Wonder Woman movie

Nope, first I heard. I'm betting it will be someone young even though I remember Wonder Woman as being older-hence the "Woman"- but in order to gain a wider audience they'll probally cast a young actress.

Steph

Amusing aside for anyone who hasn't caught Justice League Unlimited. Opening shot - a pan across all the heroes. Superman's head. Batman's head. Wonder Woman's chest. The Flash's head. J'onn's head...

that's old news to superheroine lovers.
no one has yet been cast. but a year ago sandra bullock was the frontrunner. however, i doubt she'll want to do it. but, who knows....she hasn't done any good flicks lately. she may be desperate.

i'm sure linda carter will do a cameo. she could play ww's mom.

Wonder Woman was never meant to look like an older woman. However, she was a few thousand years old, I think. Lynda Carter suggested that get a young unknown in her 20s. Kind of like Lynda Carter was when they got her for the role.

If they had to get an already known actress and where open to women in their 30s, I'd say they should get Lucy Lawless. She was rumoured to be under consideration.

As for Sandra Bullock, didn't she do Miss Congeniality? Wasn't that big?

Sandra Bullock, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jessica Biel, Katie Holmes, Kim Basinger and Minnie Driver are just a few of the names I've heard tossed in the mix. Also, this actress.

An interview with Whedon on the subject is here: http://www.infocusmag.com/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm

He discusses Serenity, Toy Story, Alien Resurrection & Speed first, so if you are just interested in women with Star-spangled panties, then you'd better scroll down to the end of the interview.

With typical honesty, his comments on the casting is:

Q: You’ve also talked about her being very young. Are you thinking college-age? Teen-ager?
A: I’d say that’s a pretty flexible thing because it’s her first time setting foot in the world of men. But that doesn’t necessarily mean she has to be a teen-ager. So, yes, they are thinking of a young woman. They’re thinking, I expect, of something franchise-able.

Click to expand...

I can't believe I just posted on a thread discussing Wonder Woman. I think I need a new pseudonym.

With most of these 'big event' type movies, it makes sense to go with a (relatively) unknown actor. After all, it is the concept/brand name that will get the audiences in - not the fact that it is actor XXX in the role. Paying extra $$$ for a famous actor for this kind of movie is, quite frankly, a waste of money.

(Or at least that's the way it was explained to me by someone who's been involved with this kind of decision before.)

Mac

no big names for superhero movies? why not, when 'daredevil' was so awesomely great. (note: i can't stress the amount of sarcasm that last sentence contains. you could light up new york with as much distain as i have for that movie.) i can't say that's too rock-solid of a rule, though. 'batman' had michael keaton. while the stars of 'spider-man' and 'batman: begins' weren't exactly household names, i'd heard of them before.

of those names mentioned, i hate each of them for this role except for lawless... ten years ago. bullock? *sandra* bullock? BULLOCKS! that's as bad as casting jennifer lopez as a lonely woman in manhattan or l.a.. (or casting her in general for anything other than name appeal. oh, gawd, i hope no one sees this and thinks, 'hey, lopez would be *great* as wonder woman!' because, i just gotta tell ya, i can buy a gun and an airplane ticket rather easily. don't *make* me come to hollywood, y'all. *cue banjo music*)

does hollywood think this will be the chick superhero movie that will be the one that turns a buck? good luck. gotta admire h'wood's persistence, but wonder as to its sensibility. this project gets the go ahead despite the recent disasters of 'elektra' and 'catwoman'? wow, send an s.o.s. b/c h'wood's s.o.l. unless the twenty-six people who will see this watches it, like, five million times. maybe whedon can make something of it.

i adore that WW picture, though. it captures the true reason why a guy would want to see it. blondes may have more fun, but there's nothing sexier than a brunette. her boobs are like sparkly electric sex. hell, yeah! strike one up for feminisinisism. dodge those bullets, which i've figured is a sly way of suggesting powerful women in control of themselves use birth control.

i bet they put her in a tight skirt and keep her in a subservient occupation, too. talk about the glass ceiling, just watch all the men give themselves whiplash as they jerk their heads skywards if she ever flies around wearing a mini skirt. it'd be a chiropractor's dream come true.

oh, i'm sorry. i'm objectifying womber woman as a sex object. i really shouldn't do that... but... the boobs... speak... to me... just like... women went ga-ga... over russell crowe... in gladiator....

all seriousness aside, i'm surprised h'wood is ready to take another big-budget chance with a dated character who had limited appeal to begin with with the core comic book audience. maybe it's changed (obviously there are relatively successful comix with females in the leads), or someone doesn't realize just because 'buffy' was a hit that that isn't transferable as a matter of course to the big screen.

i'd actually like to be excited about it, but considering their first choices for stars, it's really hard not to read 'cheap-cash-money-grab' into it. can't h'wood just remake 'car 54, where are you?' instead? or is 'aquaman' not good enough to pisss their money away on, instead? i like whedon: he seems like a down-to-earth kinda guy. i hope he can do a good script while not changing any more of the character or story than he has to. when they start going too far with 're-imagining,' you begin to wonder why they even bought the rights in the first place if all's left is the name and surface looks.

