe... It always cracks me up when Ares gets used as a serious villain. (This isn't a dig at anyone, it's just how I feel) The little shmuck is the ultimate loser of the Greek pantheon - going down to Earth to fight mortals because he's a nobody among the gods, constantly getting his ass kicked by anyone and everyone.

He's not even actually the god of war - just of the savagery of war, really, Athena being the real deal.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 8, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I keep pointing to George Pérez relaunch of Wonder Woman, back in 1987.




I agree. Simple. Ares. 1987 stuff.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 8, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Of course you can, but it would be nice to know what you don't like about his work.  Otherwise, just like a one word post about "things sucking" it's just blather that doesn't really contribute to the thread at all.  I expect that at AICN, but not here.
> 
> But that's just me.




I didn't even use the word sucked.  I just stated that this was a good thing if you want to make a good movie.  I should have added that I didn't want to sit through 2 hours of his forced dialog but didn't think the thread was about ripping on his writing.  That's all, but I should have remembered the devotion of the Wheadon lovers.  My mistake.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 8, 2007)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Hehe... It always cracks me up when Ares gets used as a serious villain. (This isn't a dig at anyone, it's just how I feel) The little shmuck is the ultimate loser of the Greek pantheon - going down to Earth to fight mortals because he's a nobody among the gods, constantly getting his ass kicked by anyone and everyone.










"Well, this day is looking up. I was just thinking to myself that I needed someone to punch."

-Hyp.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 8, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I didn't even use the word sucked.  I just stated that this was a good thing if you want to make a good movie.  I should have added that I didn't want to sit through 2 hours of his forced dialog but didn't think the thread was about ripping on his writing.  That's all, but I should have remembered the devotion of the Wheadon lovers.  My mistake.



Naw, this has nothing to do with Whedon.  I prefer to have actual reasons to why people don't like something all the time.  Uwe Boll I believe it the one exception.  Then I want to know why they do like his stuff or are excited for one of his films.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 8, 2007)

In the DC Comics lore (as established by Pérez in 1987), Ares was the God of Warfare, and his power thrived as mankind's violence grew. He worked through the hearts of warmongers, paranoids and hatemongers to eventually reach his apex during the Cold War. Had Wonder Woman not intervened (in her very first visit to Patriarch's World), he would've launched World War III, obliterating mankind, and eventually, himself (without worshippers, he'd crumble to dust).

Ares eventually charged Wonder Woman with changing mankind's ways, or else he'd be forced to carry his purpose. Yet he still hates Diana for decapitating his favorite son, Deimos.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 8, 2007)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I didn't even use the word sucked.  I just stated that this was a good thing if you want to make a good movie.  I should have added that I didn't want to sit through 2 hours of his forced dialog but didn't think the thread was about ripping on his writing.  That's all, but I should have remembered the devotion of the Wheadon lovers.  My mistake.



Not a fan of _Serenity,_ huh?


----------



## Grog (Feb 9, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> (Shrug) People hate. It is what we do. It is who we are. Like breathing.




I don't hate Joss, but I do think he's way overrated and overhyped. More and more I'm convinced that Greenwalt was the true talent behind Buffy and Angel.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> I don't hate Joss, but I do think he's way overrated and overhyped. More and more I'm convinced that Greenwalt was the true talent behind Buffy and Angel.



I'm sure he contributed to those show's successes but then how to explain Firefly?  And beyond that, if you look at the extras on the DVDs for those shows you can see Joss' fingerprints all over them.


----------



## Grog (Feb 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I'm sure he contributed to those show's successes but then how to explain Firefly?




Firefly wasn't a success.

And I could talk in-depth about Buffy and Angel, but that would be way off-topic for this thread, so I'll refrain.


----------



## John Crichton (Feb 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> Firefly wasn't a success.



Compared to Buffy & Angel?  What criteria?

Because if you are talking about viewership, because it was on Fox more people watched it that those who watched Buffy or Angel.  If you are talking about quality, you can certainly say it wasn't as good but there will be plenty of folks who will disagree with you.


