Why do you think it's so hard to put a Wonder Woman film together?

[Zagreus]

You're right, adult men would not feel opressed, they would just not read the book/dislike a possibly movie, like our pals above seems to have done for a while back then. And I know a lot more.

That's perfectly good for the character. She don't need any male fan anyway.

Read again the issues of a covered misandry. Amazons didn't need to show their hate for men, they would still be superior (they would even be more superior for not being something so bad as hateful people).

About Lynda's lines, I like some of them, which are feminists, and dislike others, which places women above men. What reassures me is that Lynda herself has some great quotes about feminism and wrong ideas of feminism.

Um... okay. "She don't need any male fan anyway". Actually, the best stories attract males and females alike, and tend to have males and females in key roles. Hollywood has learned that, even when making modern romantic comedies, which typically attract a female audience, to put in humor that is geared towards both sexes. In this way, they a) attract a large audience and b) men and women can enjoy the movie together. Though WW is a female superhero, the audience for superheroes is largely male, so it would make sense to not alienate males from the book. Azz realizes this. Perez, and I'd argue Simone, did not. You can have a strong, sensible, character who is Diana of Themyscira and yet, still craft an intriguing tale, and also have the book attract both sexes. Azz is demonstrating this.

[Don-Jack]

I know. I was being sarcastic. Sorry.

[Wonder39]

Um... okay. "She don't need any male fan anyway". Actually, the best stories attract males and females alike, and tend to have males and females in key roles. Hollywood has learned that, even when making modern romantic comedies, which typically attract a female audience, to put in humor that is geared towards both sexes. In this way, they a) attract a large audience and b) men and women can enjoy the movie together. Though WW is a female superhero, the audience for superheroes is largely male, so it would make sense to not alienate males from the book. Azz realizes this. Perez, and I'd argue Simone, did not. You can have a strong, sensible, character who is Diana of Themyscira and yet, still craft an intriguing tale, and also have the book attract both sexes. Azz is demonstrating this.

I guess who is doing the job correctly is a matter of opinion. The Perez run was very popular at the time, so I'm guessing it didn't alienate too many guys ;) Also, I think that if the Perez run was of-fputting to some, then the Azz run is just as off putting to others.... He's actually negated just about every positive female influence from Diana's history and replaced them with male influences....

I don't see the need for Azz's core changes in the origins of the character-- I honestly don't think they were needed. He could have told this story of Zeus and Zola's baby without all the fadiddling of DIana's origin.... and he could have told it in like 6 issues instead of 24

Apart from that, I think that you're right about appealing to both sexes (although the audeience is largely male)-- and I think the old tv show did well with just showing that fact that there is theis island of Amazons, and here is their champion.... You don't have to dive deep into the origins or "feminist" msg to make the story work.

M

[lebari]

Why did you feel the need to troll this thread, does this place look like 4-chan?

I'm hardly trolling. I'm on here all the time and leave comments when I feel compelled to. Personally, I find most of the men on here (and yes I am a man too) threatened by the fact that a female character might not need men in her book to make her what she is. Why is that such a threat? To me that's a double standard. When do we feel the need to comment on male superheroes or characters in general that have no female characters to balance them out? Not very often. Yet when we get a female character, who's background suggest men are not important to her existence, the men cry foul and call misandry. Rubbish, I say! And, again, as to the original question for this thread, refer to my aformentioned statement :)

[Don-Jack]

Justifying something wrong with the flaw of the other side. So typical.
Classic Amazons thoughts affected you all and you don't even noticed.

[Gaelforce]

Take a step back, folks, and keep to the topic and not the other posters.

Thank you :)

[MelDyer]

Ive been reading comics since the 90's
Reading WW off and on for the past 5-6 years.
But you are drinking way to much Kool Aid to think WWs rogues gallery is "up there" with the best. Not even close to mid card level.
It's one thing to believe/think they have potential to be something great, but they aint. And that's one of the problems with Superman as well. There's been 5 movies made and they've only used 2 villains from the comics.

Look up any random top 100 list or whatever and let me know how many of WW rogues are included.

I'd wager you don't even KNOW half the villains I mentioned on that list, and you should before you dismiss them, wholesale! Give us some specific, comparitive reason the original Silver Swan, the Adjudicator, Bushmaster, Aegeus and Doctor Cyber are inherently inferior to the Bat-rogues, and you may have an argument, ..but, you haven't done that. Furthermore, I don't think it's your fault that you don't know who they are.

