She'd be great, but she wouldn't be interested. Bigelow only does gritty contemporary war dramas now, and she's prepping a couple.
Gal Gadot cast as Wonder Woman In ‘Batman Vs. Superman’
- Thread starter Enterprise is Great
- Start date
If they haven't even been able to settle on a time period or a story that is pretty troubling.
It feels like Warner Bros, are trying so hard to catch Marvel but they keep tripping over their shoelaces. I have no bias and I'm happy to see movies based on Marvel or DC properties, But DC/Warner Bros whole approach has felt forced and desperate from day one.
It feels like Warner Bros, are trying so hard to catch Marvel but they keep tripping over their shoelaces. I have no bias and I'm happy to see movies based on Marvel or DC properties, But DC/Warner Bros whole approach has felt forced and desperate from day one.
I hope they can get a good director. I could see Katheryn Bigelow or Lexi Alexander making a good WW movie. Plus, they can push it back a year. I don't think the 2017 date is set in stone.
And the whole pet tiger thing reminds me of
Could have been pretty cool.
And the whole pet tiger thing reminds me of
Could have been pretty cool.
It is definitely concerning that they lost their director, but if they know what they want and she wasn't willing to give it to them, then I can't blame them for splitting with her. Honestly, the whole tiger pet thing does sound a little strange. That's not really something I associate with WW.
Right Giant Kangaroos not Tigers are WW's pet of choice.
I recall Wonder Woman hanging out with some talking gorillas in Gail Simone's run.
Some discussion about the behind-the-scenes disputes:
In general, though, I really don't get where this idea of Diana as a "period" character comes from. She's no more tied to World War II than most other heroes who debuted back then, and nobody ever talks about making a period Superman. Diana isn't Steve Rogers.
Um, whut?
In general, though, I really don't get where this idea of Diana as a "period" character comes from. She's no more tied to World War II than most other heroes who debuted back then, and nobody ever talks about making a period Superman. Diana isn't Steve Rogers.
^ I think it's more of wanting to keep their options open for WW.
The original WW (as Marston wrote her) came to blows with the Nazi's in 1940. Steve Trevor informed the Amazons of the Nazi Regime and they judged that the Nazi's were another tyrannical male force; like Herucles and his men who had previous subjugated the Amazons. So WW was sent to help combat them and stop their takeover of the world.
It's the same kind of story that was used in 1941 when Captain America first debuted. Super Soldier sent to fight the Nazi Regime.
With WW being having an ancient Greek mythology angle. You could go full Greek epic (Troy, Jason and the Argonauts, Perseus, Theseus, Hercules, Odyssey) in one of her movies. She has (in the comics) fought Harpies, Minotaur, Hercules, Achilles, Gorgons, Medusa, Circe, Ares and Hades. I'd love to see a movie like that.
Or they could set WW in the modern day. Which has it's own avenue of stories.
The original WW (as Marston wrote her) came to blows with the Nazi's in 1940. Steve Trevor informed the Amazons of the Nazi Regime and they judged that the Nazi's were another tyrannical male force; like Herucles and his men who had previous subjugated the Amazons. So WW was sent to help combat them and stop their takeover of the world.
It's the same kind of story that was used in 1941 when Captain America first debuted. Super Soldier sent to fight the Nazi Regime.
With WW being having an ancient Greek mythology angle. You could go full Greek epic (Troy, Jason and the Argonauts, Perseus, Theseus, Hercules, Odyssey) in one of her movies. She has (in the comics) fought Harpies, Minotaur, Hercules, Achilles, Gorgons, Medusa, Circe, Ares and Hades. I'd love to see a movie like that.
Or they could set WW in the modern day. Which has it's own avenue of stories.
Not trying to be that guy but I have seen people mention period Superman movies. Sometimes Fantastic Four as well.
Crimean War or WWI Wonder Woman? Not so much.
Yeah, I know, but that story has been updated numerous times, since the basic premise is that Diana leaves to stop Ares/Mars (who was spurring on the Nazis, in the original). I've just never understood why so many people remain fixated on her debuting in World War II, when it's not a significant part of her character's background on an ongoing basis, and she didn't really fight Nazis at a significantly greater proportion than any other superhero in that period. I guess the first season of the Lynda Carter show probably plays into it.
Because people love WWII. How many stories and movies exist from that era? It's a war Hollywood can exploit and no one would get offended by it. It's not WWI, which most people are unfamiliar with, or Vietnam, which most people agree was a poor war of choice. It's easy to vilify the Nazi's and spin heroes out of those who oppose them.
I've seen it argued that there are aspects of the character that don't really work outside of a WWII setting. Like, why would a princess from a foreign culture adopt a costume styled after the American flag and present herself as a champion of the United States? That's a product of the WWII era when the US was allied with most of the rest of the world, and when patriotic fervor in the American media was at a fever pitch. Of course, rampant pro-Americanism has been part of media culture at other times since, but it's most palatable during WWII when we were fighting an enemy that everyone else could agree on. And it makes more sense that a foreign emissary would align with our patriotic symbology in such a context.
Part of it, also, is that there haven't been many subsequent eras in Wonder Woman comics where the character really worked. Post-Marston writers didn't really know what to do with her, abandoning her feminist message and reducing her to constant relationship soap opera and imaginary stories. Nothing really interesting was done with her again until 1968, when Denny O'Neill took away her powers and costume and turned her into a mod superspy heroine, bringing back her feminism as well. But this was abruptly abandoned after a couple of years, and the character floundered again until the George Perez reboot in the '80s, which injected the mythological elements as a central part of the story for the first time, and redefined Diana more as an emissary and diplomat. But she's been through many reinventions and reinterpretations since then, and while some have worked very well, others have been a total mess. And there hasn't really been a consistent idea of just who and what Wonder Woman is and how she should work. She suffers from being an archetype meant to represent all women, since nobody can agree on just what that means. At least during WWII, she stood for something more concrete and easily defined.
I'm not saying I agree that she can only work in a WWII setting, mind you -- I'm just passing along my understanding of the reasons for the belief that she worked best in that era. (Personally, I'm quite fond of the "mod" Diana Prince era. Showing that she could function on a par with Batman and other superheroes without needing any superpowers, with just her wits and training, was a very effective feminist statement. Although it was a very weird era in other ways.)
Because it's part of the larger discussion of Wonder Woman that's been going on for a long time. This is not a new question.
Yea, but, it started in response to the disagreement that was posted between Snyder and McLaren