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 9, 2007)

Well, actually, thanks to this helpful page which has the ratings for the entire run of Angel, Buffy, and Firefly we can compare:

http://home.insightbb.com/~wahoskem/firefly1.html

Firefly's best national rating was the premiere, at 4.0, the next two episodes were in the 3.x range, then the rest were in the 2s.  Buffy didn't do much better (and in some cases about the same) but it did generally do better, especially the 3rd season when it seems to have peaked.  I think Angel even did better than Buffy for a while.

OTOH, the network did matter.  Buffy was among the top shows on WB, while Firefly was pretty much the worst on Fox.  That sites also has a list of how the show did to others on the network.   Firefly's best showing was the 3rd worst on the schedule.  Most of the time it was worst. Which is pretty telling, too, because Fox runs re-runs of Cops on Saturday.  In fact, saturday is basically a throw away for Fox, they run shows that have terrible ratings, but are very cheap to make (COPS and America's Most Wanted), and Firefly apparently even couldn't outperform those most of the time.

Firefly definitely can be considered a failure.


----------



## Grog (Feb 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Compared to Buffy & Angel?  What criteria?




It was canceled after half a season. By definition, it's a failure.

As for quality, that's totally subjective. In my opinion, Firefly was good - but that's all. Not great, and there was nothing particularly special about it. The writing and acting were above par, and the stories were good once they got the initial intros done (it had one of the worst series openers I can ever remember seeing).

Character-wise, they got one thing right - Captain Malcolm Reynolds. Everyone else was severely lacking in depth. The doctor's sister, for instance, only became a remotely interesting character in the last episode that aired - and since a disproportionate amount of the plot revolved around her....


----------



## Vigilance (Feb 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Hmm, see I thought it was a big deal back then, too.  The movie was in production hell for years and when it was finally announced the fan base (which is huge) went nuts and ate up every design, photo and trailer.  Remember the debate over the Green Goblin helmet?




Sure WE thought it was a big deal.

Comics fans. Geeks. Us.

Do you think the studio thought Spider Man would be a 500 million dollar film?

I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It was canceled after half a season. By definition, it's a failure.
> 
> As for quality, that's totally subjective. In my opinion, Firefly was good - but that's all. Not great, and there was nothing particularly special about it. The writing and acting were above par, and the stories were good once they got the initial intros done (it had one of the worst series openers I can ever remember seeing).
> 
> Character-wise, they got one thing right - Captain Malcolm Reynolds. Everyone else was severely lacking in depth. The doctor's sister, for instance, only became a remotely interesting character in the last episode that aired - and since a disproportionate amount of the plot revolved around her....



 There is the fact that the show was aired out of order, and the last episodes weren't even aired. Compare Firefly to the first 13 episodes of Buffy and you'll see that, technically, it was superior.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 9, 2007)

In a likely futal attempt to get this thread back on topic. Given that Whedon has left, WB has grabbed the rights to the WW II script, Joel Silver is still involved and everyone hates everyone and secretly wishes them ill...

What do you anticipate for the Wonder Woman flick? Me, I'm betting on a return to development hell.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> The writing and acting were above par, and the stories were good once they got the initial intros done (it had one of the worst series openers I can ever remember seeing).




Was that the series opener _Serenity (Parts 1 & 2)_, or the series opener _The Train Job_?

-Hyp.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 9, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> In a likely futal attempt to get this thread back on topic. Given that Whedon has left, WB has grabbed the rights to the WW II script, Joel Silver is still involved and everyone hates everyone and secretly wishes them ill...
> 
> What do you anticipate for the Wonder Woman flick? Me, I'm betting on a return to development hell.



Yeah I'd suspect development hell. Without a big name or something flashy attached to it, i dont see it going anywhere. Wonderwoman just isnt an iconic enough character.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It was canceled after half a season. By definition, it's a failure.




No - by definition, it didn't continue.  Sales of DVDs since then stand as ample evidence that this wasn't so much a failure of the series, as a studio not realizing what they had.



> Character-wise, they got one thing right - Captain Malcolm Reynolds. Everyone else was severely lacking in depth. The doctor's sister, for instance, only became a remotely interesting character in the last episode that aired - and since a disproportionate amount of the plot revolved around her....




In a series that had 13 episodes, and 9 main characters, you should have expected just a bit more than one episode's worth of depth and development per character.  Seems to me they beat the average there.

And yes, River was as much a McGuffin as a character.  Even on good shows, they can't all be gems.


