What does Frank Miller have to say about it?
What does Tom King have to say about the interpretation of WoT?
What does Tom King have to say about the interpretation of WoT?
It's in the link.
Fuck audience preference - what good director is using that as a steer?
Thanks, I'll have to check that later.
I'll assume the question is tongue-in-cheek rather than preposterously naive. And it probably ought to be formulated to at least include the screenwriter - but would still be ridiculous.
Wait - you really think proper directors like say William Friedkin or even some some like James Cameron are going "I wonder what the audience preference is?"
Naive? No just not a corp bootlicker.
It's an even bizarre position given this film died in less than two days and will forgotten by next week - how's that audience preference working out?
In the real world as well. I said what I said. I can think of very few things more disgusting and despicable than child rape.
Last edited:
No one's seriously proposing that a script that was a more faithful adaptation of Woman of Tomorrow could have improved the box office performance, are they?!
Yeah, that's getting it backward. Most of the audience doesn't know how to construct a good story, any more than sports spectators know what plays to call or restaurant patrons know how to cook gourmet meals. They may know what results they like, but they don't know how to create those results. That takes years of training to develop an understanding of the techniques of the craft. It's that training and experience that professionals draw on, that knowledge of how to create effectively. Audience reaction follows from that, rather than leading it.
An accurate version would need to be a very expensive limited series.
Breathtaking. Love the part where she seemingly implies that only comic books can have flashbacks.
People and Narratives don't have a problem with "No Kill" Heroes anymore. You don't see anyone calling Iron Man or Thor or Captain America Murderers.
To play devil's advocate here, since he doesn't appear to be moving in the final panel, isn't the assumption that he may have died at least a plausible reading if not an inescapable one?
There're flashbacks to Argo City in the film, so that's obviously not what she's implying.
Yes, exactly. The comic was very episodic, a series of standalone incidents connected by the overall quest goal and the character growth along the way. It would be a good fit for a streaming series, but not for a feature film. Especially a film that has to fit into a shared universe different from the (current version of the) DC Comics continuity, and therefore has to be adjusted to fit that universe. It's a given that it had to be changed; it's just a question of how those changes were made.
Good point. I found that page ambiguous and confusing. It could've been made clearer.
Your link refutes your contention.
To take that line of thought further, the sun has risen, the two women and Krypto are long gone, and he still hasn't gotten up. My copy of Woman of Tomorrow is expected today. I'm going to read the whole thing before coming to a decision on whether I think it works, what it means, etc.
No one moves in any comics panel. It’s the nature of the medium. He is in a different position in each panel following the “fatal” blow, however.
The article I linked uptopic lays it all out in detail (detail that shouldn’t need to be spelled out for any attentive reader).
I fully expect King to be diplomatic and professional (and practical, since he is working for Gunn) and not say anything negative, at least for a few years. And he is probably delighted and flattered simply at having his work adapted for the big screen, and seeing his original character Ruthye brought to life with reasonable fidelity. I can’t imagine he’s genuinely happy with various other aspects of the film, however.
We’ll never know now.
It would certainly have been a smarter, richer, and more artful experience, however.
Also, dinosaurs and a space dragon would probably have been helpful trailer fodder.
And at a minimum, I suspect that a film that was as visually ornate and dazzling as the book might have been more attractive to audiences, as opposed to the unsightly muddy mess we got.