Wonder Woman Movie: "Real" or Not

[ascended]

Quite the pessimist huh?

I suppose we'll know in a few more months how it works. But honestly, I see no reason why the "Nolan approach" (I really hate that phrase) wouldnt work for a character that is "beyond normal."

Again, plenty of aspects of the Bat films were well outside the purview of reality. Microwave WMD's and all that. Its not the characters that are treated as if they subscribe to real world laws and expectations, its the world around them that does.

That's why it works.

It's worked for the powerless characters (Bruce and Ollie) and I look forward to seeing how it works for Clark. If it works for him, it will work for anyone.

And if it does work for Clark, you can kiss all hopes of seeing a fun, Marvel-ish style DC movie goodbye. DC tried to steal Iron Man's thunder with Green Lantern and it slapped them in the face with a 200 million dollar "pow!" I like to think they learned their lesson. No, if Man of Steel does well, they will focus on strong dramas with lots of crazy action and character-focused storylines. Sort of the opposite of Marvel's method, which is much more light hearted and fun and embraces the ridiculous aspects of the genre.

[Free-Man]

Well, it embraces SOME of the ridiculous aspects of the genre. They find what works on film and shunt what doesn't. That's why you didn't see Hawkeye running around in a Wolverine mask and purple buccaneer boots or Captain America screaming "Avengers ASSEMBLE!!!!!" at the top of his lungs.

[Zagreus]

Thank you!

Seriously people. Critical thinking. Employ it. Tell me, what about microwave emitting WMD's and secret ninja clans and rocket jumping tanks is "real"? To say nothing of cold fusion bombs and single-bladed helicopter things, or whatever the hell the Bat was supposed to be in DKR.

Nolan's approach with Batman, and now with Superman, is to take these characters, these archetypes, and surround them with a world that feels natural and is grounded in something we can relate with. That way, when these incredible people do incredible things, we feel it even more keenly. It feels that much more impressive because the cinematic world built around the characters is largely just like our own.

Superman is still going to be an alien from another planet. Still fly, still be super strong, all the rest of it. Just like Batman was still very much Batman in the films, Superman is not going to be changed. The world and characters around him are going to be treated with a level amount of realism, to counter-point the fantasy of the title character. Its not that hard a concept to understand. And looking at the Dark Knight films, Arrow, and the trailer/s for Man of Steel, it works pretty well so far.

As for Diana, because she's a character rooted in fantasy and not science fiction, she's harder to sell. But using the "Nolan method" would likely yield the same results so long as the script writer and director attend the project with the same amount of passion, intelligence, and skill. So long as the story being told maintains an internal logic and the characters and settings are grounded to a degree that we can say "Hey, that Island, despite the obviously fictional aspects, still feels like a real island and these characters, despite the obviously fictional aspects, still feel like real people" it would work just fine.

Though as for power levels, I have always been a fan of Diana's more Golden Age set. When she's just a rung under Clark I dont find her quite as interesting.

Well said. I agree.

[Zagreus]

Well, it embraces SOME of the ridiculous aspects of the genre. They find what works on film and shunt what doesn't. That's why you didn't see Hawkeye running around in a Wolverine mask and purple buccaneer boots or Captain America screaming "Avengers ASSEMBLE!!!!!" at the top of his lungs.

Iron Man was also grounded in real world sensibilites for the most part. Look at the first Iron Man. The terrorist organization certainly felt real. Corporate back dealings and such felt real. Was their comic book science- yes, of course. You can't have Iron Man without that conceit, but barring that exception, everything else around that felt real, even Tony's playboy shenanigan's didn't feel much different than what we've heard rich celebrities are up to behind the scenes, to me at least. And the character arc was great.

Green Lantern, in comparison, was ridiculous. The "science fiction" elements felt really comic booky, and looked it as well. It was silly for silly's sake. Character arc's werent' earned. The female lead- her name escapes me- was eye candy- clearly being readied for the next movie to take it all off for Star Sappfire's ridiculous out fit imo, so they picked the hot girl of the month. The entire production was ludicrous with some interesting special effects here and there.

[flottanna]

Oh well I hope your right about that.

[tunneler]

My guess is Wonder Woman will be introduced as Superman's girlfriend in Man of Steel since she is Superman's girlfriend in the new 52. After that there might be a Wonder Woman spinoff movie from Man of Steel.

[The Man From Room X]

Warners should get Chris Nolan to do all their superhero movies for them, if the MoS trailer is any indication of what the movie will be like.

[Terrifan2]

My guess is Wonder Woman will be introduced as Superman's girlfriend in Man of Steel since she is Superman's girlfriend in the new 52. After that there might be a Wonder Woman spinoff movie from Man of Steel.

My opinion is I don't think Wonder Woman will be introduced as Superman girlfriend in Man of Steel, but as a friend and collegue I see it happening for her appearance from there could be a spinoff. The reason is as of now in the New 52 the relationship only appears in the Justice League comics but not in Wonder Woman and Superman titled comics so far but who knows about the future of these comics.