----------



## Grog (Feb 9, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> There is the fact that the show was aired out of order, and the last episodes weren't even aired. Compare Firefly to the first 13 episodes of Buffy and you'll see that, technically, it was superior.




Well, sure it was _technically_ superior. The budget for the first 13 episodes of Firefly was probably ten times the budget for the first 13 episodes of Buffy, if not more. It damn well should be technically superior, given that.

As for other ways of measuring quality, though, that's strictly a matter of opinion. And in my opinion, the first 13 episodes of Buffy were superior to Firefly, the series. In the initial episodes of Buffy, the core characters (Buffy, Willow, Giles, and Xander) were all well-drawn and well-developed, and they all had moments in those early episodes that were _intrinsically_ theirs. This wasn't the case for most of the Firefly characters. Except for the captain, they were mostly one- or two-note cutouts that simply weren't that interesting. *shrug*


----------



## Grog (Feb 9, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Was that the series opener _Serenity (Parts 1 & 2)_, or the series opener _The Train Job_?




Both, actually. "Serenity" was boring (it felt like they stretched a one-hour episode into two), and "The Train Job" was cookie-cutter writing that could have come from anybody's desk.


----------



## Grog (Feb 9, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> No - by definition, it didn't continue.  Sales of DVDs since then stand as ample evidence that this wasn't so much a failure of the series, as a studio not realizing what they had.




Look, I liked Firefly, but it was obvious to me from the first episode that it wasn't long for this world. It might have lasted a season or two on a network like UPN or the WB, or maybe even a few seasons on the Sci-Fi Channel, but on FOX, it was dead in the water before the first episode even aired. It simply was not going to pull the kind of ratings that FOX wanted/needed, which led to a quick cancellation, which makes it a failure by broadcast TV standards. DVD sales don't enter into it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 9, 2007)

Grog said:
			
		

> It was canceled after half a season. By definition, it's a failure.



It fails to get mainstream to watch. But as a genre fan, I don't follow them sorry lot.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 9, 2007)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Hmm, see I thought it was a big deal back then, too.  The movie was in production hell for years and when it was finally announced the fan base (which is huge) went nuts and ate up every design, photo and trailer.  Remember the debate over the Green Goblin helmet?



Among comic book fans, it was a big deal. They didn't want _Spider-Man_ to be as campy as _Batman & Robin._


----------



## Richards (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm tempted to ask, "If Whedon is off Wonder Woman, can I get on her?"

But that would be crude.

Johnathan


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 12, 2007)

Richards said:
			
		

> I'm tempted to ask, "If Whedon is off Wonder Woman, can I get on her?"
> 
> But that would be crude.



She prefers to be on top.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 12, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> She prefers to be on top.



 That's alright by me!

Klaus "I can draw my own XXX comics" Ooi


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Feb 12, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Klaus "I can draw my own XXX comics" Ooi




You can Kevin Taylor. He's got some pictures of Wonder Woman where you can see...

What were we talking about? Oh. The movie. Well, Whedon was one of the few directors I thought who could have handled the movie well. But he is off the project. Others are is J.J. Abrams, the man who did Superman and the first two X-Men movies, the guy who did the Underworld movie and oh, I don't know, the Brothers W.

But I don't know that any of them would want to even if they were available to handle the project.

So, back to development hell, or delivered into inept hands, much as Fantastic Four was.


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 12, 2007)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> So, back to development hell, or delivered into inept hands, much as Fantastic Four was.



Well, I never considered _FF_ film to be a failure, just with the mainstream (and you know how I feel about them).


----------



## Darrell (Feb 19, 2007)

Personally, I consider Whedon's departure to be a good thing for one primary reason.  He'd already said that he didn't want to use the WW costume.

I can take some jockeying with 'traditional' costumes, like the 'armor' look in _Batman Begins_ and the color alterations in _Superman Returns_.  Both movies, however, used the basic costume elements of the character from the comics.  _Spiderman_ did even better, using pretty much exactly the costume from the comics.

For Wonder Woman, she needs to be in some form of the WW costume.  Put her in a 'star-spangled' skirt, like in the early appearances, or the 'loincloth' look from 'Kingdom Come,' or even the ridiculous 'Wonder-thong' from several years back (well, maybe not); but put her in some recognizable semblance of the Wonder Woman costume.

