Destroy All Monsters: Icky, Tricky WONDER WOMAN

Columnist; Toronto, Canada (@tederick)
to Vote
Destroy All Monsters: Icky, Tricky WONDER WOMAN

DC Entertainment is a conglomerate in trouble, losing ground year by year to their Esteemed Competition, and losing the comic book movie race hands-down. Having handily established a pathological inability to set up a comic-based film franchise with anything other than a "Bat" in the title - Superman Returns, Green Lantern, and even Man of Steel's sputtering, post-opening-weekend slump - DC has all but admitted defeat by announcing that the next film in their canon will, indeed, have a "Bat" in the title.

Superman/Batman (whatever it ends up being called, it will definitely have a "Bat" in the title) will arrive in 2015 to find DC another half-dozen steps behind Marvel Entertainment. Marvel has essentially written the book on empire building for the mega-franchise 21st century. Marvel is aiming for a Phase Three of their run of profitable comic book movies (of increasingly obscure origins, per Guardians of the Galaxy), while DC is still fucking around with prototypes. Further, having gotten away with Thor, Marvel has given a jubilant middle-finger salute to all parties who think that any corner of the comic universe is too weird for a blockbuster adaptation.

Something else got announced at Comic Con a couple of weeks ago, besides Bats/Supes: DC president Diane Nelson announced that Wonder Woman is "tricky." The quote arrives in a context where Nelson seems to be affirming her organization's commitment to developing the character for movies and television, while simultaneously (of course) absolving herself and DC from any responsibility to actually solve the problem:

"We have to get her right, we have to. She is such an icon for both genders and all ages and for people who love the original TV show and people who read the comics now. I think one of the biggest challenges at the company is getting that right on any size screen. The reasons why are probably pretty subjective: She doesn't have the single, clear, compelling story that everyone knows and recognizes. There are lots of facets to Wonder Woman, and I think the key is, how do you get the right facet for that right medium? What you do in TV has to be different than what you do in features. She has been, since I started, one of the top three priorities for DC and for Warner Bros. We are still trying right now, but she's tricky." (The Hollywood Reporter)

But wait, here's CW president Mark Pedowitz this week, on that network's delayed Wonder Woman television project, Amazon:

"Amazon is on pause (as) the script is not exactly what we wanted, and with an iconic character like Wonder Woman, we have to get it right." (Deadline)

Well at least we're corporately aligned on the key talking points: a) Wonder Woman is "iconic," and b) when creating any media franchise around her, "we have to get her/it right."

Looking past the outright fibbing in Nelson's quote (besides Superman and Batman, what other comic book hero has a more singular, clear origin story that most of the audience knows or will recognize than Wonder Woman? How many regular folk knew who Tony Stark was in 2006?), there is subtext aplenty to unpack in Nelson's description, all boiling down to that rather amazing bit of anti-branding right at the end: "tricky." In a single statement, Nelson has argued for Wonder Woman's importance while tarring her viability as a franchise, and done it all without mentioning the elephant in the room: the inconvenient reality that, per the second word of her name, Wonder Woman is, in point of fact, a woman.

(On the relative complexity of adapting the character for film: Nelson should consult her own back-catalogue. DC Animation made a fairly terrific Wonder Woman movie about four years ago, which went straight to Blu-ray. It perfectly establishes the origin story of Diana, works out a nice sexual tension between Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor, sets up Ares as a substantial villain, and leads to a grand finale battle between Ares' legions and the women of Themyscira in Washington, DC. Shot word-for-word as live action, Gail Simone and Michael Jelenic's script for Wonder Woman would be a fine franchise kickoff.)

The Men are From Box Office, Women Are From Tricky board game hit a dizzying zenith in the summer of 2013, when men of all stripes met on the cinema screens to beat the holy hell out of each other while a vexing bevy of supporting babes looked on from increasingly contextually-troubling sidelines. We had underwear-clad Alice Eve, amnesiac bad girl Michelle Rodriguez, superpowered Pepper Potts, and a surprisingly canny Lois Lane, but the only woman onscreen in male-dominated movies all summer who was not defined by her romantic connection to her film's main dude was Rinko Kikuchi in Pacific Rim, in an out-of-the-park homer by Guillermo Del Toro that was all the more singular for the wasteland into which it was played.

What made Kikuchi's Mako Mori interesting, though, was not the lack of a smooch with whatsisface at the end of the movie. It was the fact that she was, y'know, a person - who happened to be a woman. She was also a person who happened to be Japanese, and a person who happened to be a trauma survivor, and a person who happened to be five feet tall, and a person who happened to be astonishingly good at stick-fighting, and a person with a prodigious talent at piloting a Jaeger in the Drift.

In a movie universe where women (and, to be fair, a lot of the men) have been defined by characteristics before they are ever defined as people, Mako is a weird, humanistic triumph in the middle of a movie about giant robots beating up mega-slugs. For all the problems I've had with Del Toro's writing for women in some of his past projects, I'll give him this: he punches from the heart. And when one of his characters connects, she really connects.

All of which brings me back to Diane Nelson's quote, and Mark Pedowitz's quote, and what pisses me off about both of them: by defining Wonder Woman as "iconic," they've removed from her any requirement, by the studios or by us, to look on her as a person rather than as a figurehead of an imagined feminist wonderland where any girl, boy, or other can put on a star-spangled bathing suit and kick some ass.

This has been happening in the comics quite a bit for the last couple of decades too, as Wonder Woman has graduated from any sense of relatability or even on-the-ground superherosim, and moved towards an austere godhead - an avatar of love and empathy, but not someone you'd ever want to get to know personally. You'd never invite Wonder Woman out for beers - and why the hell not? It's Wonder Woman, for crying out loud. In any realistic conceptualization of what her superpowers would mean, she could drink you under the table, solve your life story, and carry you home.

But Wonder Woman remains the bottleneck against which any notion of creating a superhero franchise staged around a woman repeatedly slams. Sure, I have a sick fondness for the silly 1984 Supergirl movie (and will go to the mat insisting that a Supergirl movie in this decade would make a kajillion dollars), but as long as Wonder Woman - tricky, iconic Wonder Woman - is sitting there guarding the passage to the utopia where girls get to have superhero movies too, we're not going to get anywhere.

I have to assume that's the game. Wonder Woman is there, and she's tricky, and she's iconic; and thus branded, she doesn't ever have to be solved, and by extension, neither do any of the others. The best female superhero portrayal, maybe ever - Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow - gets to remain comfortably supporting-role; and that one was personally architected by Joss freakin' Whedon, who wrote the book on female superheroes and thinks, rightly, that quim is a lovely word. The same Joss Whedon, of course, whose Wonder Woman project fell apart at DC six years ago.

By dint of what's between her fictional legs, Wonder Woman does bear a burden of responsibility to a ludicrously male-slanted heroic universe. A Green Lantern project is allowed to fail for reasons having nothing to do with Ryan Reynolds' CGI tallywacker; a Wonder Woman movie only fails because it's a Wonder Woman movie.

And to bring it all full circle, that unfortunately means that yes, dramatizing her for the popular masses is tricky. But then, it's tricky to do just about anything worthwhile.

Destroy All Monsters is a weekly column on Hollywood and pop culture.

to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.
Wonder Woman

More about Destroy All Monsters (Matt Brown)

Marc ClementJuly 31, 2013 10:30 AM

A movie is only as good as its script, you cannot and shouldn't as a critic put everything in one bag (DC or Marvel). Did you receive money from disney to post this? you want failed Marvel movies, i can also give you a dozen, most recent would be the not so FAntastic Four.

KnifeyJuly 31, 2013 10:36 AM

Fantastic Four has nothing to do with Marvel studios. Fox put that turkey out.

Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 10:38 AM

Exactly. Marvel will eventually have a failure - that's inevitable - but they've had a non-stop string of successes since they took over their own films.

Hiroaki JohnsonJuly 31, 2013 10:45 AM

Even Pixar has had failures if you include quality in your equation. I have to give Marvel credit, I think most of their output is pretty spotty, but they seem to know how to make a hit financially.

Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 10:54 AM

Whereas DC, outside of the Batman films and (commercially at least) Man Of Steel, consistently fails on both fronts. They just don't seem to have a grip on their own library or any strategy on how to make things work. At least no strategy beyond 'Let's hand it to Christopher Nolan.'

(Though, for the record, I'm the guy who quite likes Constantine and has always hoped they'd make another.)

Marc ClementJuly 31, 2013 10:57 AM

Spectacular Spiderman, Daredevil, Punisher, Elektra, Ghost Rider... need any more?

Marc ClementJuly 31, 2013 11:02 AM

I think he's supposed to be in JL dark as a character, not the main character though

Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:03 AM

You have yet to name a single property that Marvel has had a hand in. Every one of those were licensed out to outside studios and developed without any input from Marvel whatsoever. DC, on the other hand, was very much involved in The Green Lantern and their other bombs.

Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:06 AM

Constantine in the JL? That'd be very, very odd but I'd be curious to see if they could make it work ...

Marc ClementJuly 31, 2013 11:12 AM
Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:19 AM

Oh, yeah, I know about that, but you think that team is going to cross into the Justice League movie if / when that finally happens? I'll be shocked beyond words if they go very far beyond the Superman / Batman / Wonder Woman trio for that ...

Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:19 AM

Oh, yeah, I know about that, but you think that team is going to cross into the Justice League movie if / when that finally happens? I'll be shocked beyond words if they go very far beyond the Superman / Batman / Wonder Woman trio for that ...

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:20 AM

If anyone can figure out how to get me money from Disney for having posted this, please do so - I like, and need, money.

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:20 AM

If anyone can figure out how to get me money from Disney for having posted this, please do so - I like, and need, money.

Marc ClementJuly 31, 2013 11:22 AM


Shelagh M. Rowan-LeggJuly 31, 2013 11:30 AM

Thanks for this, Matt. I have become so sick to superhero films, but Wonder Woman would definitely get my dollars. I'm not as familiar with the comics as you, but I think this could could be done just as well as any other superhero movie, if only someone had the courage to step up. I think too many studio executives have the false assumption that a film with a female central character won't sell. This might come from a movie that *happens* to have a female central character failing, and someone that character gets the blame. Plenty of films, such as many you name, have male central characters and fail, and yet no one suggests that it's time to change the gender. I think fans, both men and women, would line up for this film.

Hiroaki JohnsonJuly 31, 2013 11:32 AM

I will always wonder how that George Miller version would have turned out. It sounded interesting.

Marc ClementJuly 31, 2013 11:34 AM

Sorry, Mr Brown, i overeacted, it's my film maker nerve that got pinched here. You put all movies from a franchise in the same basket rather than judging them for their own worth or lack of

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:36 AM

Actually, I was trying to judge the strategies and the chutzpah of the two companies in comparison, but point taken. ;)

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 11:37 AM

I totally agree - and not just because I roleplayed Wonder Woman when I was five years old.

Shelagh M. Rowan-LeggJuly 31, 2013 11:45 AM

Haha! I volunteer myself to play Wonder Woman. I'm old, but I could get myself into shape!

matthewfabbJuly 31, 2013 12:03 PM

There's been talk of Justice League Dark getting their own movie beyond the regular Justice League. I wouldn't be surprised if it uses a different name, but Guillermo del Toro has been working on getting it off the ground with an unnamed writer. Do a search for it and there are a number of articles of Guillermo del Toro talking about it. However, it's still in the script stage and Warner Brothers haven't haven't given it a green light yet.

matthewfabbJuly 31, 2013 12:21 PM

Note that Joss Whedon had mentioned at one of San Diego Comic Con panels that Warner Brothers still own his Wonder Woman script but at this point he has no interest in returning to direct the film himself.

In an interview the Nerdist followed up on that asking if he would be okay with someone else directing his script, like perhaps Drew Goddard? Whedon replied he would be okay with that, but didn't see any interest from Warner Brothers.

As a fan of Joss Whedon, I followed the articles and interviews he gave while working Wonder Woman. Warner Brothers execs didn't seem to like what Whedon was doing but seemed to be unable to narrow down what exactly they disliked with his script. It once again seems like they are very clueless in what exactly they should be doing with their superhero titles. Meanwhile on the animation side of things DC has continued to hit it out of the park with the straight to DVD/blu-ray animated movies. With the stakes a lot lower there, people like Bruce Timm have given clear direction to create some amazing animated movies.

Someone like Bruce Timm, who is a fan of the characters and knows what he is doing needs to work on the live-action side of things. There's been various reorganizations at Warner Brothers and DC Entertainment, but they never seem to find their own Kevin Feige. It would never happen, but they should approach Bruce Timm about it.

Pa Kent Says MaybeJuly 31, 2013 12:34 PM

The assumption being that "empire-building" is a necessity for movie-making.
Whatever. Marvel Studios has only made one really good movie --- the first IRON MAN. Everything else has been lazy and generic. Simple-minded action juvenilia for the malformed young adult.
If DC fails in execution, you can't blame them for lacking ambition. And, you know what? That's because they CAN be ambitious. They have the icons everyone knows from BIRTH. This means, film-makers want to stamp these things with a certain element beyond Stand-There-Say-Something-Funny-Fight-A-Something. In all cases, they have over-reached, which, I'd argue, is better than the Marvel movie underhanded reach-around..
You can talk "Phases" all you want. Without an "Iron" in the fire, you're not getting much beyond $100-million box office anyway: The bare minimum number for "success" in this over-priced, over-valued, over-inflate blockbuster market.
When Guardians of the Galaxy bombs like Green Lantern, we can talk again.

Pa Kent Says MaybeJuly 31, 2013 12:37 PM

$100-million DOMESTIC. Implied.

Sonny HooperJuly 31, 2013 12:42 PM

JL Dark is Dead Man, Swamp Thing, Constantine etc. Guillermo Del Toro wants to make the movie.

hutchJuly 31, 2013 1:09 PM

That last Punisher movie was fucking hilarious. I don't know if it was a good movie but I was laughing the entire time, so I suppose that means I enjoyed it but maybe not for the reasons the filmmakers intended...kind of like Jackie Chan's '12 Zodiacs'.

hutchJuly 31, 2013 1:12 PM

Has DC made any decent films other than those first two Nolan 'Batmans'? I'm not really keeping up with the comic book genre anymore-esp after I peeked in to check out Nolan's Batman 3. UUUGGGGGHHH!
What's up with that Lobo movie?

KurtJuly 31, 2013 1:14 PM

We had a really good run of female driven stories in 2012, just sayin' that I hope 2013 so far is just a blip.

KurtJuly 31, 2013 1:15 PM

I think everyone missed the opportunity to cast Gina Carano right after Haywire...sure she's under 5'5" but man she has the physical presence.

Todd BrownJuly 31, 2013 1:52 PM

Yeah, I've seen those stories but don't consider it any more likely to actually go than his Lovecraft movie.

matthewfabbJuly 31, 2013 2:15 PM

Actually I think the lack of ambition is one of the biggest problems with DC/Warner. They are the ones with all sorts of projects constantly in development hell without any of them going anywhere as they seem to always be too afraid to take a risk. Superman Returns came out after a good 15 years of trying to get a Superman movie out the door. Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman has been already brought out, but fan favorite David S. Goyer was set to write and direct a Flash movie before they pulled the plug on that.