Wonder Woman's comic book has been around quite for sometime.

Yes, Catwoman flopped. So did Elektra.

There were a ton of totally forgettable comic book movies based on males. It's just that because you had major successes with Spider Man, Batman, (and in the 80s, SuperMan) that people forget them.

THe director of Wonder Woman, Joss Whedon, has a huge following among sci fi fantasy fans. He wrote the Buffy tv show and he writes Astonishing X-Men. A named director like him will bring people to see the movie.

Oh, a superhero team that is half female (X-Men) did well at the box office. I think part of the reason Catwoman bombed is because fans weren't impressed with Berry's portrayal of Storm in X-Men (so she lost out on the natural superhero/fantasy crowd). Now they've revamped Storm for X-Men 3 and made her a fighter.

like whedon mentions, the success of the x-man movies relies on its integrity. x-men isn't very equatable, anyway, it being much more of an ensemble cast. even then, the emphasis of the movies are squarely on wolverine for the most part.

sure, plenty of male superhero movies fail. but if we look at their success rate, there's been at least hits. has there *ever* been a superhero movie with a female lead as the main character that's worked? i'm not talking t.v.. that's different. also, by 'superhero,' i don't mean ripley in 'alien' or sarah connor in 'the terminator.' those are heroes, not superheroes. there's a distinction there.

WW is easily the most successful comic book female of all time. since 1941, she's been consistently in print, which she still is today. that doesn't mean you can't screw her up. if the movie looks bad and it gets terrible early reviews, whedon fan or not you might still stay away. i don't go see something merely because it's got harrison ford in it any more than i count the daze between jim cameron's movies (especially after the insipid 'dark angel' t.v. show). of course, that whedon is attached gives me hope, but i'll wait for the test drive before buying the car, porsche or not. porsche, after all, has made some serious junk.

i think 'catwoman' failed simply because it was a very, very bad movie. (although there were a few scenes in it i liked, it didn't make up for anything.) i don't think it had anything to do with her portrayal of storm. i've never read an x-man comic in my life and i think it's a dangerous assumption to think that only fans of the comics are interested in seeing the movie. the comic fans aren't necessarily your core audience. in fact, i'd imagine some directors wish those comic guys would not bash their interpretations.

'supergirl' was a movie i honestly can't watch, it's really that terrible. i blinked and missed 'barb wire,' though i'm not sure she qualifies as a superhero and more than 'barbarella.' elektra may be the best character of all time, but the movie stunk real bad. i can't think of any others.

WW stands the best chance at being a success, and if by that you call 'F4' a success because it made money. if this flops, i wonder when the next time we'll see another female superhero movie. casting the same lead in your movie as your successful t.v. show (gellar), you're pandering solely to your fans and not being true to the source material or generating interest from a wider audience. gellar as WW would be laughable. let's face it, she's not exactly box-office gold. you might sucker in 'buffy' fans if you do that, but that in and of itself won't make a hit out of the movie. no one knows who whedon is, so forget that unless his movie, 'serenity' (?), is a hit.

i think there may be some indications (for lack of a better word at this point) that it may turn out okay. at the same time, there are some red flags i see, too, and not merely because they're trying to buck history here. will millions of people care about magick lassos that force the truth out of people? will her strong feminism be addressed for a modern audience without being ultra-politically correct?

i think marketting should be firing on all cylinders for this one. tie-ins, merchandise, the whole schmear. don't take chances. just my opinin.

Elecktra daredevil catwoman..oh my goodness.
What powers did Wonder Woman have anyways?

the bracelets, the invisible jet, and is that it?

At least Spidey, X-Men, even fantastic four had powers that were enticing to watch. Perhaps thats one of the main reasons why the "Flop-pers" couldnt fly in theatres, because whats so appealing about their powers. A blind lawyer who fights crime. Leave it in the comics where it belongs, nomatter who you put at the lead.

Wonder Woman's gunna have to be aimed at the female audience, because I think for most guys, its really not gunna be something thats gunna excite them to watch, even if you were to put Jessicca Biel in that Wonder Woman outfit.

Most of Stealth's ads had her in a bathing suit. Look how thats bombing.

