But why would we want to see female superhero movies? Consider "Batman
Begins": there was all this anticipation that the filmmakers were going to
reboot the franchise, tell us a Batman story we hadn't seen before, give us an
actor known for committing to his craft, all with kickass effects. Of course I
want to see that.
Now consider "Catwoman"--the biggest selling point, the thing they focused on
in their advertising, is how hot Halle Berry looks in the outfit (and a
ridiculous outfit at that). That's not worth my time.
Filmmakers don't take female superhero movies seriously. Why should we?
conseula
ravenadal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Female Superhero movies suffer the same fate as black science fiction
movies (white people don't want to see them and BLACK people don't
want to see them): men don't want to see them and WOMEN don't want to
see them.
"Catwoman" is still the top-grossing female superhero movie ($82
million) and nobody considers that a success.
Elektra: $56 million
Aeon Flux: $52 million
Ultraviolet: $31 million
Female superhero movies - ain't no money in them.
~(no)rave!
--- In [email protected], "Tracey de Morsella (formerly
Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Action Or Angst? What Do We Want In Our Superheroes?
> COMMENTARY: Can 'Wonder Woman' succeed purely as action hero?
>
> By ROBIN BROWNFIELD
> Source: SyFy Portal
> Feb-04-2007
>
> When Joss Whedon announced almost two years after signing on to
write
> and direct a "Wonder Woman" movie that he was no longer attached to
the
> project, the air of shock around the Internet was almost palpable.
>
> Around the same time, David S. Goyer, who wrote the story and co-
wrote
> the screenplay for "Batman Begins," was told his vision for the
movie
> "The Flash" was not what Warner Bros. producers wanted, and the
movie
> has been shelved for now.
>
> The story behind the "Wonder Woman" movie, it seems, is that Warner
> Bros. has purchased a speculative script from newcomers Matthew
Jennison
> and Brent Strickland, and is ready to bring them on board to
replace Whedon.
>
> All this leads to the question, "What do people want out of a
superhero
> movie? An escapist action romp or fully fleshed-out characters
facing
> the most painful decisions of their lives?"
>
> While it is uncertain what Whedon has done with "Wonder Woman," it
seems
> Joel Silver and company want an action-oriented story set against
the
> backdrop of World War II -- the time period when Wonder Woman
comics
> debuted. Whedon's vision places Princess Diana in the present day.
Based
> on his previous works ("Buffy the Vampire
Slayer," "Angel," "Firefly,"
> "Serenity"), one can safely assume that his Wonder Woman would be a
> fully fleshed out character, complete with goddess-like strength,
and
> human foibles. She would most likely be surrounded by fully
developed
> supporting characters, and the story that unwinds would largely
grow out
> from and be advanced by the characters themselves.
>
> We could also count on sharp, engaging dialogue where every word is
> measured and infused with meaning.
>
> A synopsis of the Jennison/Strickland script has been posted on the
> Internet. It is filled with highly charged action, it appears to
move
> quickly, and is balanced with sharp contrasts between scenes. It
looks
> like it could be exciting, but because there is no dialogue, and
the
> focus is strictly on the action in the movie, it makes me fear that
> there will be little in the way of actual character development.
There
> also is no indicator as to whether the two can write dialogue well.
It's
> possible that they can, but in the end, what I read is the basis
for a
> largely formulaic movie with lots of loud sounds, flashy visuals
and
> action. I donât see the groundwork laid for creating characters
people
> in the audience can identify with.
>
> People need to be able to identify with the characters in a movie.
They
> have to be able to feel with the characters and understand why it
is
> they do what they do. The X-Men and Spider-Man movies have been the
best
> of any in the genre. X-Men movies have been analogous to the
struggles
> with racism and homophobia. In both X-Men and Spider-Man, people
can
> identify with the characters' perpetually feeling like outsiders.
Each
> has unique qualities that allow them to do amazing things, and yet,
> people in general and/or in their immediate surroundings, rarely,
if
> ever, recognize and appreciate this.
>
> Most real people can identify with this scenario. How many of us
have
> proven time and time again that we are unique, intelligent and
superbly
> talented people whose accomplishments go largely unnoticed by many
or
> most of the people around us? It is the same kind of scenario that
makes
> "Buffy" so popular. We now see the same happening with characters
in the
> TV show "Heroes."
