She’s a very smart woman, to turn this future turd of a movie down.

I personally prefer a Superman who was Superbaby, but the makers of Superman decided to skip that part of the character, damn them. I think Mary Jane Watson was so much better for coming third, not first. Sam Raimi and company disagreed with me. I like Wolverine with essentially no origin over Wolverine with Wolverine: Origin, but the filmmakers disagreed. I think that Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes looks mostly silly, and by changing a few proper nouns here and there could have been a film about a brand new character rather than a specific reading of the original source material. But he’s allowed to do it and more power to him if it works.

A comic book hero, or heroine, is more than just the sum of his or her gadgets…

I don’t even know what “tied to Gaia” means, but it sounds kinky. And potentially mega-stupid. And not necessary.

You seem to be elevating any live-action movie that someone would care to make about Wonder Woman over the comic book series. I don’t see the point. Are the comic book stories so dull and unimaginative that they don’t enable a reader to visualize WW doing (fill in the blank)?

I can’t imagine WW doing anything in a movie that would alter the character concept, much less transform it. There would probably be people who’d point out that the bracelets are useless against lead shot, or simultaneous shots from two or more directions.

The point of suggesting that WW be based on creation by Gaia is that if a character concept doesn’t work, for some reason, it can be fixed. A mythological background that eliminated the adverse relationship with men, but kept them at a distance, would enable WW to represent women generally and have powers as well.

SRS

I’d love to see a Wonder Woman movie. I’d also love to see a Catwoman movie … done right, this time.

I don’t even know what “tied to Gaia” means, but it sounds kinky. And potentially mega-stupid. And not necessary.

A no longer tied up woman? That’s many people’s favorite kind!

Yes, but then, someone would have to supply a background to match the visual concept and justify the powers. Superman was an alien. I suppose that a non-Amazon Wonder Woman could be tied to Gaia, and exist as a primal woman, naturally powerful and unburdened by misconceptions and prejudices.

SRS

The fetish elements in Marston’s WONDER WOMAN are pretty obvious. I don’t fault people for trying to eliminate such elements from the character concept, but I don’t think that’s possible without eliminating the Amazonian element completely. If that were done — what would be left?

SRS

I bet they’d film a Wonder Woman movie if they knew it was going to make back 17X its budget.

“I’m still waiting for examples of Wonder Woman storylines that relate to her theme in a literary fashion.”

I’m not clear on what you mean by “literary fashion,” as you seem to be using it to mean nothing more than stories that you personally like.

Is Baum’s WIZARD OF OZ literary, in its evocation of fantastic whimsy? Some of the early Marston stories are equally whimsical and inventive.

Is Engleharts’ DOCTOR STRANGE literary because it tosses around magical concepts? The WW origin opposes “love” and “war” as abstract qualities.

And I like a lot of Englehart’s AVENGERS, but it’s very uneven, to say nothing of being very badly drawn in many issues. Don Heck was still capable of doing good work, but by that time group books weren’t his thing any more. The Perez WW is also uneven, but probably has as many strong moments plus usually looking great artwise.

But who would play I-Ching?

It’s the American Monomyth with a bit of the Immigrant Experience. One recurring subvillain can be a media blowhard who is very critical of WW. Avoid using the swimsuit uniform.

I think it’s pretty funny that there’s 57 responses to the news that some actress has said that she doesn’t want to star in a movie that no one’s making anyway.

Well, aside from comments on Fox, the actress’s dismissal of Wonder Woman as “lame” touches a sore point creators and fans have, who are aware that the characters they’re working with or love can be hard to write for adults, even if editors were to give them the freedom to do so.

SRS

And Cheetah was the only Wonder Woman adversary I could remember. They fought against each other in SUPER-FRIENDS, right?

http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2007_Elizabeth:_The_Golden_Age/2007_elizabeth_the_golden_age_004.jpg

I don’t see why that is true. Did Batman Begins interest adults? It relied on archetypes. From your comment, I’m interpreting that you’re defining “archetypical” as “generic,” but that’s not really what it means.

Mariah argued that basing stories on the generic aspects of superheroes was fine, and that’s what I was responding to. Practically all fiction makes use of archetypes, but writing stories that feature simplistic archetypes, such as the megalomaniacal villain who wants to take over the world, or the hero who places his responsibility to use his power to do good over everything else, avoids love interests because the relationships will conflict with their safety and that overriding responsibility, etc., is just a waste of time. There’s no practical difference between using simple archetypes and using “generic” characters in stories.

It’s possible to write superhero characters as SF/fantasy characters, construct rationales for their powers which make sense and develop them. That’s what Englehart did in the ’70s, and he’s still renowned for his work with the Vision and Scarlet Witch (a union of opposites) and Dr. Strange (a sorcerer who worked to understand and deal with a multi-dimensional reality). The “Celestial Madonna” AVENGERS storyline was SF; Thomas’s “Kree-Skrull War” storyline had SF elements.

Formula fiction makes heavy use of archetypes (see, e.g., this), but formula fiction, even if it’s not immediately dismissed as junk, eventually becomes uninteresting after a reader knows the formula(s) a given writer uses.

I’m still waiting for examples of Wonder Woman storylines that relate to her theme in a literary fashion.

Steven, it’s just stories, man. They don’t *have* to do anything other than make something people want to go see on a movie screen.

I won’t argue that a Wonder Woman movie couldn’t possibly be made which entertained some types of viewers, but I’d expect the movie’s plot and interpretation of the heroine to be simple, if not simplistic. My main concern is having the virtues of the comic book character identified.

SRS

A couple of the posts on this thread talk about Paradise Island like it’s a real place that needs to be represented based on that reality instead of a fictional construct with limitless possibilities for use.

Creating fictional movies in your head is a pretty limited exercise, if only because the elements that make a hit film are kind of all over the place, and only have a little to do with the strength of the concept. Ditto advance reviewing fictional movies that exist in your head to give them a thumbs down.

On a certain level, you just never know. It’s not like Dragon Ball sucks now. They just made a crappy movie. It’s not like the X-Men are a better movie concept than the Fantastic Four. Not really. I would rather engulf my own head in flame than see Ghost Rider again, but if I were drafting properties in 1994 for a game of Fantasy Franchising the Skeleton on a Motorcycle would have been in my top ten ahead of the Day-Walking Vampire.