That fault lies with the editors of Wonder Woman, and their lack of a consistently progressive and long-range editorial vision.

Of course, you don't find Wonder Woman's supervillains on any top-ten list, IABF, ..and that's entirely my point! They're not on those lists, because the editors and writers of Wonder Woman haven't made a business of using them. Basically, Circe, Cheetah and Doctor Psycho have been the most recurring supervillains in the last twenty-plus years of the WW comic, and whenever any discussion of Wondy's foes is made, these are the villains, who are mentioned, ..and that is misleading.

What's a little unwelcome about your comment is that you seem so assured Wonder Woman's rogues are no good, you don't even bother to offer any comparitive examples to persuade us. Again, I don't think you know anything about half the characters I named, but feel perfectly justified trashing them all, in one swoop. That's the kind of dismissive attitude the Wonder Woman comic and its fans run into all the time, and the sorry editorial state this comic is in probably invites it...I get that much, but, it doesn't make you right.

Wonder Woman's rogues are as good as anybody's and BETTER than most.

Back to topic...

A Wonder Woman movie, pitting her against S.C.Y.T.H.E., headed by Doctor Cyber, with (Ares's emissary) the original Silver Swan and Bushmaster as hired muscle, would be enormously successful, ..with the right story and writer, of course. However, the fact these villains aren't as easily associated with Wonder Woman, as Lex Luthor and the Joker are with their foes, is working against her.

Much of the success of these big, superhero fantasy movies weighs on the quality of the villain.

[ed2962]

I believe the lack of a Wonder Woman live action flick has more to do with Hollywood politics than anything else. Joss Whedon had a script approved and was set to be the director until the plug was pulled at the last minute cuz the studio wanted to "go in a different direction". Producer Joel Silver was holding the movie rights for a long time, but admitted that he lost interest in doing the film yet didn't surrender the right so no one else could make a film. I don't think he's involved anymore so now a WW movie is viable again.

It's like a lot of things in Hollywood...stuff gets optioned, but doesn't always get made. A Black Panther film was optioned like 12 years ago and Wesley Shipes and David Goyer were attached but it didn't made. There was supposed to be a Luke Cage movie and John Singleton was going to do it, but he sent the script back for re-writes and...nothing. There was also a rumored Iron Fist movie about 10 years ago starring Ray Park but it didn't happened.

I don't think it's cuz these concepts are so hard to do or the producers don't know how to translate them to the general public, I think it's more like they start but then they simply stop working on them.

[Neal R]

Trimming for one idea to comment on:

fthe fact that she isn't proven is keeping her from truly proving herself. It won't be until somebody is willing to take a risk on her that the cycle can be broken. maybe an irresistible performance from a well scripted and acted portrayal of Diana in Justice league can give cause for that. "Hey that Wonder Woman character was cool, a really sympathetic but tough attitude, and she really held her own power wise. wouldn't mind seeing more of her!"

Someone else mentioned the Joss Whedon era of "Almost Got It Made" and that's when Joel Silver had the rights. He produced The Matrix series and one of things noted was audience's reaction to Trinity and hence Silver snapping up an option on Wonder Woman at the time with pretty much the above reaction.

I still believe someone someday will crack this problem with the right team and right execution but I think one major thing has to happen first. A female led action film actually has to be a bona fide even with hollywood accounting smash hit. I don't know if we've had one yet. I can point to many examples where I thought the films were a great success but didn't do box office numbers that made Hollywood stand up and take notice.

Box office take is not a measure of success but it's the metric used to determine which projects get funded next. In recent years, for example I thought "Salt" was one of the few times that Hollywood got a female led action movie right. It's sequel is in development hell at the moment and from an accounting perspective it made some money but not enough. "Whiteout" changed the genders of one of the supporting characters from it's graphic novel inspiration because apparently you can't have two females leading a suspense thriller. Say what you will about that film but I thought it worked spectacularly regardless. But again, no money.

Those that really did make money were made in another era (and yes, the 70s and the 80s are another era now--I'm old). Before someone cites Ellen Ripley from the Alien saga I'll just point out that Alien is a horror film through and through and Aliens, while having action elements in it, is ultimately about about a mother protecting her child from a monster. It's an easier sell to have a female led horror film than nearly anything else.

Diana is a worthy character. She'll get her chance to shine on the big screen someday. I think i will be as surprised as anyone when it happens.