Rachel Weisz. That's who I'd like to see playing Diana.
She's got the acting chops, she's a hard body (as anyone who saw her in "The Mummy Returns" will attest) and she's got a knack for carrying herself well in crazy movie situations that would serve her well in the role.
Is she especially tall? Not at 5' 7". But anyone who thinks that's a major problem simply doesn't have a clue as to "movie magic." Camera angles, apple boxes, trenches, stunt doubles...guys, if the six-foot-plus Hugh Jackman could play that runt, Wolverine, and Peter Jackson could knock about two feet of height off John Rhys-Davies, I don't think it's that much of a trick to add four inches of height to an actress.
Plus I think she'd look good visually with Lynda Carter as her mom.
So that's my vote.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 12, 2005 04:35 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI adore Rachel Weisz. I could see her as Wonder Woman. She'd be damned good in the role, and I even think that she should use her native accent rather than her American-ized accent because why would Diana have an American-ized accent?
However.
I would also love to see Weisz on Doctor Who. She's an unrepetant fan--she was reportedly miffed that she wasn't allowed to audition for the role of Rose Tyler--and I would hate to see something that would raise her profile such that she could be priced out of Russell T. Davies' budget assuming he could find the right role for her.
(However, there are rumors that Kate Winslet will be in the final two episodes of the current season, and I'd have thought she was out of the Beeb's budget, too.)
If we could see Rachel Weisz as Professor Bernice Summerfield, I'd go crazy doing the happy dance. I can so see Weisz as Benny. I can so see Weisz shagging the Doctor's brain out. Happy dance! Happy dance!
Wait. I'm straying off topic, here.
Weisz as Princess Diana and Wonder Woman? It would work. It would work. :)
I'd be for this. Loved her in the Mummy movies, and shows she can handle action/fight scenes and pull them off pretty well. Plus I think she has a lot of emotional range to her...which may or may not be needed in a WW film, but knowing Joss' work, I'm guessing she'll get a chance to emote.
But why bother using "movie magic," when they can just get someone taller for the role? Besides, they wouldn't even bother to use special effects if they cast someone of Weisz's stature. If you'll recall, Hugh Jackman's Wolverine was no shorter than Hugh Jackman himself. We'd probably just end up with an average-sized Wonder Woman.
I'd rather they cast an unknown. I can't think of any actress who is suited for the role.
"I'd rather they cast an unknown. I can't think of any actress who is suited for the role."
The advantage of casting an unknown is that audience members can say, "Look, it's Wonder Woman" rather than "Look, it's Sandra Bullock in a Wonder Woman costume." So it's certainly an elegant solution to the willing suspension of disbelief problem.
That said, although there are certainly fans of Weisz's work in abundance (including me), she's not a household name. Ask the average person in the street who "Julia Roberts" is, you'll get a fast answer. Ask who Rachel Weisz is, they'll probably say they think maybe there was a girl by that name in their high school. She treads the gray area between "unknown" and "movie star," which is why I prefer her to the far more high-profile fan fave Zeta-Jones.
PAD
"But why bother using "movie magic," when they can just get someone taller for the role?"
Because it's done all the time. ALL the time. They get the best person for the role and work around that to adjust physicality. Why didn't they just get a bulky lookalike for Ali? Because they got Will Smith instead, that's why, once they were done with bulking him up and some appliances, poof, it's Ali, fabulous he.
PAD
Rachel Weisz?
Um. No.
Didn't do a damn thing for me in "Constantine" or either of the "Mummy" movies.
Essentially your "non-descript actress type": She's ok. Definitely not the Diana type.
Rachel Weistz would be OK. She doesn't thrill me, but she'd definately get the job done. My big issue is even when i've seen her be tough on screen she still carries an undertone of waifishness (if that is a real world). I would not complain if she was cast (as I did for Keanu in Constantine, and Heather Graham in From Hell). I just think they should cast someone a bit tougher than her.
Though I agree. I think Catherine Zeta Jones is too big of a name for the role. We wouldn't be seeing Princess Diana, we'd just see Princess Catherine.
My vote remains steady with Jill Hennassey or Evangeline Lilly (Kate on the tv series Lost). Both tough inside and out, very attractive, and neither a big enough star to distract us from the role.
They should get Julia "Butterfly" Hill. She's young, in shape, glams up nicely and is already sort of like Wonder Woman just with a tree fetish.
Jill Hennessy.
She's been my choice to play Diana for years.
Not that the idea doesn't have merit - I just don't know if she'd do it - I do have to say this.