That, plus decent acting and a credible villain and storyline (not the Perez reboot and Ares, if you please...it's been done), and it should be a decent flick.

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 19, 2007)

Darrell said:
			
		

> Personally, I consider Whedon's departure to be a good thing for one primary reason.  He'd already said that he didn't want to use the WW costume.
> 
> I can take some jockeying with 'traditional' costumes, like the 'armor' look in _Batman Begins_ and the color alterations in _Superman Returns_.  Both movies, however, used the basic costume elements of the character from the comics.  _Spiderman_ did even better, using pretty much exactly the costume from the comics.
> 
> ...



I don't mind the traditional costume, just don't make it strapless. It only worked with Linda Carter and in the 70's. It's the bottom half I'm concerned (though in my fantasy, she's wearing a thong under a sheer peek-a-boo skirt).

I'm afraid this is going to be some kind of "sweet candy" movie, the kind that Hillary Duff would star in (not that she would want to).


----------



## Klaus (Feb 19, 2007)

Darrell said:
			
		

> Personally, I consider Whedon's departure to be a good thing for one primary reason.  He'd already said that he didn't want to use the WW costume.
> 
> I can take some jockeying with 'traditional' costumes, like the 'armor' look in _Batman Begins_ and the color alterations in _Superman Returns_.  Both movies, however, used the basic costume elements of the character from the comics.  _Spiderman_ did even better, using pretty much exactly the costume from the comics.
> 
> ...



 When has Ares been done in a movie? And please, Xena doesn't count.


----------



## Darrell (Feb 19, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> When has Ares been done in a movie? And please, Xena doesn't count.




I didn't mean it'd been done in a movie, I meant it had been done, period.  Perez' story was fine, but I wouldn't want to see it as the basis for the movie.  At the risk of drawing down the fire, I'd prefer a more straightforward 'superhero' WW movie that might give mention to the Ancient Greek area of her origin, but stays well away from dwelling on it.  I wouldn't want to see Ares, or Phobos and Deimos, or Medusa, or any of the other Greek-myth elements used as the villains in or basis for the film.  I'd rather have 'modern-era' villains.

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Darrell (Feb 19, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I don't mind the traditional costume, just don't make it strapless. It only worked with Linda Carter and in the 70's. It's the bottom half I'm concerned (though in my fantasy, she's wearing a thong under a sheer peek-a-boo skirt).




I wouldn't mind it being strapless if they did it 'Perez-style,' and made it a rigid 'armor' type of thing instead of cloth (regardless of how stiff the cloth may be).



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'm afraid this is going to be some kind of "sweet candy" movie, the kind that Hillary Duff would star in (not that she would want to).




I'm kind of afraid of this, too, but I'm willing to give Warner/DC the benefit of the doubt.  They (and, of course, the production teams) did a terrific job on _Batman Begins_, and even managed to make _Superman Returns_ rather enjoyable (even though they held far too tightly to those god-awful Chris Reeve movies for my taste).

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Klaus (Feb 20, 2007)

Darrell said:
			
		

> I didn't mean it'd been done in a movie, I meant it had been done, period.  Perez' story was fine, but I wouldn't want to see it as the basis for the movie.  At the risk of drawing down the fire, I'd prefer a more straightforward 'superhero' WW movie that might give mention to the Ancient Greek area of her origin, but stays well away from dwelling on it.  I wouldn't want to see Ares, or Phobos and Deimos, or Medusa, or any of the other Greek-myth elements used as the villains in or basis for the film.  I'd rather have 'modern-era' villains.
> 
> Regards,
> Darrell



 But the best thing Perez did was bring to the fore the mythological element of Wonder Woman. Aside from Ares, WW's rogues gallery is pretty thin:
- Cheetah
- Giganta
- Doctor Psycho
- Silver Swan
- Circe
- ...


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2007)

Darrell said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind it being strapless if they did it 'Perez-style,' and made it a rigid 'armor' type of thing instead of cloth (regardless of how stiff the cloth may be).



Nope. Gotta have straps. Otherwise, cast Madonna to save wardrobe cost.   