Everyone thought Warner Brothers was going to make a go at doing their own team up movie with Justice League but instead they fall back on Batman vs Superman. Something they were looking at doing as far back as 2001 with then McG set to direct. I wonder if they plan on using any of the many scripts they had written at the time.

Warner Brothers Animation, on the other as mentioned has ambition with their direct-to-dvd/blu-ray DC movies. They adapted some great material over the years as well as original movies. They have already done Wonder Woman, several decent Justice League movies. With their "Superman vs. The Elite" they managed to do a MUCH better job than "Man of Steel" of where Superman fits in the modern world. How Superman's Boy Scout image and high morals still have a place in dark world.

Jason GorberJuly 31, 2013 2:34 PM

Yes, RED 1 & 2, those 'forgotten' DC movies.

uhokjoeJuly 31, 2013 2:55 PM

A WW movie will never get off the ground because, those who are in charge cannot seperate the idea of a strong, multi-facted women from "boobs." As long as the EP in charge of bringing WW to the screen continues to covet the male 18 -35 demo and wants a "sexy hero;" WW will remain a "tricky" character.

matthewfabbJuly 31, 2013 3:31 PM

While DC Entertainment is attached to Red 1 & 2, it's quite at arms length. Does the DC logo appear before the movie starts? I've only seen the first one and I've forgotten.

As the RED comic book was never under the DC Comics or even Vertigo label. They were published by Homage Comics an imprint of Wildstorm. DC did own WildStorm at the time but back then the company was still quite separated from everything DC Comics was doing.

Warner Brothers didn't even make Red 1 or 2. They were offered the property but they weren't interested. Since Warren Ellis managed to retain some of the rights of the property, with the approval of Warner Brothers, the property was shopped around to other studios. Eventually the rights were sold to Summit Entertainment.

So yeah, it's easy to forget those movies were from DC Entertainment, when the company had so very little to do with the comic and eventual movie.

hutchJuly 31, 2013 5:14 PM

Don't you think the boobs is exactly why and how this will get made and marketed to 18 yr old boys? Or the girl power trend that Tauriel in the Hobbit is about to either kick off or kick up?

hutchJuly 31, 2013 5:22 PM

Funny. None of my female pals in the biz or otherwise seem to identify the likes of Black Widow or the gals from Hunger Games or Twilight as representative material. Maybe that's more a male's perspective on the idea.Ha ha ha.

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 5:29 PM

That's not my assumption. I'm saying that a successful empire-building strategy, like Marvel's, puts the company in a position to take chances on riskier product, like Thor, Guardians, and Ant Man.

The lowest-grossing (domestically, as you have apparently implied) Marvel movie was Captain America, with substantially more than $100M. But please, play again next year.

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 5:31 PM

Yeah yeah I know ;)

Matt BrownJuly 31, 2013 5:33 PM

That's a valid point, and one I wonder about often. (So is your point about the boobs, below.) I can't see these characters from a female point of view for obvious reasons, so I try to force my grains of salt into as many of my sentences as possible... :)

hutchJuly 31, 2013 8:06 PM

Me? A valid point? on Twitch? That's a first. Seriously though, yeah, I've got a lot of female friends and any notion of the Black Widow being a step up for Ladies Lib in film is met with eye rolls at the very least. Personally, I can't remember here even doing anything in the Avengers except the tried and trued idea of using her feminine wares to dupe a dope. But disclaimer: I also kinda fell asleep because I was bored.

Happily LSAugust 1, 2013 12:12 AM

Joss was such a missed opportunity. One thing Marvel has done right is to find talented people and trust them:

a) John Favreau. People thought, "the guy from Swingers??" Directing an action movie-- a comic book movie, no less? But he nailed it, bringing a dimension to superhero films that had never occurred to anyone: witty and dialogue driven.

b) Joe Johnston. The guy from The Rocketeer?? But the 40's look and feel he gave Captain America is my favorite part of the movie, and was incredibly important to nail for Captain America going forward. You had to feel that mythic version of WWII existed and that Cap came from it.

c) Kenneth Branaugh. The Shakespearean actor?? Thor is my least favorite of the setup movies because I'm not a fan of Asgard (it's a matter of taste), but it's still a solid and enjoyable movie. For a look at how to do other planets/dimensions wrong, see Green Lantern or Man of Steel (I haven't seen MoS yet, but the Krypton scenes were a complaint point for many people). So the fact that they got it right in Thor is pretty big.

d) And of course, Joss, that guy from Buffy and Firefly, who fans all knew could make a great superhero movie, but movie executives might not know, or might not trust because of his lack of blockbuster experience. Lucky for us Kevin Feige isn't a "movie executive", but rather is a comic book guy who's in the movie business.

Maybe DC's real problem is that they don't have their own movie studio. Marvel's success is due in large part to Kevin Feige bringing the whole thing together under a singular vision. DC has Warner Brothers, a movie studio, making their movies. WB is in the movie business; Marvel is in the Marvel business. If they'd been the ones who owned Wonder Woman, I'm positive it would have been made, and made by Joss or someone like him, an auteur with an enthusiastic vision.

Happily LSAugust 1, 2013 12:29 AM

People said had the same complaint about Tom Hardy playing Bane-- that he was too small-- but whatever the other faults of the movie are, they're not that he wasn't a menacing Bane. The way he projects his physical presence, it's like he's 6'5". Gina Carano has the same ability. I saw Haywire twice and had no idea she was that short.

SteveAugust 1, 2013 2:10 AM

The most amazing thing about DC is that virtually all their animated movies are awesome, yet their live action properties are mixed. They should just let the animation division have a crack at live action - give it to the people that know the stories and trust the foundations of the characters instead of handing it over to the writer of the day who keeps unnecessarily "re-imagining" the properties.

OrangeCrushAugust 1, 2013 10:57 AM

DC needs new management in a big bad way. Marvel has written the book on how you approach Superhero movies and all DC would have to do is follow suit at this point. Yet they can't even do that. The fact they are coming out with a Batman vs. Superman movie, before the new Batman character has even had a single film yet speaks worlds in regards to how off base the management at DC movies really is. They are basically taking the exact opposite approach the Marvel took, which is downright stupid given the sheer magnitude of success that Marvel has seen with their Superhero franchises.

If they had any brains, they would make at least one stand alone Batman film, which introduces people to the new Batman and they would make at least one more stand alone Superman movie before attempting anything like Superman Vs. Batman. It will still make money after all, this is Superman and Batman were talking about but in regards to overall quality, its not going to come anywhere close to approaching the quality of Marvel's films. Meanwhile, Marvel will continue to steamroll ahead and in so doing, make DC look just that much worse.

SteveLAugust 1, 2013 2:23 PM

The REAL reason Wonder Woman inst being filmed as a movie or TV show is simple - RELIGION - WW origins and her place in the DC universe would mean there were are or were GODS other that the one so called true christian God much lover by America more than really the rest of the world who take it with a pinch of salt like other fairy tales.
To place a hero created by mythology would mess with the universe and the viewers acceptance of it. In this way THOR became an alien rather than a Norse God for one.
To fit WW into a tv show then all this was scrapped in favor of changing her so much the pilot flopped.
The old tv show simply ignored most of this history and got on with the fighting and spinning.
The do WW justice she needs a REAL origin worthy of her past, her creation from clay or a demi goddess and her fighting and training to earn her costume and equipment.
To do this right tho and make it part of the Justice League is going to be hard if America wont get over her mythology and someone insists on changing it to something simple - like a race of Amazons living alone on a island.
Come on shes more than simply a fit chick with a lasso into bondage.
She deserves better.

Come on shes Superman strong

Broken AngelAugust 1, 2013 6:20 PM

Diane Nelson is right though, not that many people really know about Wonder Woman and her origins, beyond the fact that she's like, a female Superman.

Eric WeikAugust 1, 2013 9:28 PM

I do not think it is because of religion....Thor had "other gods" other than God. It still was good and made money. It can be handle like Steve Rodgers said in Avengers, about his God not looking like that, or something like that.
But WW orgin needs to go back to the Prez run in the mid to late 80's. That would make a good story. If there is aliens, then there can be "other gods". Being a Christian that would not bother me, if handled like Avengers did.

Jason GorberAugust 1, 2013 10:19 PM

Yes, the DC logo is attached before the movie starts.

superfoxAugust 1, 2013 11:42 PM

I think Joss Whedon is a Genius but I know someone in the business that actually read his script for WW and said it was horrible. And that person is also a die hard Whedon fan. Everybody has an off day I guess.

matthewfabbAugust 2, 2013 3:41 AM

Well, while Tony Stark & Bruce Banner are genius, Black Widow still came across as the smartest one of the group. While Loki, the God of Mischief is playing everyone for a fool, she manages to get him to reveal his plan to her. In a group of superheroes, she along with Hawkeye are the only one without extraordinary powers yet she manages to hold her own in the group.

Patrick Bayard August 2, 2013 5:21 PM

Excellent article. The only thing I would disagree with is that when you stated "DC Animation made a fairly terrific Wonder Woman movie..." You unfortunately force me to somewhat agree with Warner Brothers. I am not convinced that the specfifc depiction of Wonder Woman from the animated feature would work in live action. But that by NO MEANS absolves Warner Brothers from the absolutely shameful and quite frankly sexist approach they have taken (or actually not taken) toward bringing Wonder Woman to theaters. What i would recommend is that they take the opportunity to develop a compelling back story that can fit into the general DC universe. I have personally seen it done by amateur writers so I don't get why it could not be done by a major studio. It is clearly a lack of will not a lack of a way.

hutchAugust 2, 2013 6:28 PM

Yeah, she sure did. In the tried and true method of having a woman use her feminine charms dupe a dope. I dunno. I don't really see much relevance in her character as an example to point to for women's upward mobility in films. And aside from cosplay girls, I doubt many other females think so either.

GregAugust 2, 2013 9:34 PM

Why don't they just let Refn do the movie like he wanted or hire someone like Edgar Wright? It's just not that hard. Just hire some talented people. Also, most of those Marvel movies aren't actually all that good. They just have good pr and the emperor and his birthday suit will eventually be pointed out like all trends are.

They are too busy focusing on Marvel when they could just do their own thing.

Btw no offense to the author but Gail Simone is a truly terrible and self righteous writer who relies on angry twitter fans for her low number selling books. Basically avoid her to avoid a repeat Green Lantern issue.

Doverpilot74August 3, 2013 2:38 PM

I think the main reason DC comics is having a hard time bringing their gang to the big screen is this. Their characters just don't translate well to the big screen outside Superman (who is even a stretch) and Batman. Marvel, outside of Thor who I thought was weak and out of place story in Avengers, have heroes that seems real. The names make more sense and are as cheesy either. Batman translate well because you really can picture some rich genius with access to all those toys. In Marvel, a man who creates a supersuit... a genetic mutated beast (Hulk), a genetically engineered soldier (Capt Amer) all seem real and tangible. DC.... they may be great in a comic but their characters with out significantly changing them do not translate well to real life. Just my opinion. Some people didn't like the spin on the new Superman making him more real...I loved it and if they want to have success they need to overhaul the DC lineup. Come to think of it was Blade DC? He was tangible also (even if the 3rd movie was BAD) lol.

Read Nonni DarwishAugust 3, 2013 5:19 PM

I would love to see a WW movie. I would love to see Donna Troy and the Multiverse put to film. It would be the most epic super hero movie ever. We all need to take a deep breath, read over the vast cannon, and put this movie out there.

Billy's KingdomAugust 3, 2013 8:03 PM

absolutely, for a while wonder woman was one of their strongest efforts

Billy's KingdomAugust 3, 2013 8:06 PM

apparently the reason y there is (for the most part) no reason 2 worry regardless how u feel about the director is that marvel tend to be very heavy handed with their properties. think it's kevin feige, if it is dc really needs a kevin feige

matthewfabbAugust 3, 2013 11:28 PM

See I disagree that she was using her feminine charms to dupe a dope. Once again, Loki is playing everyone for a fool and hardly comes off as a dope. He tries to upset Black Widow based on what he found out about her pass from Hawkeye. Black Widow goes along with it and pretends to be upset. Loki gets a bit boastful and shows a bit too much of his hand. She figures out his plan and thanks him for his cooperation, showing she was just playing him and actually won their little mind game. She's not using sex as a weapon at all in that scene and elevates her character as one of the smartest of the group.

NikkiAugust 4, 2013 5:57 AM

The problem is Hollywood investing time and money into a hero that's a woman. DC and Marvel has sucked at getting solid scripts and direction together for women superhero movies. In the last 10 years 2 movies come to mind that were a huge flop in the representation of women super heroes: Catwoman and Elektra. And when those didn't work out they were afraid to further attack any other female projects. Why oh why can't they get it right? To sadly quote a James Brown song... Its a mans world. In my opinion its gonna take hosts of strong and powerful woman to give a movie about strong and powerful women (Amazons+WW) any justice. Not to be a feminist but men don't care enough to not make us, women, look like fools. I know the comic was created by a man but this story needs a woman's touch to come to light and to be all that it can be.

@ NikkiAugust 4, 2013 2:47 PM

Well said, there doesn't seem to be seriousness for minorities and women heros. Part of the problem is, Hollywood filmmakers and studio executives are too afraid thinking there is not enough financial support for these they just allow these films to be poorly made or over budgeted with weak character dialogues and plot lines.

@ NikkiAugust 4, 2013 2:52 PM

And I'm an east asian guy btw, and it's frustrating to see asians to be mostly be seen as nothing but goofy caricatures or just stereotypical nothing considering millions of asians live in the U.S.

@ Doverpilot74August 4, 2013 3:03 PM

Making Superman in Man of Steel to be more real is just a style change, it doesn't mean people didn't like it, they just didn't like the generic dialogue and overly abundant fight scenes that gets kind of tiring to watch. Remember, people of all ages went to see this. Hopefully the filmmakers will improve on the sequels.

mantingAugust 4, 2013 7:07 PM

blade is marvel

mantingAugust 4, 2013 7:18 PM

marc clement kneel before todd brown!

mantingAugust 4, 2013 7:20 PM

I read about this - could be interesting

J.p. MillerAugust 5, 2013 3:11 PM

Well other than Batman(Nolan) which are far and away the best comic movies ever made DC does not have the hero power of Marvel. You can say Superman, but is anyone interested in him now? What DC has the advantage in are the villians. Again, sure a large portion of those are attached to Batman but even without those ones they still have an advantage.

Jackie JormpjompAugust 5, 2013 3:33 PM

Not all their live action films are mixed. You have heard of the Nolan films yes? Over 2 billion dollars worldwide, a ton of awards including some Oscar wins and generally critically acclaimed equals not mixed. If you mean overall output you have a point but considering there haven't been many DC movies made in the last 10 years the ratio in that time frame isn't that bad. I liked a lot of the recent Marvel flicks, but I would personally put Watchmen above any of the solo character flicks (except maybe Iron Man 1 and 3). The real problem is that DC/WB just isn't very good at mining a wider base of their properties. If Marvel can put out a Thor film that audiences can relate to, a Martian Manhunter flick has the potential to be really original. An Aquaman film could literally be epic. Cyborg all by himself could be a fantastic movie (and might undo some of that Steel damage Shaq did to African American DC heroes). You're right about the animated films. They are all really satisfying works (except Brainac Attacks, just really awful).