>
> It was Peter Parker's angst that drew me to Spider-Man comics as a
kid.
> I often skipped over the action parts of the stories just to catch
what
> was happening in Peter's world. I still remember Duo Damsel
heartbroken
> because she was in love with Superboy, but knew he was destined to
end
> up with someone else. Things like that got to me as a child, and
they
> still get to me as an adult.
>
> Wonder Woman often struggled with being a powerful woman who was
rarely
> appreciated for it in a man's world. Angst is what makes these
heroes
> accessible to an audience. Going through the human experience even
if
> one is not quite human, or is super-human, endears these characters
to us.
>
> While it's possible to have a hero who doesn't feel like an
outsider or
> a freak, how that translates into their personality can be
problematic.
> If they are always self-sacrificing, righteous and true, they can
end up
> being downright boring. Then again, someone who doesn't suffer
rarely
> understands the plight of others who are suffering, and usually
isn't
> heroic. Someone like that is likely to come off as arrogant and/or
> self-obsessed, and uses their power for personal gain. I'm not sure
I
> want to know people who are drawn to this kind of "hero." I might
end up
> being the next person they get all self-righteous and true on.
>
> People simply can't identify with an action figure. An action
figure may
> present an amusing visual and aural experience, but so does a
musical
> mobile hanging over a crib. Both are forgettable once they're out
of
> sight. A fully realized human being makes for much longer-lasting
> "relationship" between the character and the audience than Action
> Jackson ever can. How many people talk as passionately -- and for
years
> on end -- about Lara Croft as they do about Buffy or River Tam?
>
> Then there is the issue of the setting for the movies. Wonder Woman
has
> gone through many eras. She hasn't always been stuck in WWII, as
> Superman hasn't always been stuck in the 1930s. In the early 1970s,
> Wonder Woman had been revamped to fit the times. Steve Trevor was
> killed, she lost her powers, traded in her bathing suit for a
> mini-dress, and learned martial arts from some old guy named I-
ching.
> While that probably wasnât the best version of Wonder Woman, it
kept her
> in the present.
>
> Since then, WW has been reinvented several more times, keeping her
in
> the present. All the Superman and Batman movies are in the present
(or
> future). Why must Wonder Woman be stuck back in WWII?
>
> My favorite DC-based movie last year was "V for Vendetta," which
while
> it wasn't a superhero movie, was the kind of movie I prefer to
shell out
> money to see. I donât make a whole lot, and I have a lot of kids
to
> feed, so I can't often waste money on something that is a purely
> escapist formula movie. Most of the superhero/graphic novel movies -
> regardless of their origins - are lackluster at best. "Daredevil,"
> "Electra," "Catwoman," "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow,"
and "Sin
> City" were all substitutes for Sominex.
>
> Unfortunately, superhero movie producers have grandiose
expectations,
> but usually resort to mediocre stories and big special effects or
> âartfulâ facades to pass their production off as marketable.
âSuperman
> Returns,â while somewhat better than previously mentioned movies,
still
> suffered the fate of presenting a formulaic plot with some bad
casting
> choices (that was NOT Lois Lane), and uneven acting. Hell, Brandon
Routh
> barely got to do anything beyond his Christopher Reeve-as-Clark
Kent
> impression. While Bryan Singer, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris
tried
> to infuse some humanity and allusions to Supes being Christ-like
into
> the story, the actual plot was simply a rehash of old plots with
Lex
> Luthor abusing different pieces of real estate.
>
> There are passably good comic book hero movies out there
("Hellboy," and
> even "Fantastic Four" to some extent) that take the action formula
and
> make it interesting and entertaining. For far too many, though, the
> formula starts to become rancid after too long. I had been looking
> forward to something fresh and different in Joss Whedon's "Wonder
> Woman." I had hoped it would be the one movie about a female
superhero
> that wasn't abysmal. I can still hope for this. Jennison and
Strickland
> may turn out to be great writers. Still, Iâm not going to put
much faith
> in the judgment of movie studio moguls. They have been wrong many
times
> before.
>
> Robin Brownfield is a staff writer for SyFy Portal, writing out of
New
> Jersey. She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