Guess them studio execs are thinking they can turn a profit. I wouldnt bet on it though. I'd rather see Wonder Dog or Mighty Mouse made into a movie, before I go see a Wonder Woman Movie.

Anyone know what the budgets gunna be?

the question is if hollywood is going to use the "classic wonder woman" image (i.e. the one from the golden era of comic books) or the modern version. i wouldn't mind the classic version of her on the big screen, but as for the modern one . . . nah.

Crash was Sandra Bullocks best flick but it was an ensemble flick, not hers.

superheroine fans do want lawless or gellar but, they're already superheroines in their own right so, unfortunately it's unlikely that they will be chosen.
but if a xena flick would be made i'll be

People who are fans off the comics are your most profitable audiences, as they go to the movies and buy the dvds.

The people who were fans of the X-Men comics and cartoons didn't like Ms. Berry's portrayal of Storm. Had they liked it, well, they would have been willing to go see Catwoman. Basically, Storm in the comics and cartoons is a warrior woman, but on the screen we didn't see any of that. Now the screenwriters have said included this (Storm as a warrior woman) in X-Men 3.

As for Wonder Woman's powers, she has superhuman strength. She was an Amazon woman. She was able to jump very high classically. Recently in the comics she flies (under her own power, with no jet).

Well, this is tv, but Xena did very well among male audiences.

Back to the X-Men, one of the best selling limited series they had recently was about a woman (Phoenix/Jean Grey). X-Men 3 will be in part about her resurrection and her becoming evil (she died in the lake in the X-2)?

I think Catwoman didn't do well because it was not part of the Batman franchise, but a cheep way to get around the licensing of that character, she was called Catwoman, but she wasn't the one we knew from the DC comics. Also, the story just sucked.

As for Diana Prince and WW, I think it can do well if they can keep the action up, the camp down and cast someone that has both sex appeal and credible power and strength.

Personally I would like to see someone like Keira Knightley.

Also, the villain can't be someone over the top, or too incredible with powers. I don't think a WW2 storyline would be good.

Something like evil people coming to the Amazon and threatening her homeland, she messes them up and comes to America to make sure stuff like never happens again.

Wonder Woman's gunna have to be aimed at the female audience, because I think for most guys, its really not gunna be something thats gunna excite them to watch, even if you were to put Jessicca Biel in that Wonder Woman outfit.

Click to expand...

Like Wonder Woman was ever really aimed at a female audience...

However, I can't imagine it making the most fundemental Catwoman mistake of the girls' enemy being pathetically weak. Superman? ALIENS FROM ANOTHER WORLD! The Hulk? THE WHOLE US ARMY! Catwoman? EVIL FACE CREAM!

warning, adult content

That "Experience the Wonder" publicity shot looks like a bizarre cross between a hardcore lesbian dominatrix flick and THE RING. Makes me wonder whether the producers will play up the obvious sexual kinks which Wonder Woman has always stood for, tying up men, forcing them to obey her, etc. Should they be looking for a slender girl to play her, or a rippling athletic type who strains the fabric of the costume to the limit?

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity.

Richard said:

Like Wonder Woman was ever really aimed at a female audience...

However, I can't imagine it making the most fundemental Catwoman mistake of the girls' enemy being pathetically weak. Superman? ALIENS FROM ANOTHER WORLD! The Hulk? THE WHOLE US ARMY! Catwoman? EVIL FACE CREAM!

Click to expand...

That was the biggest failing of Catwoman, actually. The global stakes weren't big enough. If Spider Man didn't stop Doc Octopus, NYC was going to be irradiated. If the X-Men didn't stop Stryker in X-Men 2, a lot of innocent mutants were going to get killed. And both Stryker and Magneto attempted to use Xavier to kill billions of people.

The stakes in Catwoman were that some someone would have gotten messed up from bad botox.

Elektra too had poor stakes compared to most successful superhero movies. The worst the Hand would have done was kidnap Abbey. And it's kind of like whatever.

Xena was successful on tv because there were often huge stakes to her fights.