Having seen her on the street in NYC, Rachel Weisz is nowhere NEAR 5'7". Not even close. She's 5'7" the way Allen Iverson is 6'1". I'm guessing PAD got the number from the IMDb, those notorious liars about height.
My guess would be around 5'3', 5'4" tops. And I thought the Sixers' program was inaccurate...
JLK
Monica Belucci. She's already got that Mediterranean look for her.
You know, I don't see why exactly it's so important that WW be tall. I know that's the image of her we have now from the Byrne/Perez/etc portrayals but I don't know that the Golden Age WW was supposed to be a towering figure. Yeah, calling someone an Amazon nowadays is code ofr "You're very tall." but so what? Wear the costume, bounce a few bullets off your bracelets, and I'm sold.
Only the hardcore fanboys cared that Wolverine wasn't short in the movies, which deprived us of...what exactly? A few throwaway lines. Jackman also has less backhair than the "real" Wolverine but unless they cast Ron Jeremy and/or Bigfoot we were going to have to live with it.
I know it's not going to happen but I'll say it again. Monica Belluci. On the other hand, remember that I am the guy who would cast her in pretty much EVERY movie, up to and including the title role in THE RONDO HATTON STORY.
Am I the only one who's confused here? And a bit creeped-out as well?
At the risk of sounding like a sexist jerkwad, I don;t think Jill Hennesey is right for Diana. Even in the older version, Wonder Woman was seriously built, and Jill's just too skinny.
I haven't seen Tiffany Amber Thiessen lately, but if she looks anything like she did when I did last see her, she's definitely got the - er - talents to pull it off...
I'd go for Jolene Blalock only if she put some weight back on - I didn't know Vulcans got anorexia!
I may be more familiar with the '60s Andru/Esposito Wonder Woman than the current ersion, but when exactly did Amazons become Immortals who never age?
I do like Peter's idea of Lynda Carter as the Queen, but I mentioned it over at Jump The Shark and Kat suggested Angelica Huston or Olympia Dukakis for the role, both of which seem like good ideas, though neither is likely to be the mother of a princess in her twenties.
But didn't Perez's post-Crisis Hippolyta sculpt her daughter from clay? What does age have to do with i
The fact that Joss Whedon is directing is what led me to my choice for WW: Gina Torres. Not likely to happen, I admit, but she'd be great.
"The advantage of casting an unknown is that audience members can say, "Look, it's Wonder Woman" rather than "Look, it's Sandra Bullock in a Wonder Woman costume."
Along similar, lines, that's why the relatively unknown Michael Rennie was cast as Klaatu in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" instead of an established movie star (a specific star was mentioned in the audio commentary, but I forget whom). Director Robert Wise wanted people to see Klaatu, not a big name star.
Rick
I'd have to agree that Rachel Weisz would be a excellent choice and a very pleasant surprise.
If it isn't her, I'd prefer an unknown actress provided that her acting ability is at least as good as her other... umm... attributes. The character of Wonder Woman deserves someone who can do more than fill out a costume. :-)
Julia Sawalha,
excellent middle eastern born british actress,
can also play a clark kent-ish diana prince.
usually seen as Saffron, daughter on Ab-Fab
soon to be Bond girl in Casino Royal opposite....
Clive Owen.
While I still maintain Catherine Zeta-Jones is perfect for the role (watch her swordfighting in THE MARK OF ZORRO to be impressed with her physical traits and jaw-dropping beauty), Rachel Weisz would work great. Just keep Sandra Bullock away from the lead.
Oddly enough, PAD, somebody on the IMDb boards 3 days ago suggested Weisz for the role of WW. :)
Don't have much opinion on who should play Wonder Woman, but after watching a mess of Firefly and seeing a still of another role where she gothed up, I think Jewel Staite has the right perkiness to play Neil Gaiman's Death.
Unfortunately, she probably doesn't have the star power for top billing, but it's a nice thought...
You know, I hadn't thought about her until I saw an interview last night on television, but what about Leelee Sobieski? She's 5'10" and 22 years old (I looked it up), so she's the right age, and height appropriate. She's a great actress, and has a certain sense of "grace" about her as well.
The more I think about it, the more I think she'd be perfect.
Having only seen Rachel Weisz in "Enemy at the Gate", I have to say the idea has some merit - in her role in that movie she projected both toughness and thoughtfulness and showed she looks great in a uniform (should they decide to give Diana an armed forces alter ego in the Wonder Woman film).
As for Lynda Carter as Hippolyta - while I can see the nostalgia appeal, is she a good enough actress for the part should it amount to more than e.g. the part of either of Bruce Wayne's parents in Tim Burton's "Batman"? I ask this without trying to be nasty, because unfortunately I did not watch the TV series and can't really recall ever seeing a movie in which she performed.