Sherrie LudwigAugust 5, 2013 3:33 PM

Del Toro have a problem with women? Hmmm, maybe it was a fluke, but Liz Sherman in Hellboy was believable to me. The second Hellboy movie was such a messed up over the top tried-to-stuff-everything-in director's overindulgence that I don't remember much of it. I also loved the little girl in Pan's Labyrinth.

Hiroaki JohnsonAugust 5, 2013 6:21 PM

That's funny, cause to me the Nolan Batman's are the very definition of mixed. Excellent action set pieces involving vehicles, or wholesale destruction, often along side some of the more amateurish (or inept) action involving live people. The tone is all over the map. On and on. Though certainly in terms of box office and metacritic they're a crown jewel any studio would like to have.

hutchAugust 5, 2013 9:09 PM

Boy, you comic book lovers are really determined aren't you? Ha ha ha. I'll pretend it's your birthday and be nice and say I too think she was there for reasons other than sex appeal.But know what's funny? The fact that she was there for sex appeal is going to be validated by the fact that her role in the second movie will be much larger with less emphasis on sex-to try and negate an obvious criticism of her role in the first. Hollywood's totally predictable like that. Wait and watch. Then there'll be all sorts of PR about how she rises above being a mere sex object. ha ha ha.

ADAugust 6, 2013 2:46 AM

Do you even think about what you're writing? I'm referring to the following;

"Marvel is aiming for a Phase Three of their run of profitable comic book movies (of increasingly obscure origins, per Guardians of the Galaxy)"

After Guardians, comes Ant-Man. Now, I don't know for sure and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain that Guardians is far more obscure and unheard of than Ant-Man. Another example? Ok. The first movie released by Marvel's new film studio was Iron Man, right? You think Iron Man is less obscure than Thor? Hulk? The AVENGERS? Maybe, and only maybe, the Iron Man movies might be less obscure... But only AFTER Downey JR knocked it out of the park, certainly not before release of that first movie. But I'd bet the Hulk and the Avengers are still less obscure household names than Iron Man. And particularly Thor. Being a Norse God and all.

It's a shame, cos after running into such a monumentally incorrect statement in only the second paragraph, how could I continue reading?

ADAugust 6, 2013 2:53 AM

By the way, Jackie, The Dark Knight was only OK, would have been poor without Ledger to save it. Watch it again and >> all the Ledger bits. The rest doesn't really hold up. And Rises was deeply, deeply flawed. So, yeah, Nolan's bat-movies were pretty mixed. As for Superman Begins... Well, it's too bad for words. Box-office success does not equal a great movie and critics get it wrong sometimes too.

Talan7August 6, 2013 4:09 PM

DC doesn't have the balls to make WW. WW is THE most iconic female superhero. Do you think Marvel wouldn't have made a WW movie by now if they had her? To say she's tricky is the biggest copout and proof they they wouldn't get it right anyway. You have to have vision in order to get anything done. Don't do it just cause you think it needs to be done. Give it to someone with vision. The animation was awesome and cinematic. They can make a cartoon but not a movie? Are they too afraid that making her stranger than men would piss men off?

I would leave the Trevor romance out. Make it more about friendship. WW would probably never want a mortal anyway. Thor and an human is ok. Women have always been seen as the weaker sex so having a stronger man is always ok culturally, the stronger the better. Having WW be kind of a male basher based on her experience with male gods (Ares) then have her faith restored in men by Trevor is all that's need, not some big romance. Have her realize that human men (people) have become more noble than the gods in some respect.

amp69August 6, 2013 6:23 PM

The fact that there has been two Clash of the Titans movies plus the box hit The Immortals with Henry Cavill - proves the American audiences would be able to handle WW's mythological roots.

matthewfabbAugust 7, 2013 12:28 PM

I think her role will increase in the second Avengers movie, because Joss Whedon likes writing female characters who kick ass. That if Whedon ever did an Avengers movie focusing on an individual character from the current roster, that it would likely be Black Widow, as that's the kind of story he is drawn to doing. However, Whedon has also said he wants to give characters like Black Widow and Hawkeye more character beats since they don't have their own movies to expand the characters. Especially as Hawkeye was reduced to a zombie in most of Avengers 1.

As for the PR, there was already that kind of PR from the first movie from Scarlett Johansson. That Johansson said was thankful for Joss not reducing Black Widow to the damsel in distress where the other team members ever had to rescue her and that she holds her own. So yeah, I would say that such PR is likely to continue.

Matt BrownAugust 7, 2013 6:03 PM

Oh, I strongly suspect it was horrible. From what was released of his take on the character, I don't think he took it in the wrong direction. Doesn't mean it can't be done, though.

EroicaAugust 8, 2013 6:07 PM

I would like to see someone write a screenplay with no thought given to what they think the modern woman wants to see. I think its this fear of what the feminist angle would say makes it difficult to stay true to the character-odds are that if they were fans, they would appreciate a true character instead of one that bends for modern conventions. remember, she's an alien, not an american screen female.

GeneralChaosAugust 9, 2013 6:33 AM

Except she did have to be rescued - from the Hulk by Thor.

John TaylorAugust 10, 2013 7:57 AM

Do it as an animated feature film. That way we could have a Wonder Woman that actually7 looks like the comic book. I would prefer it be from the George Perez reboot. Plus, you couls get Lynda Carter to do the voice.

JesseAugust 10, 2013 5:10 PM

I think I can understand to some degree what is meant by "tricky" here. I don't claim to speak for all comic book fans, but I am a great fan of Marvel and DC. The trouble with telling a story with a female super-hero is that there are many, many traps that the story could fall into. Will Wonder Woman be sexy, or will she be a "no nonsense, down to business, getting it done, hear her roar" woman? Will the movie involve a female villain (and end up like the Supergirl film from the 80's) or will it be a movie where she-woman master of the universe shows all of the idiot men of the world how it's supposed to be done? I would like to think that the issue is that they would want to get a story into the cinemas that won't alienate any of the target audience. If they made a Wonder Woman films that appealed to the teenage male market, then many feminists will be rightly disappointed. On the other hand, if they make it too "girl-power" themed then it will be called a work of misandry.
There are some very talented men and women that could make a Wonder Woman film that would be as good as any other superhero film, but I don't want to see a movie where she's a giggling bimbo, nor do I want to see one where she "puts men in their place". I see enough of the latter in everything on television.

DrNopeAugust 11, 2013 1:49 AM

"having gotten away with Thor"

That's a great way to put that. I often say that Thor was better than it had any business being.

LordDarqueAugust 11, 2013 12:36 PM

Do you know anything more than 'horrible'? Joss is not some hack and he did not write that script in a day. He is brilliant at writing, knows how to write female characters and knows Wonder Woman and her history.

In Hollywood's opinion his version of Wonder Woman was not worth doing but nobody has ever said why? All I get from horrible is restating that they did not see it as workable which is nothing new.

hutchAugust 11, 2013 12:53 PM

Trying to tie Thor into the human world so much is one reason I hated that movie so much. That and everything else the film did. One of the WORST movies I've ever seen. Anyway I'm okay with just watch super heroes in their super galaxies and smurfs in their mushroom villages. Everything doesn't have to take place in NYC. I'm also not a fan of bringing box office numbers into discussions. They're very close to being irrelevant.

LordDarqueAugust 11, 2013 12:57 PM

This is just so dumb. Wonder Woman is 72 years old. She was created by William Moulton Marston a psychologist who created the systolic blood pressure test that lead to polygraphs. He was a polyamorus guy who kept voluntary female slaves. He also championed women's rights back in 1929. He created Wonder Woman about 5 years before he died.

I am explaining all this simply to make the point that he was a unique man who created a remarkable character that has endured for decades. All she needs is a touch of updating and some respect and her movie will be a huge hit. All of the jabbering about men not relating to a strong female is stupid. She does not have to be portrayed as a feminist icon. She does not have to pander to the lusts of the audience.

Just tell her story.

hutchAugust 11, 2013 12:57 PM

You guys gotta band together and make a movement happen. A real one. I've seen some pretty weak efforts. Elect George Takei as Prez of the movement and tear some shit up.

hutchAugust 11, 2013 1:04 PM

I want to ban the use of 'genius' 'brilliant' and 'horrible' from forums and comments sections.

hutchAugust 11, 2013 1:07 PM

Stories don't "just get told" anymore (though they should) all sorts of (phony) stats, angles, egos, and demographics involved. The only the way the story will just get told is if an indie filmmaker does it...with kickstarter funds.

oreodogvomitAugust 11, 2013 4:38 PM

"He is brilliant at writing, knows how to write female characters"

Then how do you explain Alien: Resurrection?

LordDarqueAugust 11, 2013 6:34 PM

What Joss wrote was good. What they did with it was not. In his own words...

"I wrote two characters for Alien: Resurrection and their arc was that you would not know what way they were going to go. One of them turned out to be insane - and what do they do? They call Brad Dourif. So there is no plot twist. Brad is a very good actor but he has been pigeonholed into these roles. Then they case J.E. Freeman as a thug - and his character was also supposed to be a mystery. So there you go again - the mystery is gone. Those are just a couple of examples because there are thousands of them when it comes to Alien: Resurrection."

LordDarqueAugust 11, 2013 6:40 PM

Like superfox you give no specifics. I honestly don't know what his take was because I have never heard any details. If you have some let's hear them.

LordDarqueAugust 11, 2013 6:44 PM

Well then I would say it is a good thing these are not your forums. Because after you ban words you don't like the next step would be to ban those who's opinions you don't like.

LordDarqueAugust 11, 2013 6:52 PM

I don't dispute what you said. But at the same time things are only impossible until someone does them.

Avengers could never work. You could never put a group of heros together. Too many egos. Too many backstories to fit together. The reasons why Avengers was going to fail were simply endless.

Then Joss and Marvel did it. Wonder Woman can be done. Just maybe not by the people who have control over her. So perhaps we will never see her. That would be sad. But it is not impossible.

hutchAugust 11, 2013 10:31 PM

I'm obviously joking. Just a word to the wise about overuse to the point of being devoid of meaning.

hutchAugust 11, 2013 10:34 PM

Typical. The artist can do no wrong, eh? I can at least call my guys out on their bullshit *Peter Jackson* *Ridley Scott**Park Chan Wook*

hutchAugust 11, 2013 10:40 PM

Features like 'The Dirty Dozen' et al. pulled off the "egos" bit off ages ago. Gotta have directors or producers that alpha the fuck up on their sets. We will DEFINITELY see Wonder Woman-outside of the comic-con crowd I don't know that she'll be much of female representation for a step up in the male dominated world other than what producers are into that week, but she will be seen on the big screen soon. I honestly hope it's for the better.

OdotryAugust 12, 2013 1:05 AM

I agree with your analysis, especially the part about Warner Bros. being a movie studio first and not being centered around comic books the same way Marvel Studios is or even the DC animated universe. It generally explains why Warner Bros has played it safe for so long with Batman & Superman while ignoring most of the other DC characters.

Another issue is that it seems WB dumped anything DC related on just the same team of Goyer, Nolan & Snyder. I understand they have experience from other projects but it just comes off as playing it too safe on WB's part relying and the same people to do all their DC movies rather than try to take risks.

Not only do they have talented directors like Shane Black, Joss Whedon and James Gunn on board, each director managed to leave his signature on the movie while the film is still very much a (insert comic here) movie.

dnno1August 12, 2013 4:07 PM

Saying that a film is mixed is not really saying anything since (at least with a comic book film) you will find differing opinions on what a good film is from the critics. The truth of the matter here is that the most successful franchises that the WB/DCE team have are Batman and Superman and they don't want to do anything that would compromise those franchises. Secondly, they know that their second tier character are not that strong a draw to warrant even a feature film.

As for Wonder Woman, yes she is tricky. Because of the track record of female super heroine films based on comic books that have been out (none of them have been profitable), you don't really want to take the chance at featuring her in a solo live action film, but yet you may piss off fans of the character by featuring her in an ensemble cast like Justice League or as a co-star in a Superman of Batman film (which would be a conservative move). You also have to find the right costume for the character. Having Wonder Woman walk around in a skin tight bathing suit will definitely garner mixed reviews as well as the ire of many women who feel that type of dress as inappropriate (the may be very few actresses that will even want to wear that on film -- note that most of the comic book heroines wore pants). One major factor that is an impasse for the film is the fact that there is just a lot of misogyny for women in dominant roles. A lot of men are intimidated by it and react by criticizing the character or the actress. The studio knows this and is the reason why they are so reluctant to make such a film.

LordDarqueAugust 12, 2013 6:05 PM

It was not obvious actually. Especially not in a place like this filled with trolls who attack the moment you disagree with them. You might try tossing in the occasional lol or :) because you do come off as fairly harsh in most of your comments.

I speak from experience because I have been told the exact same thing. lol

LordDarqueAugust 12, 2013 6:07 PM

And lets not forget Xena. She pretty much was Wonder Woman right down to the twisted relationship with Aries.

steveAugust 13, 2013 7:44 AM

Considering that no one is going to invest in a movie that they believe won't do well box office wise, the numbers are far from irrelevant. Do you really think that if Iron Man flopped then Avengers would still have been made? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

Also the
Thor movie shits all over 85% of the crap that has been released in the past ten years.

Matheus GruntAugust 13, 2013 4:31 PM

A movie about WW would be quite frankly boring. We already have Superman and those movies aren't coming out as great. Man of Steel is good but it's not anywhere near as good as Batman Begins. I'm a strong dominant type man myself, big comic book fan as well and through all my years of reading comics from the DC & Marvel side all the way to the lesser known companies, characters like Thor, Wonder Woman and Superboy/Supergirl are BLAH, boring. No need for TV shows or movies made about these characters. Lame!

Jackie JormpjompAugust 13, 2013 9:17 PM

Box office success, plus critical acclaim, plus awards....what the hell else do you need? Oh I get it. You're from Bizarro Earth. If the movie had tanked, been critically lambasted and won only Razzies it would have been a masterpiece. So to you Catwoman was just slammin' right?

hutchAugust 13, 2013 10:32 PM

I'm talking about using box office numbers as proof a movie is good. No doubt about it. People pay to see shit. Check the 'Pirates...' sequels. Made tons of money. Complete and utter shit on screen...just like 'Thor'.

hutchAugust 13, 2013 10:34 PM

I said 'so much' twice in one sentence. Redundant much?

Duder NMEAugust 15, 2013 4:23 AM

Why would a movie shit on crap?

Duder NMEAugust 15, 2013 4:31 AM

Any superheroine action movie is going to be misogynistic by nature, due to the heroine getting beat up in her ongoing battles. Might as well embrace it head on, face first. Wonder Woman could end up like a Lady John McClane - battered and scarred at the end of (almost) every Die Hard movie.