Warners should get Chris Nolan to do all their superhero movies for them, if the MoS trailer is any indication of what the movie will be like.

I agree with this it would be interesting to see his take on an iconic superhero like Wonder Woman being female. He has done a good job with Batman and now looks like Superman so why not finish out the original Trinity.

[ascended]

I agree with this it would be interesting to see his take on an iconic superhero like Wonder Woman being female. He has done a good job with Batman and now looks like Superman so why not finish out the original Trinity.

The only reason not to take on Diana is if he doesnt have a good story to tell with her.

I dont know the details of how Goyer and Nolan got involved with Batman, but I know that during Dark Knight's production, Goyer came up with an idea for Superman. He took it to Nolan, they ironed it out, and then took it to WB who gave it the green light.

If these guys have a story to tell with Diana I would love to see it. But if its a case of WB just driving a dump truck full of money to their houses and asking them to do the project.....I dont know.

[AlfredIslas]

I'd really hate for all the DC superheroes to become all transformed by Nolan. There is nothing wrong with the comic book versions of superheroes. A different approach is always nice because at the end of the day, you still have years of comics to go back to, but to take the same approach to every major DC superhero is just overkill. Sorry, Nolan's way isn't the "right way" to do anything. It's different, it was fun, but things can be done just as well without Nolan's approach.

[ascended]

I'd really hate for all the DC superheroes to become all transformed by Nolan. There is nothing wrong with the comic book versions of superheroes. A different approach is always nice because at the end of the day, you still have years of comics to go back to, but to take the same approach to every major DC superhero is just overkill. Sorry, Nolan's way isn't the "right way" to do anything. It's different, it was fun, but things can be done just as well without Nolan's approach.

I sort of have to disagree here.

No, there is nothing wrong with the comic book version of the heroes. I dont think anyone here thinks that. If they did, why are they posting on a comic book site? But we're talking about different mediums, and comics dont translate very well without some tweaks and adjustments. Even the cartoons make changes.

I mean, imagine a Batman movie where Batman is running around in blue and gray spandex, Adam West style. Do you really want to watch that? Really? Because if so, you're the only one. Or a Wolverine film where Hugh Jackman is wearing yellow spandex? He stops being intimidating and suddenly looks silly as hell.

It just doesnt work visually. It looks fine on paper. But live action? Totally different animal. Chris Reeve made Superman work, but that was well over thirty years ago and sensibilities and technologies change. What Reeve wore back then looks like a cheap Halloween costume today. I love those films, but I can buy a better looking Superman costume for twenty bucks. So a big budget movie certainly has to do better.

As for tone and whatnot, its true that Nolan's way isnt the only way. But so far, it is the only way WB/DC have found that makes the translation work. They tried to ignore the source material with films like Catwoman and Constantine. Terrible failures. They tried to ape Marvel's light hearted and fun approach with Green Lantern, and that failed too. They tried almost exact translations with Watchmen (discarded scenes notwithstanding) and V for Vendetta, and those were only moderate successes at best.

So far, the only cinematic approach that has worked is Nolan's. And it not only worked, but created what are arguably the best genre films to date. Granted, Avengers made more money. But as for quality? I think a lot of people would say the Dark Knight trilogy is better cinema. And the Nolan approach is working for Arrow, which is a decent show despite the network. And in a few months we'll know if it worked for Man of Steel.

Nolan's way isnt the only way. But so far its proven to work, when every other attempt has failed.

By the way, saying that "to take the same approach to every major DC superhero is just overkill" should apply to Marvel as well. Every film they have done since Iron Man has followed the same exact formula. And it works for them, clearly. So do they get a free pass while DC doesnt?

[T.M. Anthony]

Well, it embraces SOME of the ridiculous aspects of the genre. They find what works on film and shunt what doesn't. That's why you didn't see Hawkeye running around in a Wolverine mask and purple buccaneer boots or Captain America screaming "Avengers ASSEMBLE!!!!!" at the top of his lungs.

That was the only thing I was disappointed with in that movie.

Its not that goofy, I really wanna hear it at least once in the sequel.

As for WW? I think you kind of have to have certain aspects be lager than life. You can't take away the fantasy elements of WW, its not possible unless you want to remove the amazons and greek gods entirely. (whats the point after you've gotten rid of that?)

I think having an optimistic tone would be cool, thats hardly seen at all nowadays.

sigh... but hollywood will screw it up some how. they don't know how to handle female characters (heres a hint, make a character with all kinds of motivations, strengths and weaknesses. now make it a girl) I really fear for our fair amazonian. hopefully they don't make her anything like that other character named wonder woman that got a failed tv pilot a while back. (because whoever she was she wasn't our wonder woman no sir, no chance)

[Red Mask]

Believing in Wonder Woman means to believing in fantasy. But in the case of Superman, I do think they should stop selling Krypton as this perfect world. It died, Clark was the sole survivor, that's it. There's nothing to be learned from Krypton other that it reached the end of its history. Anything else should be left to space-themed books like Green Lantern or those wackos at Scientology. At least with Themyscira it uses aspects of Greek Mythology and human history.