I don't totally agree with Rachel Weisz. I can't really think of another way to say this without sounding like a jerk, but she's too average looking. Wonder Woman needs to have that "wow" factor. Maybe the very few movies I did see with her (Constantine) that’s the way she was supposed to look.
I think the "wow" factor of WW has a lot to do with the costume. Go back and check out Lynda Carter when she's not wearing the suit...she's pretty frumped up, and once you get past the fact that she towers over everyone around her, she's pretty plain. Put on the red and blues, and take off the coke-bottle glasses, and you've got WW. Weisz pretty much pulls the same in the Mummy movies. She's frumpy in The Mummy, but go back and check the flahsback scenes when she's pharo's daughter.
As for movie magic...I've already mentioned my Mel Gibson lift shoes in the other thread...I'm 5'10" on a good day. He's a few inches shorter than me...hard to say, 'cause his hair is a little poofy. But the thing that really struck me was how narrow his shoulders were.
On the X2 DVD, they mention how tall Famke Janssen is and how short James Marsden is...they had to build a catwalk for Marsden in most shots so she didn't tower over him. Or offset them in the scene so they weren't standing next to each other. Plus there's all those scenes in the Lord of the Rings movies where it looks like some human is talking face-face with a hobbit...if you look closely, you can see that they used forced perspective to manage the illusion. It's a more subtle version of the trick they used to use on the Hercules TV show whenever he fought a giant.
Actually, I like the idea of Rachel.
And anyone who thinks that Lynda Carter wasn't a bombshell in civies needs to have the sexuality checked.
PAD, out of curiosity, would you set it in today's world or in WWII?
I have a vested interest in doing it back then, especially if they did a take off of Sky Captain (I'd love to see a Sky Captain-ized JSA movie...)
Kirk Alyn as Mr. Lane... a nice, nostalgic nod to the past.
Noelle Neil as Mrs. Lane... a nice nostalgic nod to the past.
Lou Ferrigno as a nameless walk-by cop... nice, nostalgic, nod.
Stan Lee as this guy or that... quick and non intrusive. Nods all of them.
Marvin the Paranoid Android in the background. You'd have to know him to even notice.
Seeing Lynda Carter doing a cameo somewhere in the Wonder Woman movie would be a nice, nostalgic nod to the past TV series, but for her to play Diana's immortal mother Hippolyta is more than a warm fuzzy for the older fanboys. It just doesn't work.
If your tired glands want to see Lynda play an immortal, watch the first two seasons on DVD. If you still don't know why she cannot play an immortal amazon queen today, at least listen to her on the commentary track. That should clear it up. She's an old woman and she sounds like it.
Hippolyta doesn't get old.
One thing I've noticed from all of those who are willing to sacrifice the right treatment of a major motion picture story for a warm fanboy fuzzy is that they never even address Lynda's age. What is the intent? To make the theatrical release right, or to revive the old and campy TV series?
So, Peter, with your considerable imagineering skills, how *would* you explain an immortal-but-obviously-old amazon queen? Without just ignoring the issue, and without interfering with the advance of the real story, or it's just not worth it.
It would be nice to see Lynda Carter do a cameo in the Wonder Woman movie, wouldn't it? A nice nostalgic nod to the past.
What about Bridget Moynahan? She's tall (5'9"), relatively known (roles in I,Robot ,Sum of All Fears, and Coyote Ugly to name a few), and has the perfect look. She's also girlfriend to Tom Brady of the New England Patriots.
"And anyone who thinks that Lynda Carter wasn't a bombshell in civies needs to have the sexuality checked."
I think I wasn't trying to say she was unattractive as Diana Prince...just frumpy, and lacking in that WOWZERS category that she was in while in the reds and blues. Mostly in response to a comment that Weisz was too "ordinary," essentially lacking that wow factor. I think part of the reason why PAD has suggested Weisz is that she could be a clone of Carter. Or maybe a younger sister...or even...a daughter?
In George Perez' retelling of the Amazon's story, Hippolyta is clearly a more mature woman than some of the other Amazons. If we're going strictly with Perez' take, each of the Amazons is a reborn spirit that suffered a wrongful death at the hands of a man. Some are older, some are younger. Sure, as immortals, they don't age, but that doesn't mean that they all popped out of that lake as 20-somethings. Why not have Carter play Hippolyta, at the ageless 50ish age she is? She would be perfect.
Didn't think about it before, Bridget Moynahan would make for a really good wonder woman. Good call.
Why is it no one here seems to realize that "immortal" is not a synonym for "eternal youth?"