ADAugust 15, 2013 9:01 AM

God, no! Lol! Dark Knight was Gone With The Wind next to Catwoman. The problem was Two-Face was wasted and had to take a back seat to the Joker. Harvey Dent was excellent but he gets 5 minutes as Two Face then he's done. He should have been the big bad for the following movie. It's been a while since I looked at it and I forget what else specifically bothered me about it but I do know I thought the structure of the plot/script needed a lot of work to be great. Like I said, Ledger's great and that's where the hype and success really came from. Bale's Bat-voice was comically OTT in all three movies but it seemed to get progressively worse. Rises I just feel was a massive cop out. It's beautifully shot (they all are), and decently written if it was, like, part eight of a franchise, but as a franchise closer after only three movies I was baffled as to where the rest of Batman's career was. He had two adventures and then retired? So young? Bane was supposed to be the villain that put him into retirement. It's like the first two movies set up the best on screen bat-universe to date and the third one came along and pissed on it all. Where was penguin and riddler and all the others? And Batman goes his whole career without a Robin and we have to settle for a new character in a "is he/isn't he?" angle. Nolan was selfish with Rises, and should have left Batman's career in progress so that this best-Batman-movie-franchise-to-date could potentially continue. Batman ought to be more like Bond. There's easily 20 films in that career and recasting is no problem. So, yeah, DK fell just short of greatness for me and DKR was a little illogical and a lot of a slap in the face. But all three are hugely entertaining and close to the best hollywood has to offer in recent times.

ADAugust 15, 2013 9:26 AM

They're not far and away the best, no way. They are no better than Superman, Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm, Sin City, The Crow, Kick-Ass, American Splendour, Avengers and X2. One of them is on a par with this list, maybe two.

ADAugust 15, 2013 9:58 AM

Hutch is right about box office numbers. Nothing to do with quality of movie at all. Avatar made buckets of cash but it's still generic, derivative bollocks. Lots of money just means you put out something that appeals to the masses. Like X-Factor, or McDonalds for an example that no-one can deny is shit. It doesn't necessarily mean the product is great art, sometimes it just confirms that must of us are stupid and easily pleased by shiny things. But I did enjoy Thor, it was way better than I ever thought it could be.

ADAugust 15, 2013 10:05 AM

I've since read the rest (when I was in a better frame of mind), and enjoyed doing so. So, apologies if I was a bit harsh. The sentence I quoted is still nonsense though. ;)

hutchAugust 15, 2013 10:15 AM

That and ticket prices keep going up. I think number of tickets sold is a better indicator...but even that is still suspect for reasons you describe above.

ADAugust 15, 2013 10:16 AM

And, also, by pointing out how bad Catwoman is, you're confirming the original point that Steve was making and that you were arguing against. He never said Nolan's flicks were mixed, just that DC's live-action properties are. Catwoman confirms his point, see? As does Superman III & IV, Supergirl, Steel, Justice League America, Batman & Robin, Green Lantern... I'm sure I forget some. In fact, "mixed" is polite, I think DC have put out more turkeys than successes, making their live-action properties generally shit with only occassional flashes of brilliance. It just comes down to hiring the right people. Donner, Burton and Nolan are all great directors who had solid scripts to work on. When you mess that part up, you're screwed.

hutchAugust 15, 2013 10:23 AM

"Irony falls flat on the page" -Ian McKellen

J.p. MillerAugust 15, 2013 11:06 AM

I will give you Sin City, though I don't consider graphic novels as the same thing as comics, many people do.

The Crow is not that good. It lives on because of the Lee family curse conection. Avengers was terrible and X-2 is just OK. The rest I have not seen and have no desire to see because they look poor.

Brad BarnesAugust 15, 2013 5:26 PM

The New 52 Wonder Woman has modified her origin into a digestible form: now we know that Zeus is her true father, which makes her a demigod. However, DC needs to reboot the Batman franchise and the Superman relaunch was less surefooted than they would have liked. Wonder Woman needs to be brought to the big screen under the umbrella of the DC Trinity, so the strongest move would be the Justice League of America movie. Go big, DC! We can take it! :)

Adam_RodriguezAugust 15, 2013 5:39 PM

Wow. You solved the mystery Matt Brown. It isn't that you have simply bought into the sexist feminist (or femen in your case) excuses. It is because she is a woman! Well solve the problem then and have "Diana" start off as "Dan", then have him do a sex change sometime during the plot. You've got your Wonder Woman movie!

Or your a moronic simpleton femen.

RamoneAugust 15, 2013 6:32 PM

"DC Animation made a fairly terrific Wonder Woman movie about four years ago, which went straight to Blu-ray." No dude, that movie was awful. It was contrite and basically just made Diana a man in WW clothing. I'd much rather see something that treats her with respect like the Justice League TV series.

thorschariotAugust 15, 2013 6:59 PM

fuck it. Marvel should just suck it up and make a She-Hulk movie. great character, very easy to relate to, set origin. use the She-Hulk series that John Byrne penned in the late 80's/early 90's as the basis and you have a home run.

Dean Owen CarterAugust 15, 2013 7:06 PM

That's not what I meant. A super heroine action film does not
necessarily have to be misogynistic, but the reaction to all of these
films tend to be. The studio and it's investors do not have to embrace
failure when they see it and their shareholders will make sure of that.
This is one of the major reasons why there isn't a Wonder Woman film (or
for that matter a Ms. Marvel or She Hulk film).

Jeffrey of TroyAugust 15, 2013 7:10 PM

Matt Brown, you worthless Feminist slug. No, the problem isn't that she's a woman, or a strong woman. The problem is she's a HOT woman, with big boobs, wearing a tiny tight outfit. The puritan Feminists went ape-doodoo over the very tame underwear scene in the most recent Star Trek movie. How do you think they would react to a well-done WW movie? Of course the execs know this, they know the world we are living in.
But the truth - about everything - has become verboten in modern Amerika, so they say "tricky."

moses johnsonAugust 16, 2013 7:18 PM

DC just sale the movie rights to marvel, im sure they can my a great wonder woman movie and it wont be very tricky. wonder woman is one of the top 5 or 6 most recognizable charterers. more people know her than know green lantern, but they made that, give me a break.

dragon age fanAugust 16, 2013 7:43 PM

are they so afraid to make a women as a leading strong main charc in a movie(with possable sequels) and in the proces show that a woman can do a mans job is that it?,and/or that it is pretty much the only leading women dc has to put in a movie.
just take aslong as it needs to get a good story and cast a women with a good background and go for it when youre ready,cmon dont be afraid go for it!!

dragon age fanAugust 16, 2013 7:49 PM

the thing with superman movies in this day is the context of the movie has kinda outgrown this time,wht am trying to say is supermans charc was made in a time where people where like he was but today manny people arent like that annymore so you have to adjust him abit and thats execly what they did in man of steel the last movie,what i am abit unshure of is at the end of that movie they went back to nerdy clark kent with his glasses that looks like a pushover again they should drop that act at this moment atleast cause people cant use it at the moment

dragon age fanAugust 16, 2013 8:02 PM

its kinda funny you know when 1 number of comicbook series isnt to good wel oke its exceptable 2-3 even maybe but after that the next 1 has to be desent wel people these days expect every movie to be supergood(they expect to much) a movie is basicly the same as a comicbook story some movies are just good and others where just a bad idee or somwhere in between.
and al of this stand loos from the fact that people making movies are to hasty to much thinking it has to make money i have to make as much money as i can fast,they need to drop that attitude and go for more time between movies and crank up the quality of the storys how you show a scene etc

Franke SistoAugust 16, 2013 8:22 PM

With Scarlett Johansson busy playing Black Widow, I am honestly of the belief that there is not an actress in Hollywood with the chops to play Wonder Woman right. Is the actress is out there? You bet your ass she is, and she probably hasn't been discovered yet. But despite the noncommittal nature of the quote above, the fact stands that a Wonder Woman movie CANNOT misfire at this time. If it does, it will set female superheroes back even farther.

Don't get me wrong though - a Wonder Woman movie HAS TO happen before Justice League. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you have a competent enough actress and a good enough script, Wonder Woman CAN and WILL draw money. Bet on it. But the truth is that it has to be done right. IT HAS TO BE. If you end up rushing it out, we'll get a flashy half-cocked script with Megan Fox as the titular character.

I don't want that. I want a movie worthy of Wonder Woman and what she represents. The fact that it hasn't happened yet (and probably won't happen for another half-a-decade or so) hurts me just as much as it hurts the others, but rushing it out just to say it can be done would be a disservice. Nelson said that a Wonder Woman movie is a priority, and I believe her.

Torre SimsAugust 16, 2013 8:45 PM

i still want Megan gale for wonder woman. and not some 5 foot waifish baby faced girl.

John TaylorAugust 18, 2013 3:14 PM

What they need to do is a full length animated feature. Borrow the art from the George Perez reboot of the comic book. Added bonus. By doing it animated, we could have Lynda Carter do the voice.

Craig ForshawAugust 18, 2013 3:40 PM

No... movies tailored to right-wing representations of masculinity (the business man (Iron Man/Batman), the soldier (Captain America), the son taking over the family business (Thor), or the strongman-solving-problems-through-violence (Hulk/Superman)) tend to get made, as the people in charge at the studios understand those. They don't get why people would want to see some chick wailing on dudes and preaching peace, and they definitely don't want to see a film about a woman with a male love interest (hence why, in the comics, Bruce Wayne drowns in women, and Diana has only the most stuttering and chaste of romances).

JackAugust 18, 2013 9:21 PM

Well I would say from a comic book readers perspective, if Superman has the top selling comic (Superman Unchained), at least one person is interested in him.

JackAugust 18, 2013 9:23 PM

As opposed to say: a scientist doused in chemicals (Flash), a space-cop (Green Lantern), a cyborg (Cyborg), or Aquaman (nuff said).

JackAugust 18, 2013 9:25 PM

Percy Jackson and the Olympians.

Mister DAugust 18, 2013 11:09 PM

Sorry this has little to do with her gender. It has to do with her lack of fanbase (the comic has struggled for decades to find a solid audience), convoluted origin, lack of supporting characters, lack of good villains, and lack of an iconic story. Even her powers are not generally well known, and those that are (lasso, bracelets, invisible plane) hardly inspire. She has long been a valuable marketing image without a real, consistent character to back it up. This is not to say there are not hurdles for female characters - Batgirl and Supergirl often struggle to maintain their own titles, and they are the heavy hitters. Its a boys market, and female characters are a tough sell, but there are better places to start besides Wonder Woman, because, vagina or no vagina, she really IS a "tricky" character.

Shiva SeecharanAugust 19, 2013 10:48 PM

DC is scared that they'll have another Catwoman repeat on their hands.

CaracalAugust 19, 2013 11:27 PM

So tired of these squirmy industry types with their excuses. Why is Flash getting a movie then? People know much less about him. Also, people will often say "Well, women don't read comics, they don't watch superhero movies" but it's a completely invalid point. The reason many women don't read comics or see superhero movies is because they don't often feel included and they aren't ever marketed to. Would half the world be a good demographic to go after? What person trying to peddle a product just says "Oh, there's a few billion people in this one group but....meh, they won't go for it. Let's not even try too hard." By the way, Avengers was the highest grossing movie in part because women actually went to see it and that's probably because of Joss.

People always cite failed superheroine movies in the past too. Meanwhile, there was a Hulk movie, a few failed Superman movies, Daredevil totally failed, and has anyone seen Schumacher's Batmen? Yet they're never referenced when ideas of new movies for those characters are addressed. Talk about giving Anne Hathaway a Catwoman movie and a bunch of idiots will say "Oh but Halle Berry's failed (10 years ago practically) so NO" - completely ignoring that she was a scene-stealer. Talk about a Wonder Woman movie and someone has to bring up Lynda Carter's show. They don't bring up Adam West for Batman....

Seems like just a lot of flimsy, tired excuses.

OdotryAugust 20, 2013 12:57 AM

WB saying that Wonder Woman is "tricky." is just their nice way of saying that WW is unmarketable which is the cold hard truth. For an "ìconic" character, when was the last time she was relevant in pop culture since her 70s show? For that matter even that show doesn't get talked about much, the most I hear was how hot Lynda Carter was.

Her comics dodgingly avoid cancellation and even her animated movie failed to sell fast enough to warrant a sequel. So if even among hardcore comic geeks she's not that big, what chance is there that a movie would be profitable and not bomb like Green Lantern did?

I think this article sums it up best when it said that Wonder Woman is a figurehead for feminism rather than an actual character, hence why her character never had much a following and why she has been reimagined much more radically than most superheroes. From the failed NBC pilot that never aired, to the DC Nation shorts reminiscent of Starsky and Hutch, and even in the comics where she's been re-imagined and retconned far more times than any other character.

It all comes down to a severe lack of consistency, due in large part to her horrendous golden age comics which are virtually unreadable to the modern reader. Even by the standards of back then they were extremely crude; they were a complete mess of strange imagery, arbitrary plot and depictions of fetishistic behavior courtesy of the creator's S&M fetish. All this leaves little for modern writers to draw upon hence why she keeps getting reimagined.

As a result she lacks many of the fundamental things required to make for a compelling comic book story and movie; she's quite bland as a character, she has no worthwhile supporting cast to bounce off of, idiotic gimmicks like the lasso of truth and the Invisible Plane, a terrible rogues gallery and not a single memorable storyline.

Based on all that, what is there to work with for a movie let alone a movie series? Sure you have the animated movie, but honestly that movie was probably one of the weakest DCAU films out there and it only highlights many for the problems stated earlier from the bland main character, the uninteresting supporting cast, the weak "girl power" theme, and an unspectacular villain.

Strangely enough the comparatively more obscure Guardians of the Galaxy managed to subvert these issues; each member has a well defined character, an interesting setting, interesting supporting cast, some great villains like Korvac Magus, Universal Church of Truth & Thanos, not to mention some very memorable storylines to draw from like Annihilation and Thanos Imperative.

It's truly a shame though that WW can't work well in popular culture given that she's meant to be the "most popular" female superhero, which is holding back many potential solo female heroes, hopefully Marvel can push for a Black Widow solo movie or even a Ms. Marvel movie. Because as it is DC is never going to get a movie off the ground without Batman or Superman in the title.

Jean 2MAugust 20, 2013 5:48 PM


Agt_PendergastAugust 20, 2013 11:26 PM

Marvel is making a big budget movie based on a talking Racoon who presumably weilds a rocket, yet DC feels that a female superhero is tricky? What the hell would they do if they didn't have Batman?

Agt_PendergastAugust 20, 2013 11:27 PM

They kinda did though. And it was pretty good.

ShunYat CheungAugust 21, 2013 10:03 AM

The Dark Knight didn't have anything that looks or sounds like bat in its title...

Crimson MaskAugust 21, 2013 10:11 AM

Wonder Woman has a "singular, clear origin story?" Which/what is it?

No, really. She's a golem... I know that much because I'm a comic nerd and a kid who watched the awful Hanna Barbera cartoons at some point in childhood. I think most non comic-nerds would not know or remember even that, and they certainly wouldn't remember the crashed pilot on the island of Amazonia who she fell in love with and left to be with (oh, wait, got to acknowledge the retcon of that bit, because obviously Wonder Woman is a feminist icon now and running off to be with a man just isn't done by feminist icons). No, maybe she should be remolded in the Frank Miller mold, as a total man-hater just looking for opportunities to condemn the man's world; yeah, that's the ticket. Feh... the general public has seen none of that. Yet.

