Why do you say that? I've never read their site much.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Remember at all times, keith- this is someone from SyFy talking. Their
acquaintance with the genre is passing at best, IMO.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some comments on her comments:
One, I'd take Whedon's work anyday over many others, but I was concerned he was
going to do another "Buffy" treatment on Wonder Woman. I think I'd read that he
planned to make Diana younger than is typically portrayed in comics--probably
more like 19 or 20, as opposed to Diana's apparent age of mid- to
late-twenties. Whedon loves very young women, but I really wasn't looking
forward to another young waiflike girl dealing with pain and heartache. Thats
one reason I didnt' like Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane: she looked and acted too
young for my tastes. I'd rather deal with the more mature warrior than the
little girl lost in Patriarch's World. Someone like Charisma Carpenter! :)
Having Wonder Woman in WWII is not necessarily a bad thing, if done well. If we
could get the guys behind "Hellboy" or "V: For Vendetta" to do it, WWII could
be a fantastic backdrop for a superhero battle. Often some of the coolest scifi
is set in the time period of rougly from the 1890s to the 1940s. Something
about the old tech--vacuum tubes, Iron Giant looking robots, etc.--is often
really cool in scifi themes. The only issue they seem to have overlooked is
that Wonder Woman in WWII has been retconned by DC to be Queen Hippolyta,
Diana's mother. Diana was thus the second woman to wear the mantle of Wonder
Woman, and did it in modern times.
I disagree with her that "Sin City" was a snoozefest (it was great), that
"Hellboy" was only passable (it was awesome), and so was "Fantastic Four" (it
sucked).
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)"
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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
"There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get
organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A
Country"
---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people
who know.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