So all they have to do is give Wonder Woman a serious, powerful, and believable enemy.

i don't even know who's in WW's rogues gallery. i hate when superheroine's foe is another woman, as if by making him a man would instantly turn off the male audience. hey, it just might. most guys have a problem seeing other guys getting their assses kicked by chicks. even in 'charlie's angels' they threw in a bad chick and the bad guy dies more as a result of being slightly outwitted than outfought.

i think whedon said they'll keep the eagle on her chest but will drop the american flag panties. any way he goes, there will be some fans who howl at the changes.

i've never seen any hard numbers on how many issues of a popular comic sells a month. let's say 200,000. even if they all went to see the movie at seven bucks each, that's only 1.4 million dollars. from that over-simplified analysis based on made-up numbers, you can see where you can't count on *just* your fan base making a movie a hit. 'spider-man' didn't whup up on george lucas because there was a lack of a star wars fanbase not seeing the movies at least twice in the theatres, lol. i loved the spidey comics as a kid, but my wife, mum-in-law, nephews and niece who i took to see it have collectively never even seen the cover of a spidey comic. we own the movies not because it's spidey, but because they're good movies.

i think that's the bottom line: if it's a good movie, people will go see it. you can't say 'F4''s fanbase accounts for its huge opening weekend (being a pretty slow year for blockbusters, i think, dramatically helped 'F4''s box office. correct me if i'm wrong on that, i haven't crunched any numbers lately). i used to read 'F4', too, and i skipped the movie, as i skipped the theatrical release of 'the hulk' and 'the punisher.' (if they ever make a 'micronauts', though, i'm there.) spidey, batman, supes... those are licenses you almost have to go out of your way to screw up. (okay, so they screwed 'em up by the end, but we still got eight movies out of it.)

i pretty much agree with your post, JC, other than knightley being in it. she's actually a pretty good actress, 'the jacket' showed me that. i don't see her having the physical attributes of WW, though. besides, i wonder how feasible it would be doing two franchises at once, the pirates and WW. there's a risk of over-exposure, there. one major release with the accompanying media blitz every couple of years is enough, doing smaller films inbetween just to keep working seems to work out really well. just my opinion there. fans of knightley can still see her act if they want, but do people really want to see anyone star in a major summer blockbuster every two out of three years, knowing that each movie bring with it magazine covers and interviews and merchandizing? tom cruise had 'war of the worlds' this year, but last year's fare was much, much different (what was the name of that movie with jamie foxx again? where cruise played the assassin). that's the way to go as far as i can tell.

WW: tall, beautiful, nice rack. young and unknown. no big name actress who demand $20 million and all sorts of concessions, get one thrilled to have a job and works on the cheap. i love lawless, but she's just too old. but, that's exactly the look i'd go for. she's, what, 37 or 38, will be 40 when the movie comes out? not exactly the prime time to start a franchise for a character who's got to look the part, too. were you to cast it, would you want to start an original story with a 40 year old babe? i'm thinking not on that one.

they re-tooled WW in the 80's, so there should be plenty of wiggle room for whedon to play with. i don't think flying under her own powers will be the way to go, nor having her grab a gun out of someone's hand and crush it. please, whedon, if you're paying attention, do NOT do this.

'stealth' is bombing? imagine that. despite the oh-so-non-original idea like a lightning strike bringing a supercomputer to life, the dialogue in the trailers and commercials was about as uninspired as you could get (who writes this crap anymore?). gotta dig them special f/x, though. i might have been interested in 'the island'-- were i to have the slight clue what the story was about other than a spiffy highway chase dodging truck axles! i saw on 'the soup' it was about clones. really? hard to tell from the ads there was any story there at all.

oh, it'll have a decent budget, i'm sure. i'm guessing part of that will depend on how well whedon's movie works out. i imagine 60-80 million is realistic. were i the studio guys, i wouldn't give him more than fifty million, forcing more of a story than relying on f/x. what do i know, though? i'm still going to rent it no matter how bad it is just like i did 'catwoman,' 'elektra,' and 'gigli.' WW will squeeze a buck out of me, i'm sure... no need for the lasso, though, i'm already as honest as i can be. *cue burst of saintly light from my head*

gellar as WW would be laughable. let's face it, she's not exactly box-office gold. you might sucker in 'buffy' fans if you do that, but that in and of itself won't make a hit out of the movie. no one knows who whedon is, so forget that unless his movie, 'serenity' (?), is a hit.

Click to expand...

I don't think Serenity will hit it big for Whedon. It's a continuation of his tv series, Firefly, that was cancelled by Fox after 11 episodes. High DVD sales of those and unaired episodes allowed execs to realize the marketability and greenlit a film. It's been produced for $45 million, and Universal says it needs to gross more than $80 million to consider making a sequel.

Gellar, on the other hand, was on the end of much hype after "The Grudge" broke some box office expectations, and she is being watched to see if she has what it takes to open more films. But, I'd admit, Gellar as a superhero with Whedon at the wheel does dwell in dangerous territory.

Amazon Xena

How about.

Hey kids, it's Bobblehead Xena!

I think Dpaterso here could play the part too. What do you think Derek, are you up for the role?

oy vey!

[[[the NikeeGoddess just shakes her head]]]