Most people probably have little more than fuzzy memories of Linda Carter, and remember what IS iconic about Wonder Woman: the stars and stripes costume, the golden lariat of truth, the bracelets of defense. Everything else you could totally re-imagine and the only complainers would be comic nerds and those who want to get in on the comic nerd chic (now there's a cue for Nelson Muntz if ever there was one).

Basically, cast an athletic, powerful-looking woman (think Elizabeth Kocianski Carolan aka Beth Phoenix, fi), don't deviate significantly from the silver-age costume, and have her doing Wonder-Woman type action with the rope and bracelets, without spending too much time in weird Ancient Grecian settings, and you'll have a winner with the general public.

The Amazonia setting would be as uninteresting to most non comic nerds as all the outer space alien Green Lantern Corps aspects of the Green Lantern story. It may be true to the comics, but it's a niche appeal even in that shrinking audience.

Crimson MaskAugust 21, 2013 10:41 AM

The Thor of Marvel Comics was not originally the actual Thor from Olympus, but a man who, through Mjölnir, took on the power of the Norse God. I've seen a number of comic-book pros over the years siding with that original interpretation over the retcon that distanced the character from our world.

Superheroes are creatures of our modern world. Norse gods are long outdated.

Joseph InnissAugust 21, 2013 10:42 AM

i don't see what the big fuss is all about honestly because DC can make a proper Wonder Woman movie but I believe they are over analyzing the situation. One of the main things for a Wonder Woman movie would be casting the proper actress, the dimensions must be right from her height, her body and her acting and FIGHTING ability the story as some of u all has said would be good if they let the animated movie writers do a good script. The Problem with the movies is that they always try to stray away from the comics base story of the character I HATE WHEN THEY DO THAT it takes away from the character everyone knows and initially learned and feel in love with and u can't say a womans movie won't be as popular as a man's thats BS it's all in the writing the story direction and making sure the right woman is cast to play her search the globe if they have to. What man won't love to see a fairly tall sculpted like a goddess beautiful woman with strong persona and bad as fighting skills and yet soooo dam sexy, any man would look at that and girls would love seeing a woman so strong in different ways. DC is just dragging their feet and wasting time.

Todd BrownAugust 21, 2013 10:45 AM

The Norse gods were never, ever, ever, ever, ever from Olympus.

Crimson MaskAugust 21, 2013 10:52 AM

"I would leave the Trevor romance out. Make it more about friendship. WW would probably never want a mortal anyway."

Hah... yeah, feminists especially hate that she left the island just to chase a man. But that IS the Wonder Woman origin.

It just shows one more way she's not the character many people would want her to be. A lot of people still think she's supposed to be an American patriot too, because of the costume. WW is only "iconic" (widely recognized and thought of first among female superheroes) because of the costume and the trappings that come with it.

Crimson MaskAugust 21, 2013 11:58 AM

Sorry, Asgard, Niflheim, all that jazz. Just a slip, same effective difference.

Nathan Paul KennedyAugust 23, 2013 5:26 AM

Sorry, but Wonder Woman simply isn't iconic. Most people have heard the name sure, but ask how many of them have seen a movie/TV show with her in it and the answer is virtually nil. I certainly don't remember any classic comic books stories or graphic novels with her as the central character, she's always the possible love interest for Superman or a supporting costumed character with no development. There's a reason Tony Stark took off, because there were no expectations or hyperbole attached to the project but when it was a success, it opened the door for Marvel who then kicked it in, blew up the doorway and knocked down the house before building a mansion in its place!

DC has to expand beyond its core stable of Superman/Batman, that's true, but I just don't think Wonder Woman is the way to do it. Maybe they should go the alternate route and produce a super-villain movie, that'd be something we've never seen before.

Julius YeungAugust 23, 2013 11:39 PM

The thing is DC needs to be WAAAY different from Marvel.

more serious in everything... they really do need to get the characters right. Make them as real as possible. DC is clearly trying realism in fictional characters. Like Game of Thrones. They're putting serious drama into superhero movies and that's great. And they need to tell the stories the right way. Can't just rush in and to a Marvel. marvel's more "indiana jones'-y. More fun and less serious.

I want Wonder Woman to reflect on our modern world. Give her some edge like the rest of DC. And for god's sake, do not wear that obviously sexed up costume. Give her a proper greek outfit with the colors. A magical braclet where she can draw any weapon out, no tiara but a greek helmet (but less heavy and clunky), and she needs those greek-skirts-thingy worn by both men and women in battle. Make her badass and also innocent as in more diplomatic and calm.

I also hate the Batman/MoS crossover. They should stick with the current Nolan world. It would be drastically different and new. A new world creative writers can truly delve into. Like making a big finger to Marvel going "Oh yea? GotG? Well F*ck you we're brining New Gods and the previous Batman". Which means it's a mix of Batman Incorporated, Grayson Batman, and Beyond Batman. Bruce builds a similar situation like in the end of Returns and he's no longer Batman but he's still kicking!

Imagine how many great stories and plot that can come out of this? THis is original. Something new that Nolan could appreciate. Bring in talented writers to tackle this. Oscar worthy writers.

If I was WB exec, I'd go for sth like this:
The Amazon (movie)
The World's Finest
Dog of War
The Wonder Woman
The Flash
Green Lantern
The Fourth World saga
All-Star (Superman movie)
The World's Finest II/Trinity II
Flash Lantern
The League of Guardians/(or just) Justice League/ or LEAGUE
Final Crisis

AND BOOM we got a well planned DC series. But I'll admit after Trinity I just randomly put stuff out but League and FC should be there definitely!!

fairportfanAugust 24, 2013 6:09 AM

Sorry - the Nolan "Batman" films range from pretentious but basically harmless ("Rises") to silly ("Begins") to sucks-dead-rat-through-a-bendy-straw ("Dark Knight").

The best thing that ever happened to Nolan was Heath Ledger's brilliant career move that got his badly-(over)-written and poorly-directed performance so much press.

SicaBixbyAugust 24, 2013 12:16 PM

The new Wonder Woman cartoon I saw recently sucked. Animation was cheaply done and they turned her into an uncaring brat. It was quite the opposite of who Wonder Woman is.

SuburbanbansheeAugust 24, 2013 7:30 PM

Greeks don't drink beer. They drink wine. OTOH, barbarian Amazons probably do drink beer, just like they cook with butter instead of olive oil, and have meat and fish as main courses instead of as condiments.

The big problem would be that a pious Greek Amazon like Diana would be having to pour a libation onto the floor with every cup of wine, and fine drinking establishments without sawdust on the floor tend to object to this. Also, she'd want to mix water into the wine, which could get messy.

SuburbanbansheeAugust 24, 2013 7:32 PM

The drinking games that involve spitting olive pits or swishing wine dregs out of your cup would also get messy.

However, expecting drinking parties to include live music and acrobatic dancing girls would probably be pretty amusing. Especially in DC with military guys.

SuburbanbansheeAugust 24, 2013 7:39 PM

Also, technically most Amazons on Greek pottery wear Persian or Scythian or Sarmatian outfits, not Greek ones. Persian Amazons wear riding pants, but there's a wide variety of outfits. (And frankly, it would be pretty cool to have her wear different outfits as well as the traditional one.)

However. The traditional swimsuit outfit is actually not far off from what some women in Roman cultures wore for exercise, dancing, or sporty public performances (probably for support more than modesty). The main difference is that the guys at DC made it into a one piece (to avoid censorship) instead of a bandeau and bikini bottom. So actually, it's not swimsuity enough for authenticity.

Yes, that's what I said.

SuburbanbansheeAugust 24, 2013 7:48 PM

And of course she's a patriot. She's an immigrant who believes strongly in democracy and her adopted country (convinced by a nice American man and her new friends), but who also loves her old country and its ideals and people. She fights to save both the lands she loves. Peace will be achieved by smashing the villainous countries, ideologies, and lawbreakers who endanger both her lands.

Beyond that, you can always play with love, princesses who have to work, secret identities, neato magical items, friends who don't at all follow the Amazonian ideals of beauty or athletics or femaleness, and all the rest. It's good stuff. It's not all that "tricky," either.

VincentAugust 25, 2013 10:16 AM

If I were DC I would have all the writers of the top animated films write the actual live action films themselves. Chris Nolan would be the director. Enough said!

April D. KorbelAugust 27, 2013 1:27 PM

The writing for the Justice League animated series Wonder Woman occasionally got really good. She was feminine, relatable and still kicked butt. She also went dancing with Bruce Wayne on one occasion.
She's still young, but I don't think anyone had a problem with Hit Girl. And, y'know, she's growing up.

atalexAugust 27, 2013 5:20 PM

She didn't leave the island to "chase" Trevor. She carried him back to civilization, and throughout the Moulton era, Trevor was continually treated as a male "damsel in distress" who WW would have to carry out of burning buildings over her shoulder.

Andrew ArnoldAugust 28, 2013 2:42 PM

Are you talking about the weird short that plays after each episode of 'Beware The Batman"?

GuestAugust 29, 2013 5:06 PM
David HargisAugust 29, 2013 5:10 PM

I really like this Cosplay image of WW:

I think a movie/show should embrace the myth and provide a modern context for the character, as well as using modern FX to create some amazing creatures and visuals that she can fight against.

There's no really good reason why this can't work. DC is creating a bar they'll never be able to jump over, mainly because they don't seem to understand the character ... and are gun-shy of the train wreck tv pilot from a year or so ago. We don't need Smallville with a female lead, we need Wonder Woman. I don't think this is anywhere near as hard as they're making it.

cryofpaineAugust 30, 2013 5:08 PM

To be fair, it's not just a problem with DC. Marvel has some great female characters as well: the afore mentioned super-spy, an Air Force officer with alien superpowers, a research scientist possessing the ancient guardian spirit of a race of cat-people, a former detective/SHIELD agent/bounty hunter with spider powers, etc. Yet who are they giving movies to? Among others, a character that has failed twice to get a solo franchise off the ground; and a guy best known for growing really big, creating a dangerous evil robot just so he can "prove" he's a hero by destroying it (which he fails to do), and abusing his wife. Yeah, those sound like real winners.

As for Wonder Woman, anyone with half a brain who doesn't still belong to the "girls have cooties" school of "thought" (and I use the term loosely) can see that she's the perfect character to build a franchise on. She is the perfect answer to Thor - both are heavily based in mythology. She is the perfect answer to Captain America - both are patriots who got their start fighting Nazis in WWII. She's the perfect companion to the dark and gritty tones set by Man of Steel and the Dark Knight trilogy, being the only A-list superhero who has killed in the comics and doesn't have a personal moral code against it. While she doesn't have a vast rogues gallery to draw from, the ones that she does have include a woman possessing the powers of an ancient cat spirit guardian of an ancient tribe; a demigoddess sorceress that turns people into beasts; a corrupt businessman that can control people's minds; and oh yeah, the GOD OF WAR himself.

There's no lack of material to draw from for her. The only thing "tricky" about her is that it would require the studio execs to leave their caves and join us in the real world.

Eric KitchensSeptember 1, 2013 10:26 PM

I think the problem is all of the DCU line with exception to bat man and aqua man and maybe cyborg ( which should be one of the easier movies to make ) are so mythical and over the top to come down to the avengers and x-men movies they have to build flaws in on the spot when for eons DC has done nothing to the characters but reinvent the beginning or change a costume hell injustice is one of the best ideas ever behind the new flash movie but even still someone some where is going to have to piss of the masses and rebuild every single character from the ground up... Not only that but we live in the marvel U so much easier to do But the DCU as so many extremes from psychos that are psychos to gods who have no idea that's what they are.. Best example you have icon and superman and wonder woman and so many others with the same power it's hard to make a movie anyway and the best way to do it is by depowering all of the core characters and make DCU more like real life which would be marvel so.... How can you make god look more human, you don't but at the same time up until flash paradox there has never been anything human or close to real life at all, DC was made to inspire hope and show you right from wrong Marvel is our world... And no one on this planet has lived anywhere else and has never been a god and our tech is nowhere it should be to show you 2D people in a 2D world and have it relatable... Not possible.

bfg666September 3, 2013 5:54 AM

"the feminist-leaning Lois & Clark TV show?!" I've watched a rerun of some episodes recently. There's plenty of trademark mid-XXth century machoism and damsel-in-distress-ism.

bfg666September 3, 2013 7:15 AM

"Will Wonder Woman be sexy, or will she be a no nonsense, down to business, getting it done, hear her roar woman?" You don't seem to realize it but the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Also, I think the "tricky" bit is more complex than that. WW evolved quite a lot since her creation. She went from naive 1940's role model for little girls (with a simplistic feminist stance) to Ambassador to fierce yet compassionate warrior. They're probably having a hard time figuring out how to portray her on the big screen, what to keep of her personality and what to discard. You can't sum up 70 years of character evolution in a 2-hour movie. The same can be said about the stories to choose from.

bfg666September 3, 2013 7:24 AM

You don't need to be a woman to flesh out good female characters and write good female-driven stories, and being one doesn't magically grant you the ability to do so. This is sexist thinking.

bfg666September 3, 2013 7:30 AM

Refn? Hmmm... a Viking to direct an Amazon? Intriguing much. Yet I don't see the director of Valhalla Rising getting involved in superheroics.

bfg666September 3, 2013 10:46 AM

Screw the censors. Funny thing is, there's a fair share of nude models who decide to strip off for the specific purpose of their own feminist empowerment. Go figure.

bfg666September 3, 2013 11:52 AM

"Avengers was terrible?!" Yeah right. On a strict cinematic level, it might not be on par with Nolan's work but it's literally a comic book brought to life. Whedon's witty dialogue and his understanding of comic book grammar, notably in terms of pacing and visual style (camera angles and moves) make it by far the most faithful comic book movie to date. Even Raimi's Spider-Man 1 & 2 didn't achieve that much.

As for Sin City, it's largely overrated, just like Rodriguez's entire filmography. It's not a bad movie, it's fun and visually stunning but it's mostly harmless. For example, when Marv grates the face of that cop on the pavement while driving, in the book the reader feels the guy's pain. In the movie, it just happens.

bfg666September 3, 2013 12:21 PM

She might not be iconic to you but she is part of DC's "holy trinity," as in the third most popular DC character after Superman and Batman. Add that to the fact that she's a feminist icon and you'll see just how wrong you are.

bfg666September 3, 2013 2:07 PM

Please explain how you can hate something that you haven't watched yet? Besides, these two both fought each other and teamed up in the comics, so seeing them sharing the screen is perfectly logical. One thing that bugs me a little in the MCU is that besides the Avengers' team-up, heroes don't crossover into each other's solo movies (except in some post-credits scenes) whereas they do from time to time in the comics, so I'm quite glad DC does it, it'll make them look less like trend followers. Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is no current Nolan world. His trilogy is over and done and was self-contained from the get-go.

bfg666September 3, 2013 2:26 PM

I often say the contrary for several reasons: 1) its cheesy dialogue and humor, 2) the weapons and armor look like cheap plastic toys, and last but not least 3) Asgardians talk to each other in modern english instead of some Norse dialect.

bfg666September 3, 2013 2:54 PM

You mean piss off the fans, right? The masses don't give a shit about the changes. Also, "psychos that are psychos?" Well, duh!

bfg666September 3, 2013 3:02 PM

Fighting for a foreign country is not being a patriot by any means.

bfg666September 3, 2013 3:16 PM

You don't move forward by looking over your shoulder.

bfg666September 3, 2013 3:26 PM

Ouch, my eyes! Dude, do yourself a favor and buy a grammar book. And study it. Hard.

