Any word on who is going to play Etta Candy?
Gal Gadot cast as Wonder Woman In ‘Batman Vs. Superman’
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
It was the 20th Century, not the stone age. In the 1970s and 80s photographs weren't instantly accessible, yet, we're pretty sure what happened.
In the olden days, maybe DC realized that it was not representative to have a comic about a perfect woman, a woman who is perfect in mind, body and soul, when the audience isn't, so they used a (metaphorical) mirror to create a physically contrasting character who is Wonder Woman's Jimmy Olsen.
In short, she's a very big girl.
Of course Etta had inner beauty which is more important, but here's the hilarious bit I love: SHE MARRIED STEVE TREVOR!
(That's like Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen Hooking up.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etta_Candy
Later versions of the Character had less heft.
Tracey Thoms played Eta in the 2011 pilot, and the character is prevalent in the 70s TV show.
In short, she's a very big girl.
Of course Etta had inner beauty which is more important, but here's the hilarious bit I love: SHE MARRIED STEVE TREVOR!
(That's like Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen Hooking up.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etta_Candy
Later versions of the Character had less heft.
Tracey Thoms played Eta in the 2011 pilot, and the character is prevalent in the 70s TV show.
I know but people have a tendency to dismiss the improbable, particularly things occurring in an earlier era. 'Oh those photos are so obviously faked.' And it may not have been the stone age but people didn't have tiny hand-held video cameras and other recording devices on them the way they do now. And cameras were much more unwieldy, less precise etc than they are now. It would be hard to capture her in her full glory the way any of us could do on our smartphone. There would be much less filmic or documentary evidence of a super powered being from the 1920s than there would be of a modern day one.
To give another example, do you recall the 'fairies in the back garden' story from about a century ago? Teenage girls cut out pictures of fairies from their books and posed them in their garden, taking pictures on their box cameras. It fooled many, including the likes of Arthur Conan Doyle and was only really conclusively dismissed in the 1980s when one of them admitted how they did it. They got away with it because of the limits of photography back then but it would never fool anyone nowadays. So I think many people viewing 1920-quality photos of Diana in action would say that it was faked.
Many people have a tendency to dismiss what they don't want to accept is or can be real. There would be those who would be convinced that WW was real and appeared in the 1920s but they might be dismissed as cranks or conspiracy theorists. I don't think it's implausible to suggest that by the time of MOS, any events involving WW in an earlier era will have fallen into distant memory and been dismissed as the hysteria of a gullible and naive generation. This could even be acknowledged in dialogue in the film (Doctor Who has been known to explain away similar 'why doesn't the population remember?' discussions).
Indeed, one only has to look at the plethora of conspiracy theories surrounding the assassinations of both Kennedies not to mention 9/11, all of which occurred on camera to know how easily people will dismiss photographic evidence when they want to.
But anyway, the point remains that there was nothing said onscreen in MOS which rules out the possibility of Diana having been in America or the west in the 1920s or 1940s.
You're assuming a free press.
I got three words for you... William Randolph Hearst.
I got three words for you... William Randolph Hearst.
Don't forget that, apparently in this continuity even Batman remains an urban myth. So I've no difficulty with the idea that WW's appearances in the 1920s and 40s are little known or disbelieved. Plus we don't yet know in which context she'll be appearing. For the sake of argument, if she visits a small rural town a la Thor, it'd be easier to cover up or dismiss than if she saves the world in front of the world's press or the like.
I know it's impossible, but I was wondering how Charles Foster Kane would play out rather than William Randall Hearst?
Bruce Wayne controls/owns the media in Gotham?
That does seem like a far assessment.
Wayne doesn't even have to censor the press if he only hires lazy drunk idiots.
Um...
Vicky Vale is a lazy drunk idiot?
Another thing I was wondering recently in Wayne had his fingers in was the Gotham Tourism Board?
Mostly in he 60s TV show.
But every event or parade or gall that took place in Gotham seemed to coincide with the psychosis of the maniac that had just escaped from Jail/Arkham.
Bruce Wayne was baiting their mentalness.
Seriously they should run.
Hard and fast.
But there there's a diamond shaped like pigeon, or a diamond cat or a diamond Gemini on display that these crazies can't help but take a run at.
Batman is a dick.