			
				Darrell said:
			
		

> I'm kind of afraid of this, too, but I'm willing to give Warner/DC the benefit of the doubt.  They (and, of course, the production teams) did a terrific job on _Batman Begins_, and even managed to make _Superman Returns_ rather enjoyable (even though they held far too tightly to those god-awful Chris Reeve movies for my taste).



Those two are a lot easier and have been accepted by the mainstream, though many have worried prior to Burton's _Batman_ that it will be as campy as the Adam West TV version.

That's why I ask, what direction will _Wonder Woman_ take that would make the audience flock to see it and make $40 million on the opening weekend (something that Nicolas Cage's _Ghost Rider_ did)?


----------



## Darrell (Feb 20, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> But the best thing Perez did was bring to the fore the mythological element of Wonder Woman. Aside from Ares, WW's rogues gallery is pretty thin:
> - Cheetah
> - Giganta
> - Doctor Psycho
> ...




Cheetah is, as far as I'm concerned, the best choice for her initial foe--especially if they use the 'animalistic spirit possessing a willing host' angle from the Perez run...as long as they don't do a retread of a previously-published story, that is.

I wouldn't mind Dr. Psycho or Silver Swan, and Giganta might be interesting if they used the odd bit from Alex Ross' _Justice_ comics, where she seems to start reverting to gorilla form when she attacks someone.

Circe, however, is just an Ancient Greek sorceress brought into the modern era, so I'd just as soon not see it.

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Darrell (Feb 20, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Nope. Gotta have straps. Otherwise, cast Madonna to save wardrobe cost.




Agree to disagree, then.  Personally, I'd prefer it without straps.        Actually, come to think of it, I'd prefer it without the top.   Or the bottom.  Just boots n' bracelets.  Whole diff'rent kinda movie.   



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Those two are a lot easier and have been accepted by the mainstream, though many have worried prior to Burton's _Batman_ that it will be as campy as the Adam West TV version.




I tend to think WW is pretty much as iconic as Superman and Batman.  I believe she'll have the name recognition to reach the mainstream audiences.  Well, just as long as they don't go down a _Catwoman/Elektra_ road.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> That's why I ask, what direction will _Wonder Woman_ take that would make the audience flock to see it and make $40 million on the opening weekend (something that Nicolas Cage's _Ghost Rider_ did)?




I think name recognition and a top-flight ad campaign could do it.  Lasting box office draw over the first month or so, though?  I dunno.  Then it'd be up to how good or bad the movie actually was.

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 20, 2007)

Darrell said:
			
		

> I think name recognition and a top-flight ad campaign could do it.  Lasting box office draw over the first month or so, though?  I dunno.  Then it'd be up to how good or bad the movie actually was.



If you rely on just name recognition alone, then it'd be like WotC having the excuse to put out bad and/or irrelevant books with _D&D_ label on it.   

Bad example. I've seen gullible _D&D_ fans buying them anyway.


----------



## Darrell (Feb 22, 2007)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If you rely on just name recognition alone, then it'd be like WotC having the excuse to put out bad and/or irrelevant books with _D&D_ label on it.
> 
> Bad example. I've seen gullible _D&D_ fans buying them anyway.




Yep.    And to be fair, you're question was about what it would take to make the audience flock to see _Wonder Woman_ and have it make a mint on the opening weekend, not about the movie's actual quality.  

I still think WW has the name recognition to pull that off (especially pointing to _Ghost Rider_ as an example.  The GR character isn't even remotely as well-known or long-lived as WW.  

Granted, GR has the flaming skull and motorcycle imagery and all, but it also has an over-the-hill Nic Cage doing his patented god-awful Elvis impression.

Regards,
Darrell


----------



## Ranger REG (Feb 22, 2007)

Darrell said:
			
		

> Yep.    And to be fair, you're question was about what it would take to make the audience flock to see _Wonder Woman_ and have it make a mint on the opening weekend, not about the movie's actual quality.
> 
> I still think WW has the name recognition to pull that off (especially pointing to _Ghost Rider_ as an example.  The GR character isn't even remotely as well-known or long-lived as WW.



Yeah, but it has Nicolas Cage and Eva Mendes.   

Of course, does that also means that comic-book fans make worse actors as a _D&D_ gamer make worse director? 

Hehehe.


----------