Eric KitchensSeptember 3, 2013 4:24 PM

Ok psychologist have said 5 out of 10 people have mental issues and out of that 2 out of 5 are psycho but my point was I want DC movies and people who do not nor care not to understand the characters as a whole are disappointed because action is firrst and foremost in all movies that and you can make a superman movie but every other character has to be a luke cage / aquaman type to make a good movie because the DCU is not human enough for the masses, and brohamski its a comment block relax this is not that serious and fyi psychos are devoid of emotions..... how many people have you meet that have no emotions..... thats the big picture.

ikkfSeptember 3, 2013 5:03 PM

You know, I was watching Bachelorette a few weeks ago and marveled at how the creator of that movie was able to capture the utter complexity of the female characters without ever trivializing any of them. Each of those characters started off rather unlikable due to her exterior emotional armor, but we were able to eventually see the soul and heart underneath without resorting to feminist ideology. I really believe that no male writer would ever be able to pull that off. I think Warners would be smart to hire that director/writer, Leslye Headland, to do a version of Wonder Woman.

IlliniDave68September 3, 2013 8:22 PM

That explains DC's problem, right there - a comic book company run by a WOMAN is preposterous!

AndySeptember 3, 2013 8:43 PM

You mean like Nolan's Catwoman . . . ?

Torre SimsSeptember 3, 2013 9:09 PM

in that regard, i didn't mind Anne Hathaway, but i wasn't really blown away by her either. it's kinda hard for me to say who i would pick. interesting enough the chick that played superman's birth mother looked like a great choice for WW...ironically. =/

Crimson MaskSeptember 4, 2013 1:27 AM

You should watch more closely. Lois and Clark was all about that role-reversal. Throughout that series Superman/Clark was subjected to all the objectifying tropes that are typically applied to female support characters (right down to the objectifying camera angles featuring his backside). It was not done out of spite or without humor, so maybe it doesn't strike you as having the usual tone of feminism, but it still was a very "girl power" series, and deserves credit for being that.

Especially for doing so without ever becoming denigrating toward men.

bfg666September 4, 2013 8:51 AM

So when Lois is saved from certain death over and over again by Supes, it is her determining her own fate? Hmmm... very girl-powery indeed! Also, her literally melting from the very second they meet doesn't exactly strike me as feminist, and neither does Perry's macho attitude.

georgeSeptember 4, 2013 9:35 AM

Oh they are indeed mutually exclusive. A sexy woman is the exact polar opposite of an empowered twat.

Daniel Jesse SpadeSeptember 4, 2013 10:35 AM

Aw crap. I really didn't mean to start any kind of sexism war with my post last month.

I love the character of Wonder Woman. I absolutely loved the treatment that Bruce Timm and Company gave her in the Justice League Animated Series around 10 years ago, and I really hope that a well done Wonder Woman film is created.

Daniel Jesse SpadeSeptember 4, 2013 10:35 AM

Dude, don't do that here.

bfg666September 4, 2013 11:14 AM

Umm, nope. You're trying to compare physical features and mental traits. If you want to compare things, you should try to make sure they are actually comparable.

DreadfulKataSeptember 4, 2013 1:06 PM

I can see your point, but I think the same applies to almost all superheros; even Batman and Superman have had their origines messed with on many occasions. But everyone still knows that Superman is the last survivor of the planet Krypton and Batman is the vengeful orphan of the murdered Waynes, and everyone basically knows that Wonder Woman is a member of a hidden tribe of Amazons from Paradise Island.

C.S. BaileySeptember 4, 2013 9:39 PM

Coming from a male who loves comics and the DC animated universe......

"a Wonder Woman movie only fails because it's a Wonder Woman movie."
Only if they think that the only thing that makes a Wonder Woman movie is a hot chick in a bikini wearing a tiara and silver bracelets. they did the same thing to the first Wolverine film; pull all of the easily recognizable material from the comics and made it a movie.

jfarley1September 6, 2013 11:30 AM

Odds are that Marvel gets to the big screen with a female superhero flick like "Captain Marvel" before we ever see a Wonder Woman movie.

JinxterSeptember 7, 2013 12:31 AM

The only hard part is the corporate idiots who are too afraid to pull the trigger and MAKE the movie based on the character as she is displayed in Justice League. Forgive me but the new 52 origin, quite frankly, sucks. Other than hooking her up with Superman (which I have been wanting since the 70's) is about one of 2 things they got right in the new 52 in regards to her character. Why does she NEED to be Zeus' daughter? I preferred that the was a blessed gift to her mother...a gift of the very gods that the women of Themyscira paid daily homage to. She was her OWN woman...she was a Daughter of a Queen, a Queen of Warriors/Scholars/Scientists who did NOT need men to be complete women.

Make a Wonder Woman movie as she is often described...A HERO at the power level of Superman, Fighting abilities of Batman, and a Beauty like no other who has NO ISSUES that she is wearing a One-Piece Swimsuit. She debuted in 1942 wearing a version of a One Piece Swimsuit with and at times without a skirt. As fashions got more risque as time went on, so too did her suit. YET, NOWHERE in her comics is the Character of Wonder Woman worried about what someone whose culture is NOT similar to hers...and really a mystical, tropical island filled with nothing but Warrior/Scholar women whose culture in appearance reflected the ideals of ancient Greece. Would a woman from THAT culture care one whit what other people think about her lack of clothing? I think not...

Wonder Woman can be difficult, but if you approached it from the point of view of the character and the culture shock someone like that would have to how America views the world would make for a VERY interesting movie. They often show this mix of culture as reflected in her conversations with the Blue Boyscout...they could use those conversations as a basis on how to showcase her in a movie.

Timothée Ambroise Pierre HayesSeptember 7, 2013 7:55 AM

It's not just the script (which, I am sorry, should be a BREEZE -- it was successfully pulled off with the TV pilot in 1975, and the cartoon... and you have much you can do: gods, war, terrorism, Steve Trevor crashes, Diana takes him back, stays... ohh, really hard; why not just give us Perez's reboot on film?) but also the actress. Palicki was no Wonder Woman. She didn't look like her and had a really bitchy, whiny posture. We need a woman who is drop-dead gorgeous who disarms you more with her smile and eyes with the posture of a statue, who at the same time is up in the power rang of Superman... she needs to transmit confidence and strength but also love and compassion. Not sure WHO can pull it off the way Lynda Carter did. That is a sad reality. Beyoncé? Please? Morena Baccarin? No way? Sandra Bullock? No.

joshSeptember 8, 2013 12:37 AM

scarlett johannson as black widow was literally laughable.

Of course, that is just my opinion, but it's just hard to wrap my head around the fact that anyone could take her seriously.

Jacky GalloSeptember 8, 2013 1:26 PM

I think "Alexandra Daddario" should play Wonder Woman.

obloodyhellSeptember 9, 2013 2:21 PM

DC needs to just get off their asses and find some people who understand both mediums -- comics and film. The obvious ones -- Whedon, Strasinsky, and yes, George R.R. Martin, should just be grabbed, given a target, and then let them define what to do -- then get and keep the @#$@#%@% studio IDIOTS out of it.

The real problem with Wonder Woman is ... the suit. Face it, she needs the suit or she's not Wonder Woman (look back on the wailing and gnashing of teeth when they just tried to put legs on it for the planned series a couple years back) -- but *with* the suit, she has an obvious sexual appeal that drives postmodernist feminists absolutely NUTS... so either way, you're going to piss off a lot of people with her.

So DC is EXACTLY right, she's... tricky. This is more true of her than any other female super hero in EITHER universe... Because she really is the first Female Superhero (LOL, you want to have some real fun, look into the kinky crap Marston had her involved in in the 40s. This was a kid's magazine? For elementary schoolers? Really?)

And don't forget Elektra flopped even though it had Jennifer Garner at the height of her popularity replaying a role she'd already gotten good reviews on. And Elektra is a lot easier character to develop, with fewer expectations and presumptions from the audience, than Wonder Woman.

So yeah, DC would be better trying to develop Supergirl than Wonder Woman, Black Canary rather than Wonder Woman. They are much easier to make an interesting story about them that doesn't piss off a good chunk of the audience.

obloodyhellSeptember 9, 2013 2:23 PM

Whoever it would be would be an unknown, just like Carter was before she got the role.

obloodyhellSeptember 9, 2013 2:28 PM

The problem is that the postmodern feminists will scream to high heaven that she's just being used as a sex object for male fetish fantasies.

Now, if you go back and read the 1940s comics, she WAS a sex object for male fetish fantasies, but they were of female DOMINANCE as much as submission. Women were able to submit to other women, and men were SUPPOSED to submit to women -- but women never submitted to men, and anytime they did, the message was depicted as "a disaster for the female".

But postmodern feminists can't grasp that, sex, for them, is all rape. That women do, and have for millennia, used their sexuality as a means to control men is lost on them. Sex is, to them, how men dominate women, and nothing else.

obloodyhellSeptember 9, 2013 2:35 PM

I concur, there is a clear distinction between DC and Marvel type heroes that makes them, in some ways, appeal to different audiences and so forth.

I think the best description I've encountered is the notion that DC superheroes ARE the heroes. They HAVE secret identities to identify themselves with the common man. The identities bring them down to earth. If you burn off the street clothes, the hero is still there.

Marvel characters are the secret identities -- they ARE those people, and the costumes they put on raise them into those more than human heroes. They HAVE to PUT ON their superhero identities.

I suppose this could make the latter more approachable for the film/TV media.

I'd argue that, in the right hands, though, even Superman can be approachable, as evinced by Smallville, and now Arrow.

obloodyhellSeptember 9, 2013 2:39 PM

Fighting for the American ideal -- even if America itself fails to uphold it themselves sometimes (and perhaps in SPITE of that) -- IS a good thing.

Part of the problem there is that that's not a popular meme in Hollywood right now. The notion that there is anything good about the USA does not sit well with their own ideas.

obloodyhellSeptember 9, 2013 2:41 PM

Actually, this is pretty good -- use the mythological and WWII elements to distance the character from now. That would work well, but doesn't explain how to transport her forward to be in the Justice League, though that seems doable somehow... you lose the Steve Trevor element when you do, though, unless you want to invoke some potentially strange grandson-of-steve relationship...

obloodyhellSeptember 10, 2013 6:56 AM

P.S., the best description-idea occurs below by another commenter. Set the first one in her actual roots, WWII, and, at the end, have Mars (the obvious enemy and one of her few actual Rogues gallery people would Get) toss her forward in time (along with Steve Trevor) in an fit of godly pique at her thwarting him ("You've screwed up my plans enough this time. I've got a new idea for a 'cold' war.... Begone! - POOF!").

Yeah, they'll claim you just did the Captain America thing (which is somewhat true, though you had to do it), but it solves A LOT of problems including that suit. You can make the choice to either have her decide to moderate it when seeing modern styles, or you can have her publicly tell off any feminist twit telling her what to do ("I am an Amazon, born and bred, why would any truly independent woman need the opprobrium of other women, much less other men?")... or both. It also provides for elements of comic relief as Trevor, a decorated war veteran, adjusts to re-integrating not simply into non-war conditions but also the changes in EVERYTHING that have occurred in 70 years. This is a guy for whom crystal radios are still high tech. This is a guy who grew up when cars and planes were NEW.

purpletreeSeptember 10, 2013 9:05 AM

i was waiting for the Joss Whedon reference... i bet they're kicking themselves NOW for letting him get away! too bad he had to make a box office smash (2) to be taken seriously. i bet everyone's paying attention now... just imagine if they'd let him do the WW film the way he had wanted. It would've been total badass

bfg666September 11, 2013 1:25 AM

Fighting is never a good thing IRL. It kills people.

Dart VadeSeptember 13, 2013 3:00 PM

pretty simple its because they story of her really sucks, the character isnt that complelling (she has basically no feelings), she has lame original powers, an invisible jet and a truth lasso (oh brother). If they give her different powers and origin story then she isnt that character but something else entirely. Add to teh fact that female driven superhero movies (catwoman, tomb raider, elektra...etc) are pure box office poison, it has no built in male viewership (who really aren't interested) which you need for a 100$ million dollar CGI spectacle and she cant be real sexy while fighting, sweating and bleeding. Its a recipe for disaster that someone will have to try and crack

MartineSeptember 14, 2013 12:38 AM

Man of Steel was "sputtering"? Thats a laugh. And if all they had was Batman films that would be a lot.

MartineSeptember 14, 2013 12:43 AM

Why do we need just another Buffy the Vampire Slayer knock off. We already have too many action girls running around out there...and lets face it, its kind of a silly role for a woman. I don't understand why its in any way liberating to have amazons running around for any woman. In a contest of strength woman do indeed lose. But only physical strength...which doesn't count for much. Why emphasize the silliness. Karate kicking isn't everything. As a woman it insults me more then anything.

MartineSeptember 14, 2013 12:50 AM

he only people who want to see a Wonder Woman flick are adolescent boys. Do not put it on any women's rights platform. To many of us women the whole fetishy amazon girl thing is disgusting. We didn't realize what was actually being said when we were younger and liked Buffy, but now we get it. The truth is one does not need to karate kick in order to express strength. There is no liberation to a woman in having super physically strong females on screen. Women are indeed physically weaker in real life, but we that doesn't make us any less. As long as a woman's strength is defined by hitting bad guys on the chins we lose. The only ones that win are little boys who like to see the actress kick her legs up in the air. Why do you think tv shows like Nikita have no female fans to speak of?

Black CesarSeptember 14, 2013 6:40 PM

That is the longest sentence I have ever read.

advocatus leonibusSeptember 16, 2013 11:08 PM

so "sexy" to you = helpless and unable to function without a man?

I think Sexy is the same for WW as it is for anyone who isn't a superficial idiot; Sexy is as sexy does, which is why even trollish looking men like Ron Jeremy can get laid too. (Something I never understood until I watched the Surreal Life - The man is actually very intelligent and classy despite his appearance and back hair. For the first time I understood why women would have sex with him, and it has nothing to do with the size of his penis, since you'd have to want to get him naked first before you'd even know that unless you saw his movies,. Presumably he was not a virgin when he was hired for those...

Sexy is confident, particularly if you are hot, and sometimes even when you're not. Sexy is smart and caring too. WW is that and all without playing to feminine wiles, She looks boss in skimpy clothes, and isn't falsely modest or embarrassed and she is strong . There is not a question of "Should she be Sexy.?" She just is, The outfit just accentuates her physique which is, like all comic characters male and female, exaggerated to attractive builds. She should just be Diana, the way Lynda Carter did it was marvelous and she was totally sexy without even trying.

The outfit on any attractive actress will take care of the sexy without paying any mind to that as far as developing that trait for that purpose, She should be attractive and feminine though, less butch than Lucy Lawless as Xena. Someone like Beyonce in attitude maybe, I could do it, if I was taller...

