Amazon (2013)

WONDER WOMAN (2011): http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/03/18/wonder-woman-adrianne-palicki-photo/

I'm not digging the pants. She looks more like a cosplay than Wonder Woman.

I also wonder if WB's new plan of a Justice League flick is going to hurt this pilot's chances getting a series picked up. I don't think WB would want a live action TV show running while a film is out (Smallville during Superman Return's release doesn't count for obvious reasons).

I really wish Joel Silver wasn't such a shithead and had let Joss Whedon done his thing with WW in 2007.

--------

AMAZON (2013): http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172565-the-cw-developing-a-wonder-woman-series

She looks like Ambler or MOO7RE should snap her up for Baker street.

And that costume is just terrible, are you sure it's the actual one they'll use on the show? There must be Halloween costumes out there that look better.

Salomé wrote:

She looks like Ambler or MOO7RE should snap her up for Baker street.

Wonder Woman in Baker Street? That's an interesting pitch and I'm sure it'd draw the crowds. We could get Joss Whedon to make sure it's a positive portrayal.

ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

She looks like Ambler or MOO7RE should snap her up for Baker street.

We could get Joss Whedon to make sure it's a positive portrayal.

What did he do to make your shitlist? Didn't pee in your morning coffee did he?

She looks like a small town stripper in a Halloween costume.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

She looks like a small town stripper in a Halloween costume.

Summed up my sentiments in a single sentence.

She works at Long John Silver's on the side.

Or is it Long Joel?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

She looks like a small town stripper in a Halloween costume.

Well, it is David E. Kelley writing it

This is the least interesting part of the interview, but I'm procrastinating, so:

Quote :

Speaking of inviting scrutiny: Wonder Woman. Why did you decide to take this on?
Well I first said no, for all the obvious reasons. It’s not really what I do; it’s not a genre that’s in my wheelhouse. But then I started thinking about, What if there were such a person in today’s world and what must it be like to be her? And I was imagining the sense of social isolation that she must feel, that she indeed would probably be a rather complicated beast. When I started thinking about all the complications and potential layers to this superhero, I just got more and more intrigued. It was also something I was a little bit afraid of. That’s good, too. Any writer should get out of his or her comfort zone, and this was way outside of mine.

So I took a deep breath and decided to go for it. I did not truthfully commit to doing it until I wrote the script. I was going to try writing it, and if I failed on my own terms, I would say no. If I thought, Yeah, this is something I believe in, then I’d turn it in. And it was something I ultimately did get behind. It was hard, but I had a good time writing it. And Warner Bros. and DC both responded very positively — and off we went.

Then you had to find your Wonder Woman.
It was not an easy search, but it went far quicker than I ever imagined. After writing this script, I remember looking at several people and going, "Yeah, now good luck trying to find her." She’s got to be strong, smart, emotionally accessible — and oh yeah, an Amazon! Good luck. I remember speaking to DC, and saying, "We may have to compromise on the physicality. We need to go with the best actress. And if the best actress is five-foot-five, we have to be open to that, because there’s too many layers for this character to also demand that she be nearly six feet tall." And then lo and behold, in comes this girl named Adrianne Palicki.

I had seen her on Friday Night Lights and I always liked her work, but I didn’t get a sense of her stature. I guess he was sitting down in a lot of the scenes. So she stood up, and we met — eyeball to eyeball — she smiled ... and I knew during the course of the conversation that this was Wonder Woman. I just knew it. I had an instinctive feeling that this was her. So then she read. And she was. And she is.

The plot summary sounds terrible. Wonder Woman as corporate CEO is a terrible idea and very anti-thetical to the character and her history.

I don't know anything about Wonder Woman or this Adrianne Palicki.

However, judging by her looks, I'd say this should be put on HBO Late Night. Couldn't imagine anyone taking her, or this show, seriously. Might as well have some tits involved, at least.

Judging by the new costume it doesn't look like she'll be 'fighting for her rights, in her satin tights' anymore. Shame .

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The plot summary sounds terrible. Wonder Woman as corporate CEO is a terrible idea and very anti-thetical to the character and her history.

I just don't get it. Why do people keep fucking up superheroes? How hard is it to get an idea of what a comic book is about, and translate that into a movie?

I've seen enough to know I'm not seeing this one...

Bleh

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The plot summary sounds terrible. Wonder Woman as corporate CEO is a terrible idea and very anti-thetical to the character and her history.

I just don't get it. Why do people keep fucking up superheroes? How hard is it to get an idea of what a comic book is about, and translate that into a movie?

Don't you think it's more of an issue of the whole genre being exhausted?

Frankly, I'm getting sick of all of the superhero shit clogging up the drain. Zack Snyder and his cronies need to think of something original, or get the fuck out.

Maybe the genre would be worth more if they weren't pumping these films out like its going out of style and if they had talented people making the films/TV shows. Seems like any hack can get a budget and a film deal these days if they just make one money-makin' superhero flick. And it isn't hard to please a bunch of teenagers looking to pay $9 to play grab-ass in a theater.

They changed it:
http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/wonder-woman-costume-gets-an-upgrade--2645

Mr. Brown wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The plot summary sounds terrible. Wonder Woman as corporate CEO is a terrible idea and very anti-thetical to the character and her history.