Technically, Robin is a dick. But only the first one.Guy Gardener said:
Your first paragraph is contradicted by the 2nd. One one hand you say people would sake it's fake, and then, next you say they would think it's real.
Or are you saying people in the present would dismiss fact because it's from an old camera? And eye witness accounts etc.
Similiar to people dismissing the moon landings as fake?
On another note:
If her first appearance is in Batman v. Superman, wouldn't her solo films being in the past be prequels?
And we know how prequels turn out.
That said, they COULD have quite an opportunity, IF they are smart and really plan. For example, the Diana we see FIRST is one that's more experienced, wiser, etc, than the one in her first solo film, if indeed it's set in the 1920s. It's almost 100 years ago, while she might not age, she should change emotionally, intellectually.
So, in other words, as long as they are writing towards the Diana we first see, then they might have something.
But, then, prequels... meh. Rarely are they worth anything. What are the stakes? We know she'll get out, she'll be fine... which is pretty true anyway. But, I never felt like Obi Wan was ever in any danger...
^The posts are getting too long to quote in full and editing is too awkward on an iPad. But yeah, bingo when you asked 'are you saying people in the present would dismiss fact because it's from an old camera? And eye witness accounts etc.' That's really what I was getting at.
'Oh yeah, she turned up in the 1920s and then 1940s, looking exactly the same? But hasn't appeared since? Come on, those fakers didn't even bother trying to age her in the photos supposedly taken 20 years later.'
People had cameras back then but how many people walking about and carrying out their daily routine were carrying a camera on them, never mind a camera that recorded moving images? And of them, how many of those cameras were of good enough quality to capture WW in movement etc, to show how extraordinary she was?
Plus people of those eras would've been more deferential to authority and so if the government told them that these stories about a super powered woman were false, they'd have been more inclined to believe it than the generations post-Watergate.
The moon landing is another example I thought of later but was too lazy to go back and edit into my post!
'Oh yeah, she turned up in the 1920s and then 1940s, looking exactly the same? But hasn't appeared since? Come on, those fakers didn't even bother trying to age her in the photos supposedly taken 20 years later.'
People had cameras back then but how many people walking about and carrying out their daily routine were carrying a camera on them, never mind a camera that recorded moving images? And of them, how many of those cameras were of good enough quality to capture WW in movement etc, to show how extraordinary she was?
Plus people of those eras would've been more deferential to authority and so if the government told them that these stories about a super powered woman were false, they'd have been more inclined to believe it than the generations post-Watergate.
The moon landing is another example I thought of later but was too lazy to go back and edit into my post!
they had newsreels that captured events. And eye witnesses.
The question before the writers: how big and public will the third act be? If they want a high stakes thing, a lot of people are going to die. Do they know they are about to die? Or will it be hidden.
If it's a hidden climatic battle... then, that doesn't seem very tentpole movie thing.
If it's a big battle in New York City, that would be an event you couldn't dismiss.
If it's a battle on a tropical island somewhere? Sure, easier to dismiss, but, then, the stakes might be much much lower.
The past wasn't some rosy naive era.
Yeah, but, people who believed that the moon landings were faked are considered the crack pots, not the other way around. Which is what you are suggesting.
The only way to make it work: That two of Wonder Woman's movies ends in a climatic battle that not many people witness or participate in.
Unless she's revealed to be the first super hero. Which would be a gutsy move on WB's part.
^Well, I guess we'll see how they choose to handle it. If the story about a retro setting is even true to begin with!
That's true.
Initially I thought it was good idea. But, the more I think about it, fraught with story telling land mines.
it would certainly be different. I would just like them to think it through.
I take your point but I think the same pitfalls were present in Captain America and X-Men First Class - and to a much larger degree as we still don't know an awful lot about the MOS wider universe and history. We knew much more about the cinematic X-history and MCU and there was thus greater scope for continuity clashes etc.
But yes, here's to them thinking it through. If the rumour is true, a few Easter eggs in BvS: DOJ would work nicely as retro-con nods.
But yes, here's to them thinking it through. If the rumour is true, a few Easter eggs in BvS: DOJ would work nicely as retro-con nods.
& the third one is a duck.
Why would the stakes have to be lower?
You make it sound like movies like Jurassic Park make $2 million total because nobody wants to see a handful of people trying to survive on a tiny, unknown island.
If you're invested in the characters, there's a lot you can do that will please an audience.