David JonesSeptember 18, 2013 7:43 PM

I've read every comment and one particular point that everyone has missed is this. Every movie that Marvel or DC puts out is either Rated PG or PG13. NEVER Rated R. That is my biggest issue with these wimpy movies. Yes you have action and violence, but an R rating would make these movies much more intreresting. As for Marvel and DC losing money from anyone under 17 because of an R rating, that is hogwash. I see worse on Primetime television. But Marvel and DC are WIMPS! I mean lets get real, how is Dark Knight going to be a DARK movie if it is rated PG lol Give me a break! The Hulk was a huge disappointment to me. He looks like a cartoon character on the big screen. And they destroyed the Superman franchise in my opinion. Superman Returns was awful. Half the movie focused on Lois Lane. That side story gets really old after awhile. As for Iron Man, I just cant stomach that gross Robert Downey Jr. A former dope fiend, and remember the gay guy he played in the movie Weird Science? lol They should have picked a different actor . Spiderman 1 and 2 were OK at best.

LordDarqueSeptember 19, 2013 1:52 AM

R rated movies cannot make a Billion. Simple as that. Every SuperHero movie is aimed at that. You are just talking about a whole different world. We have and will get a few of those but the majority will never be made R.

Of course once I read your opinion on RDJ most of your post made sense. Holding his past against him not to mention the stupid comment about playing a gay character (oh no!) does not exactly help to make anybody take you seriously.

LordDarqueSeptember 19, 2013 1:56 AM

The only people who want to see Wonder Woman are young boys? Are you freaking kidding me? She has been popular for 70 years and is one of the original SuperHeros along with Superman, Batman and Captain America.

She deserves a movie because of her history. The fact that she is female is in no sense the point. Thinking that it is is the reason they are afraid to make one. Make it with respect and not pandering and it will be a huge hit.

LordDarqueSeptember 19, 2013 1:56 AM

Yeah that 70 years of popularity was just a fluke not because she is an interesting character.

LordDarqueSeptember 19, 2013 1:58 AM

Yeah DC completely missed the boat on that one. They could have had Joss helping them to build their DCCU and they passed. I am not surprised at how much they have struggled based on their really bad judgement. Joss' take on the character was beautiful and would have worked like a charm.

LordDarqueSeptember 19, 2013 2:00 AM

That is a very safe bet. Sad but probably true.

LordDarqueSeptember 19, 2013 2:13 AM

Catwoman really has nothing to do with comics or their movies. She had no relation to any of that. It was an oddball movie. Electra is at least a little more connected but even then they took her out of her comic book universe and tried to go another odd way.

Set Wonder Woman properly in the DCCU and she will do just fine.

David JonesSeptember 19, 2013 11:00 AM

Robert Downey Jr is a dweeb with a beard. Here is whats screwed up....Lindsey Lohan, who I think is a sexy chic, gets all this heat for bad behavior BUT Robert Downey actually shot heroin into his body! Now he is Iron Man??? What a role model for kids!

Todd BrownSeptember 19, 2013 11:35 AM

The difference being Downey dealt with and overcame his addiction, which Lohan very much has not. And given that Tony Stark is himself an addict, Downey's casting is very appropriate.

Matt KingSeptember 21, 2013 8:40 AM

well she IS immortal, but she's also a mystical being. In the end of the film in order to stop Ares, she has to drag him down to Hades with her, and time and space have no meaning in the Underworld. When she promises Steve "she will return," she comes back at the end of the film, only she made the mistake and comes back in the 2010s and now she's even FURTHER distanced from the world, and while feminism has risen up since then, it's still far from where it COULD be. So she could be the wandering soul throughout the film, but often in DC she's also the one person to inspire Superman back into action and temper Batman. This is IN the comics! If you put her as the one to stand up and say "what is wrong with you!? You're just going to give up?"

Low and behold, Justice League rallies and we get the epic final battle.

AngelaSeptember 21, 2013 5:27 PM

You're trolling, right?

N.K.September 21, 2013 8:40 PM

I don't see why WB can't get it together and come up with something that
would work for Wonder Woman because they can borrow bits and pieces from each era and tweak a few things here and there to make it work.

The setting of the movie can begin during the middle of WWII, the war
somehow triggered some kind of "apocalyptic" chain of the events leading
to the present time. Well why WWII?

Here are some ideas they can use to work off of and flesh out:

1.) The backdrop of the story can begin where the gods
(particularly and specifically Ares) and their minions somehow have an
agreement to work with the Nazis during this period. These minions of evil took
their disguise as “humans” to aid the Nazis in their world conquest that had
nothing to do with what we all thought it was over in the history books….. Maybe
the God of War (Ares) was using the Nazis as a vehicle to fulfill some greater
evil even they (the Nazis) didn’t see coming?

2.) Tie this in somehow with the origin of how Queen
Hippolyta (Diana/WW’s mother) and the Amazons came to “Paradise Island” and the pact that allowed them to stay as immortals, which obviously should have some connection to Ares and her (the Queen’s)
history with him… then one day, that pact was threatened.

3.) Diana’s story begins as she is born with the blessings
of the Gods. Queen Hippolyta, sees Diana as a protector as well as an heir that was predestined to take on some larger role that Diana herself isn’t privy to until she gets older. Due to the laws of the Amazons, Diana must “prove” her worthiness so that she can lead the Amazons to what would be an inevitable conflict later on in the story.

4.) Building off of the points above, Steve Trevor, Diana’s so-called “love interest”, could be a WWII plane pilot whose plane got shot down
only to land on the mythical Paradise Island through some mythical portal of sorts.

He should be a main protagonist where his character is fleshed out more as a battle tested war veteran who is an Intelligence Officer (spy even?) who gets a taste of the mythological and supernatural. He accidentally saves Wonder Woman’s life while she and her Amazons are in the middle of a battle for control over Paradise Island (or something of that effect). Wonder Woman just so happens to be the person who discovers him from the debris, bringing him back to consciousness.

5.) From there, the story builds where Queen Hippolyta
realizes that the battle for Paradise Island and the battle on the outside
world is indeed interconnected, and that the minions of evil (which include
Ares as some kind of major shadow figure behind it all) is somehow trying to
initiate some grander scheme.

Diana, like most Amazons, do not trust men and have a rather cynical view of them but she is initially forced by her mother to leave the island with Trevor on a mission to seek more information about the outside world and stop this greater evil from happening. It’s even possible that Queen Hippolyta could have deliberately brought the human Steve Trevor to the island as a means to aid her, which in itself would be a gamble.

6.) Diana is given her mission, the power bracelets that allow her to transform into her WW costume, and perhaps the power to eject her “magic
lasso” through some “jedi” like transmission. In order to leave the island
unseen by the evil and unscathed during the battle raging on Paradise Island,
her mother took the remains of Trevor’s plane and created an “invisible” plane
that would be used initially as a vehicle to transport Trevor and Diana through
the “mystical” pathway back to the human world. Perhaps this invisible plane can be used in other aspects throughout the story in order to allow Diana and Trevor to travel back and forth to the mythical world and this would be its main purpose
throughout the story.

7.) While Diana is globetrotting in the human realm, she is
forced to “fit in” a world that is so very different from hers, as well as
struggling with the process of being a woman during an age that women had very specific roles during the 1940’s. The gender roles between man and woman plays out in great frustration and humor alongside Trevor – who I would imagine would be a charming and open-minded enough man to understand that Diana was “no ordinary woman” and would struggle to adapt herself into what would obviously be a Patriarchal world. Throughout the film, Diana begins to develop a tender for Trevor as her trust and respect for him grows.

8.) Obviously the film would have to end with WW being
victorious but in order for her to be ready for a modern day setting, I believe
she returns to Paradise Island where the final battle is set. The battle for
Paradise Island could continue to be an ongoing struggle even after the “Great
Threat” is temporarily averted.

Being that she would still count as immortal,she wouldn’t age. Once her mission was complete, Diana returned to ParadiseIsland, even though that meant she would leave the love of her life behind forever (Steve Trevor). Then when Justice League comes around, Trevor himself (being a very old man), or his descendants would have some kind of magical memento that somehow proves that the myth of the Great Amazon, Wonder Woman during the age of WWII, was not only a myth, it was a true story and Batman somehow finds a way to communicate with her in order to get her join another mission meant to save earth.

Anyway, that’s just my rough summarization in terms of how they can go about
a WW movie. I say they keep the elements of her being a strong, beautiful woman who obviously very capable of legendary levels of badassery…but one who does has some hang-ups of trusting men due to the Amazon legacy which I think should be obvious in the beginning of the film due to their history with Ares.

Her budding “love/hate” relationship with Steve Trevor reflects this. I don’t think that’s something they have to shy away from. The illustration of how she is able to trust Trevor over time should play out throughout her quest even as we know she doesn’t really need him for protection per say but as someone who she has no choice but to trust to guide her into an unfamiliar human realm. That should be a theme throughout the story: Trust, being aware of human nature, and allowing people (especially men) to prove themselves and their worthiness to you.

N.K.September 21, 2013 8:53 PM

I agree...I think they have to set it in a WWII setting and either she returns home and doesn't age or she gets put in some kind of time warp.

JonnanSeptember 22, 2013 9:50 AM

I'm a bit more mixed regarding even their animation properties - they have had some great ones, but they have also had some I didn't care for - of which frankly the Wonder Woman animation described is one.

My honest opinion is that it has to do with the fact that DC dived into growing their characters as personalities with good and bad aspects fairly late relative to Marvel - Iron Man's descent from being a 'Playboy' to an Alcoholic was the iconic example, a descent in which a major character fell to Earth . . . and kept falling . . .

A major risk, creatively, and financially . . . but it made a character that someone as talented as Robert Downey Jr. would be interested in playing 20 years later. And it is emblematic of a number of the characters in Marvel.

It's also a level of attention that came relatively later to DC, and often with near trepidation - Many of DC's Major Characters are still in many ways growing, and minor characters have almost never been developed to have the same depth of personality. Batman is one of the rare exceptions of having been developed as a character with flaws and strengths for years before 'Crisis'.

A rant like this is of course defined as much by what it leaves out as what it covers - Certainly a generation has grown up with a Pulitzer prize winning reporter who toppled Intergang in a way Superman never could, Wally West, Booster Gold, Lex Luthor as an titan of finance . . .

But in terms of depth of character - DC's team just doesn't have as many interesting 'Back-benchers', and even many of the major stars have become fully fleshed out only during my lifetime.

All that aside - I want them to steal Marvels strategy and build towards a major team movie - Because a live action Crime Syndicate feature film would absolutely rock - <g>.</g>

CWolfSeptember 24, 2013 12:42 PM

There's also the elephant in the room: Wonder Woman is going to take a punch. Or a hundred. And some of them are going to be from males.
The threat of the story about Princess Diana of the Amazons engaging the forces of evil in hand-to-hand combat getting warped into a national dialogue of power structures and gender relations would make many producers slink away.

Well, the best leading female action hero will be -for the foreseeable future- Nickelodeon's Korra the Avatar.

CrimsonrainSeptember 25, 2013 2:43 PM

I think the only way they are going to get a Wonder Woman movie made it to call it "Batwoman"...and when then have it be Wonder Woman and not Batwoman in the movie.

Georgina QuiñonesSeptember 25, 2013 10:23 PM

love this article! Thank you for writing it!

puddintainSeptember 28, 2013 12:34 AM

Easy fix. Give Marvel the rights to Wonder Woman. It'll get made in less than two years and it'll get made well. It'll make piles and piles of cash because the only people that don't want to make a full blown Wonderwoman franchise happen are the folks at DC.

MirvaOctober 3, 2013 2:58 PM

In contrast there are more female leads in horror than male. Females are just better victims than men in those kind of movies. Males are usually the predators.

Todd BrownOctober 3, 2013 9:15 PM

Judging by your name I'm guessing English isn't your first language and I completely get your point about how women are portrayed in horror but, still the line 'females are just better victims' makes my skin crawl in all sorts of the wrong ways ...

Serena DebesaOctober 4, 2013 12:51 AM

They really need to make a Wonder Woman movie. Ive been saying this for years. Get with the program DC!! Marvel had no problem portraying the female super heroes in XMen!

MirvaOctober 4, 2013 10:12 AM

Sorry about... making your skin crawl. Now that I re-read my sentence, I realized how it must have come out.
Women are simply physically weaker, smaller, they apparently have more expressions for fear and a high-pitched scream, which already gives a good basis for a lead actress in a horror film. Normally women would have lesser chances of surviving (than men) if we think about reality, but in the movies, they usually survive against all odds. There are of course horror movies with male leads as well, but as it is, I find them to be very different... More action driven and gory.
It's just how the roles between genders are typically displayed in media and in many stories, where the males portray as heros and females as the damsels in distress (I hope that sounded a little better than victim). It's all pretty much reflecting the views of gender-roles by the majority and it might be that changes to these roles are therefore creating certain resistance (which is why change usually happens slowly). I could be wrong...
And true, english is not my first language, which is why I'm trying to communicate as clearly as I can. I hope this post made more sense.

Seth WilsonOctober 5, 2013 2:59 PM

Man of Steel sequel should be call Superman: Shadow of the Bat.

TheKillingWordsOctober 8, 2013 7:48 PM

I'm a pretty optimistic guy but even I've pretty much given up hope that DC will get any substantial traction with WW or anything other than Kal or Bruce. They're too afraid to take a chance at anything but a guarantee, (yet even the latter Superman and Schumacher films proved they're not above failure).
The only glimmer of faith I have is that SOMEONE from WB will see that fanmade trailer and FINALLY grow a pair big enough to pitch something that works.

Christopher SmithOctober 11, 2013 6:59 PM

truth be told. im not the biggest d/c fan. but I am a huge whedon fan. and hearing wb canned his script for wonder women is hilarious. makes them wish they could look in to the future and cry about all the money they missed out on.

W.l. SwartsOctober 12, 2013 12:27 PM

Mr. Brown,

The reason DC Entertainment is not making a "Wonder Woman" movie is simple: they are not looking to make a "Wonder Woman" movie. What I mean by that is simple: DC Entertainment is not accepting, reading, soliciting, or allowing its top people to even LOOK at scripts for "Wonder Woman." There are no agents who can get a "Wonder Woman" script read, DC Entertainment is, quite simply NOT accepting any script material based upon its already established characters.

The kicker of this is that DC Entertainment is following a tactic entirely antithetical to its own claimed philosophy and belief. If DC Entertainment wants to make a "Wonder Woman" movie that holds up and is truly different from every other superhero movie Marvel has been producing . . . they need only to bring new talent on. In other words, to make a successful "Wonder Woman" movie that does the character justice, DC Entertainment cannot use Joss Whedon, David S. Goyer, or the others who have essentially been rewriting the same superhero movie over and over again.

But . . . DC Entertainment is NOT doing that. Instead, they have shut the doors to any new talent that could emerge - even with a script in hand - citing their legal department. They are not looking for writers, they are not accepting submissions from agents . . . the only reason for that is that they do not WANT to make a "Wonder Woman" film.

Harry FaulknerOctober 12, 2013 6:20 PM

I always thought if they wanted to make a WW movie, she would have to be kind of pissed-off; an anti-hero(ine). Like the studio exec said in the article, WW needs a overriding story; she should have her own agenda, putting her at odds with the likes of Superman, Green Lantern, whoever.