I just don't get it. Why do people keep fucking up superheroes? How hard is it to get an idea of what a comic book is about, and translate that into a movie?

Don't you think it's more of an issue of the whole genre being exhausted?

Frankly, I'm getting sick of all of the superhero shit clogging up the drain. Zack Snyder and his cronies need to think of something original, or get the fuck out.

Maybe the genre would be worth more if they weren't pumping these films out like its going out of style and if they had talented people making the films/TV shows. Seems like any hack can get a budget and a film deal these days if they just make one money-makin' superhero flick. And it isn't hard to please a bunch of teenagers looking to pay $9 to play grab-ass in a theater.

Yeah, this is my beef. Hollywood's trying to turn it into a stable genre. Rom-Coms, Thrillers, Action, Comedy and Comic Book. It's totally over-saturated.

Mr. Brown wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The plot summary sounds terrible. Wonder Woman as corporate CEO is a terrible idea and very anti-thetical to the character and her history.

I just don't get it. Why do people keep fucking up superheroes? How hard is it to get an idea of what a comic book is about, and translate that into a movie?

Don't you think it's more of an issue of the whole genre being exhausted?

Frankly, I'm getting sick of all of the superhero shit clogging up the drain. Zack Snyder and his cronies need to think of something original, or get the fuck out.

Maybe the genre would be worth more if they weren't pumping these films out like its going out of style and if they had talented people making the films/TV shows. Seems like any hack can get a budget and a film deal these days if they just make one money-makin' superhero flick. And it isn't hard to please a bunch of teenagers looking to pay $9 to play grab-ass in a theater.

One of the issues is that when the whole thing started it was people who wanted to make comic book movies (Michael Uslan, David Goyer, Sam Raimi, Jon Favreau, even Snyder, etc) making the comic book movies, and now its every producer in town riding a bandwagon. I mean, I laugh my ass off when I hear Kenneth Branagh try to convince me he's been a THOR fan since he was a kid, and OBVIOUSLY Amazonian Princesses aren't David E. Kelly's passion. And frankly, that's what these movies need in order to succeed -- passion. Because if the film can win you over with its gusto then I think you can relax into the high suspension of disbelief necessary. When its being done in that cold corporate way that this clearly is, then it just appears to be a cynical exploitation of a classic, symbolic, character.

Yeah, I'm fairly confident this will basically be Ally McBeal but instead of being neurotically insane she'll have superpowers.

Less Courtney Thorne-Smith. God she was hot.

Vesper wrote:

Yeah, this is my beef. Hollywood's trying to turn it into a stable genre. Rom-Coms, Thrillers, Action, Comedy and Comic Book. It's totally over-saturated.

And the biggest problem with that is that there just aren't enough good, interesting, adaptable, and marketable comic book characters to turn into a longterm genre. That's why we're getting reboots only a few years after the original. Because after you've done Superman and Batman and Spider-Man you either have to dig into the B-list or gear up and do Superman, Batman and Spider-Man AGAIN. And what's really killing these things is that it takes a whole movie to really do the origin story justice, and then its three whole years until you get another one out and you run the risk that your actors dont want to do it or the director or the actors and you lose whatever magic you captured in the first place. Then there's the problem that your teenage superhero after three years doesn't look teenage any more. Like, at all.

What makes the Harry Potters and the Twilights work is what made the original Bond movies work -- the fast turnaround between entries. So you keep the actors and the key creatives and the serial nature of these things flows better.

I mean, comic books ARE serial. Unless it's a finite graphic novel like Watchmen, then it's not really like adapting a book. TV is a good medium for it, but if the character is Spider-Man then it's hard to do convincingly on a TV budget -- which is why animation has always been the best fit.

On the new costume that replaced the stripper one, still not digging the pants, shiny or not. I want to see some god damn legs.

And FS is spot on about the more passionate directors/writers. Another example can be seen with DS9 having loads of writers who were huge fans of TOS, and their passion shows in the writing. Then you look at VOY and it's mostly comprised of people who rather be working elsewhere and it shows a lot.

Salomé wrote:

She looks like Ambler or MOO7RE should snap her up for Baker street.

Anne Billson makes a similar point about these action heroines ;

Quote :

I often fantasise about kicking ass, but only now, with Sucker Punch, do I see I've been getting it wrong. For a genuine sense of empowerment, I should have been daydreaming about dancing in a brothel dressed in bustier and stay-up stockings. Or maybe imagining myself in a customised Japanese schoolgirl outfit with my navel showing.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/mar/31/action-heroine-outfits-sucker-punch

I disagree. You could make a good case for the S&M wear being a symbol of sexual empowerment.

Sharky wrote:

I disagree. You could make a good case for the S&M wear being a symbol of sexual empowerment.

For once I agree.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I disagree. You could make a good case for the S&M wear being a symbol of sexual empowerment.

For once I agree.

Then why do only female superheroines tend to show a lot of flesh? Are male superheroes not interested in empowerment?

Salomé wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I disagree. You could make a good case for the S&M wear being a symbol of sexual empowerment.

For once I agree.

Then why do only female superheroines tend to show a lot of flesh? Are male superheroes not interested in empowerment?

Peter North showed a bit of flesh as I recall.