James in NC`October 15, 2013 1:24 PM

Wonder Woman is probably one of the simplest of the superheroes to get "right". Make her young, mid-20s. The whole country girl in the big city plot line. You can lay in the whole struggle to find herself, the underlying storyline of why she has left the island. It lets you step away from the bathing suit image. A sort of Dark Angel meets Witchblade thing.

Brian DavisOctober 15, 2013 1:26 PM

NO! exactly opposite of everything you just said. Wonder Woman is older, not younger. Wonder Woman is in her mid thirties, she is well endowed in the chest, tall, athletic. You have to have her character in the same age range as Batman and Superman. A young Wonder Woman will fail instantly.

James in NC`October 15, 2013 1:31 PM

Maybe. But the primary problem with doing that is you have a immediate comparison to the Wonder Woman TV series we all loved. By taking a completely different tack, you can get away from that comparison.

Brian DavisOctober 15, 2013 1:38 PM

Actually nobody cares about the Wonder Woman TV series in this day and age. If you are going to reinvent a character that will appeal to all ages.. you don't push a teen chick down our throats mainly because they fail at acting, they are still forming their bodies, and they don't fit the persona of an Amazon Queen. In order to make Wonder Woman fit in the DC current universe, she has to be older than mid 20s. She also will more than likely have some romantic infatuation with certain DC characters so her being older and more mature will be easier to swallow than watching a chick flick like Twilight. You want to pull the audience in, not push them away. That is why characters like Pepper Potts in Iron Man are adored. A strong mature woman is going to be key to making Wonder Woman watchable.

patrick_nakasoneOctober 16, 2013 2:45 PM

The other hard part is finding an actress that can sell her self as being Wonder Women. I do not mean just physically but the force of personality that the character needs.

Eric PriceOctober 17, 2013 1:02 PM

Although marvel has more of a fascination aspet than D.C. ....... D.C.has super heroes that would give marvel a run for their money.the flash for instance if done right would be a box office hit . As well as wonderwoman

tonyclifton1969October 17, 2013 3:52 PM

Wonder Woman cannot work because feminists cannot accept that female characters can have flaws or get physically hurt.
The only acceptable female character since the 2nd wave of feminism has been the Mary Sue, which is why they all suck. All these stupid restrictions imposed by lobbies and ~ists on media is the reason that most main characters end being white young male by default, as that's the only 'safe' social group that doesn't care if they are portrayed as evil, sexy objects, cannon fodder, losers, or idiots. Therefore, they are the most versatile character.

6RID8U6October 19, 2013 2:42 AM

This not only CAN be done right, it HAS been done right...

DavidOctober 19, 2013 11:41 PM

Someone on here said it best, but lets be very specific. The real sign
of why there is a "femi-fascist" faction in Hollywood who refuses to let
a Wonder Woman film done right is embodied in the Mary Sue that was
Chloe Sullivan from "Smallville". There is no doubt in my mind that she
was a creation of either a female writer, or was a homage to someone a
writer new, but she is exactly what Hollywood wants, which is a
self-deceiving unrealistic projection of what too many feminists think
of their gender. That may offend some women, but many more will agree
with it.

machsimillian14 .October 20, 2013 7:43 PM

elektra flopped because it was just an awful awful movie. there's actually a lot of room to revamp that one and get it right. they had to rely on drama and cgi and camera angles to make up for the lack of martial arts talent which hurt the movie a lot, because it ended up being a lot of fluff instead of an action movie. if they were to redo the movie more along the lines of jason bourne type choreography as well as drama, it'd be a badass movie.

bfg666October 20, 2013 8:08 PM

Dunno. After all, Marvel haven't made a superheroine film yet. They're even playing cold feet about a Black Widow movie despite the popularity of ScarJo's character! There's been some rumors about bringing the female version of Captain Marvel to the screen but as of now, they're nothing more than rumors.

bfg666October 20, 2013 8:59 PM

"the best description I've encountered is the notion that DC superheroes ARE the heroes. (...) If you burn off the street clothes, the hero is still there. Marvel characters are the secret identities (...) They HAVE to PUT ON their superhero identities."
That's nonsense! Being a hero is a state of mind and unless you're particularly crazy, it doesn't change depending on the outfit you're wearing. You think Peter Parker stops being a good samaritan when in his civilian clothes? And what do you make of Tony Stark's affirmative "I am Iron Man" at the end of IM3? Most heroes, whether they're Marvel or DC, take their duty as a calling, not just a mere job. The main difference between DC and Marvel heroes is that the former's abilities are often innate whereas the latter's are often acquired, which is a very different notion: it's not the power in itself that makes you a hero (no more than the costume) but what you decide to make of it.

bfg666October 20, 2013 11:18 PM

Since when Iron Man is supposed to be a role model anyway? Stark is a former alcoholic who dabbled in more troubled waters than any politician.

bfg666October 21, 2013 12:47 AM

Marvel has Quicksilver and he's gonna feature in not one but two movies... Flash? There's a rumor of a TV show spreading around but nothing concrete yet. You might argue that Flash is more popular than Quickie but this is debatable since, with the notable exception of Bats and Supes, DC heroes as a whole are not exactly more popular than Marvel's in the general public's eye.

bfg666October 21, 2013 12:58 AM

Funny you should mention a cross between Dark Angel and Witchblade as a step away from the bathing suit image since one has been played by one of the hottest chicks in Hollywood, who has more than once been hired for her looks alone (and sometimes for parts she mostly played in skimpy bikinis), and the other is quite reknown for being one of the most unnecessarily sexy comics ever written...

bfg666October 21, 2013 1:14 AM

Exactly. I must add that even as a kid (I'm 40 now), I never cared much about Lynda Carter's TV show. It was way too campy not to be met with laughter (Jeez, that spinning thing was utterly ridiculous!) and I never got that pro-american ultra-patriotism the creators were trying to shove our faces into. It might be understandable, if not enjoyable, from a character like Captain America, but Wonder Woman?! She's a greek demigoddess, for fuck's sake!

bfg666October 21, 2013 1:30 AM

Uhh, I don't know how it is on Tattooine but on Earth, males are ALWAYS interested in watching sexy girls in skin-tight outfits flexing their muscles...

bfg666October 21, 2013 1:38 AM

She'd want to mix water into the wine because antique wines were much stronger than the refined beverage we call wine nowadays. Modern wines would probably taste like nothing more than grape juice to her.

the great and powerful turtleOctober 23, 2013 5:18 PM

not a great trailer there's a much better one out there,its on youtube

6RID8U6October 23, 2013 5:40 PM

Seen 'em all, the one I linked is the winner. :)

GretchenOctober 27, 2013 11:47 PM

I wouldn't think it would be that difficult.
Just think of Xena and Captain American having a child and whammo...your new Wonder Woman. lol

Drew PierceOctober 28, 2013 7:19 PM

There's nothing confusing about how to do Wonder Woman. Like this article says, use the script for the animated Wonder Woman, and better yet sign Nathan Fillion to play Steve Trevor. This would be the perfect mix of superhero action, Thor/fantasy elements, and HILARIOUS comedy with Fillion being Fillion. The fact that the answer is right in front of their faces yet DC/WB doesn't see it is the exact reason why DC Movies are a joke.

LaurenOctober 30, 2013 2:38 AM

I wonder why some people have a hard time writing likable strong female leads. It's been done many times before. Tons of ensemble shows feature strong female leads like Teen Titans and Nickelodean's Avatar franchise. Shall I bring up the Brony epidemic? Nashville. Bridesmaids. Jack Ass. Tangled. Compelling female leads everywhere. Also, women have been watching male-oriented films for a long time. Why are most guys so resistant to the opposite? And even if only women go out to see the film, as evidenced by Twilight, things that appeal to girls make a killing in the box office. In any case, I really don't think Wonder Woman is as tricky as they say. The script writers just need to get out of the man-gender-biased female stereotype maze. Women are so much more than nagging whiny weak sex objects in distress. That's like reducing men to violent drunk unhygienic egotistic perverts. Is it that hard to make Wonder Woman a complex compelling character for both genders to enjoy? To be honest, I think the main problem comes from her bathing suit costume - which depicts her as a sex object. If they put her in something more normal and covered up, we can focus less on the fact that she's a woman and more on her convictions and actions as an individual.

BrianNovember 1, 2013 12:26 AM

I suggest they contact Wonder Woman Lynda Carter and get her help. She made WW living breathing real, she is their only hope.

LeoNovember 2, 2013 1:13 AM

Great article! Totally agree.
Like you said, any comic can be made into a feature. I didn't expect Thor to be as awesome as it turned out to be, so why can't they do sthg in a similar tone?
Tricky? Which main comic character isn't iconic and tricky, and have to get it right? Honestly, they're scared. Hey, no risk no return, so take a risk and just do it!! Not all Marvel adaptations turned out great but what is left of DC if they stay stagnant with Batman (which I'm a megafan) and Superman, which I hate to say MOS was not up to all the hype and expectations.
Enormous potential for WW!!

Devid VokrachkoNovember 5, 2013 7:20 PM

Let's be honest, the only reason anyone watched Wonder Woman when it was on TV was Lynda Carter.

khsgiorhga;oNovember 5, 2013 7:37 PM

not interested in wonder woman, yeah she's a different character than what we've seen before but it just doesn't work in a world with the batman. just reboot green lantern and then have a movie featuring clark, bruce, and hal. done.

polysciguyNovember 6, 2013 11:22 AM

The 'trickiness' regarding Wonder Woman is that so many people try to define (usually in a very narrow way) what it means to be a woman and then bitch if the presentation does not meet their definition. Feminists of certain feminist stages refuse to define females as warriors but only as victims despite massive scientific evidence to the contrary that women are frequently abusers as well. So, the DC character is a strong woman who is a warrior (a male characteristic by many feminists) and that immediately creates a problem as much of the intended female target audience will be prejudiced by feminists who will pick apart the character, costume and story long before the movie is released - likely affecting sales as such drivel will be carried and promoted by the NY TImes, Daily Beast, Huffington Post and others.

dcNovember 6, 2013 2:28 PM

Hey producers: Make Wonder Woman happen and you HAVE to cast MEGAN FOX and She HAS to NAIL the CHARACTER DOWN!
(and obviously the timing of the release has to be perfect) DC!!!

Gregory Marshall SmithNovember 9, 2013 3:12 PM

The same thing could be said of Marvel's female characters. So far, Marvel has relegated its female characters to supporting parts -- Jean Grey, Storm, Black Widow, Rogue, Mystique. In fact, at least DC has a successful female comic book. What long-running female comic has Marvel produced?

IdgaradLyracantNovember 14, 2013 11:54 AM

No matter what they do there will be a militant feminist that will be furious no matter what. Shit there were militants protesting Pepper in Ironman as "yet another example of misogynistic damsel in distress fantasy objectifying women as nothing more then rape fantasy material." (That creature was screaming at people at the AMC in Rosedale the night I went.)

dsul lopezNovember 16, 2013 6:30 PM


Kevin EklovNovember 21, 2013 4:58 PM

Ewa Sonnet would make a perfect wonder woman

barlootNovember 25, 2013 10:38 PM

The actress that play's she has bulk up. And that's what I mean. Not lithe or 'toned', bulked up. Total body transformation. Like Linda Hamilton in T2. 6 months of 4 hours a day power lifting followed by stuffing her face with boiled chicken breasts and protein shakes. Uma, Trisha Hefler, Briane of Tarth . they could do it.

TheOct8pusNovember 27, 2013 12:44 PM

I believe the tricky part of Wonder Woman is that they could overly sexualize her and risk alienating the female/feminist audience, or make her too masculine (or androgynous) and alienate the male audience. It's okay for Superman and Spider Man to fly around in tights, but once a female character is flying around in a bikini, things get "tricky"

ZagreusNovember 28, 2013 12:20 PM

Disagree with Matt's points about the animated movie. There were some good points- the chemistry with Steve Trevor was pretty good, but a few things would have to be tightened up before that script would be big-screen worthy. Some bits of dialogue were cringe-inducing. But it had potential, granted. It needed a 2nd draft. But, absolutely, a WW movie is doable. DC is being... nervous.

BortNovember 28, 2013 3:39 PM

While the 'she's a woman' problem definitely is the core of the reason Wonder Woman's not getting her movie, I also understand that it's more than that with Warner Brothers and DC. Man of Steel made money, but even the most ardent defenders will acknowledge it was flawed. The Nolan Bat trilogy set a new bar for superhero storytelling, but by Dark Knight Rises it became unsustainable. Green Lantern was obnoxious and insulting. And Watchmen.... DC has not had a pure win, a 100% satisfying portrayal of their characters in live action in years. So while the boys club is the elephant in the room, you have to put yourself in their shoes. If Warner Brothers can't figure out Batman and Superman, the oldest and most famous characters of them all, and it's obvious they haven't, how can we expect them to figure out a new franchise like Wonder Woman?

Christopher KellyNovember 29, 2013 1:36 PM

DC spends so much time on Batman they don't know how to write for any of their other characters or make good movies with them.

AndyDecember 3, 2013 6:47 PM

Here's the REAL "elephant in the room": Most male AND female movie-goers simply aren't interested in a female superhero as the main character. Minor character, no problem: main, no.

REAL women are more interested in seeing a man rescue a woman than seeing the reverse. REAL men enjoy watching male heroes on screen because they fantasize about *being* that hero.

In other words, the traditional, thousands-of-years-old gender roles persist in our subconscious and our very hearts, no matter how (post)modern liberalism tries to do away with them. (And no, I'm NOT suggesting female characters should only ever be "victims" or "damsels in distress." There are plenty of strong female characters who aren't at the same time "action heroes." And yeah, I totally enjoyed T2.)

AndyDecember 3, 2013 6:50 PM

Great post. DC Animated has produced some great scripts for their cartoon-movies. I can't imagine why in the world any of those scripts couldn't be adapted to the big screen and live-action. (And this could've happened with DCA's adaptation of the death-of-Superman story, which was an excellent adaptation.)

AndyDecember 3, 2013 6:53 PM

Oh, well, of COURSE she has to be "well endowed in the chest," cuz, after all, that's such a "unique" feature for a female comicbook character. (Eye-roll)

AndyDecember 3, 2013 6:54 PM

Naw, that makes it sound as if /Superman/ himself is "the shadow of the Bat"--i.e., Batman's sidekick.

AndyDecember 3, 2013 7:00 PM

Not really interested in the WW character in the first place--but you don't think Morena Baccarin could pull off both tough and compassionate? I think you're dead wrong there.

AndyDecember 3, 2013 7:02 PM

You can rationalize it anyway you want--but the reality is that not only WW, but all comicbook superheroines are written and drawn in part for sheer sex appeal, because sex sells. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any neo-Greek cultural exploration. (Eye-roll)

disignyDecember 19, 2013 5:29 PM

The problem is that our culture's ideas of "Women" are Tricky, not to say confused. We have become so brainwashed into macho battles, that she must either join in , or be ignored. Blame it on "Religion". In Asia, women are not "Equals", they are "Opposites", as in Electricity,.

advocatus leonibusAugust 2, 2014 12:11 PM

i could do it, but I am only 5'2....