If it were, Diana (and all comic-book immortals) would be gazillion-year-old INFANTS.
Lynda Carter as Hippolyta.
Shane
As I understand it, didn't all the currently immortal Amazons (except Diana) used to be mortal? They were later made immortal by some Greek god or another. Therefore, the members of the society would be of different ages, and it would make perfect sense for the queen to be Lynda Carter's age.
I love this thread. You guys are comparing real-world women to some fictional ideal you have, while Breck goes off on his pointless anti-Buffy rants, as if that had anything to do with anything.
Meanwhile, nobody, not even the noble who puts his name at the top of this blog, has asked the only really important question: How can a story about Wonder Woman be interesting to anybody?
Look, the Amazon is a comic book icon, but nobody agrees what icon she should be. Her comic books have been only middlin' sellers because of that. Is she a white, thin Oprah Winfrey? A blood-covered battle babe? A star-spangled soap opera victim? She certainly isn't the character from the 1940's that girls bought and read, because girls don't buy and read comics any more. Except, of course, Gloria Steinem, who seems to be the only one who cares.
The point being, I don't think a film about Wonder Woman is anything but a marketing attempt by AOL-TW to make some sheckels out of an old character whom nobody really likes. A Wonder Woman film directed by God Himself couldn't get anybody to watch.
I did make that point, Thomas. How do you explain a Roman Warrior wrapped tightly in an American flag? What about her abilities is particularly visual that we haven't seen in Superman? What does she have to say that's worthy of film?
WW is a fun comic book character, but she can't really stand on her own.
Thomas E. Reed asked, ": How can a story about Wonder Woman be interesting to anybody?"
Let's see...
It's interesting to all the comic book fans who have kept her comic book going for over half a century and want to see her brought to the big screen.
It's interesting to action fans who want to see a strong female lead kick butt and do it successfully and intelligently. (Usually the heroine either shares her screentime with a man (the upcoming MR. AND MRS. SMITH) or gets overshadowed by a male (in TERMINATOR 2 Linda Hamilton kicked serious ass -- and was forgotten about once Ahnuld came on screen). CATWOMAN and the TOMB RAIDER movies didn't have these problems; sadly, they didn't have intelligence either.)
It's interesting to movie execs, who see superhero movies as the current big thing, looking at successes (Spider-Man and X-Men franchises) and forgetting about failures like DAREDEVIL and STEEL.
It's interesting to horny males (and probably quite a few females too!) who want to see a beautiful woman re-filling that outfit so beautifully worn by Linda Carter in the '70s. (When the New York City Museum of Sex opened, Wonder Woman got her own display; she was also the only superhero featured in the whole exhibit.)
It's interesting to Joss Whedon fans, who want to see what he can do with the Wonder Woman mythos.
And based on the # of comments here, it's interesting to PAD fans.
I know it will happen, but I really hope that the producers don't cast a twenty-something Wonder Woman. It sounds odd for me to say that, since I'm a twenty-four year old myself, but I don't see Wonder Woman as being that young. Ideally, she should be between the ages of 30 and 35.
I have a rather odd favorite that I would nominate: Lauren Graham, of Gilmore Girls fame. Granted, she's about 37, and she hasn't taken any action roles, as I can recall.
But it's probably just my attraction for Lauren Graham speaking. She's shapely, she's got a sense of humor, she can act, she's got outstanding hair, and she's just convey just enough sexual energy to get the job done. (One need only see the film Bad Santa to see a really sexual Lauren Graham.) At the same time, she can be sweet, playful, endearing, smart, and mature.
She's a dark horse nominee...it would never happen. Again, I don't know that she's got the chops to handle the action scenes.
But man...Lauren Graham is very attractive to me. I make no apologies...it's an odd choice. But it works for me. ;-)
"How do you explain a Roman warrior wrapped in an American flag?"
I thought Paradise Island (or Themyscria or whatever they're calling it these days) was off the coast of Greece (and pretty close to the Isle of Lesbos, nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean?)
And I thought there were other flags that used the red white and blue (or as Jean Luc Picard would say, blue white and red) color scheme. Oh, we do have a blue field with stars on our flag, but the stars don't only shine in the American sky. And our national emblem is an Eagle, but didn't that come off her costume a few years back?
Wonder Woman is one of the Big three: an iconic and archetypal super-hero on equal footing with Superman and Batman. She is not merely the first super-heroine, she is THE super-heroine. Yes, conceptually she is the female Superman, with the flying and strength. But Supergirl isn't a princess.
Wonder Woman is all about psychology. She was created by the inventor of the lie detector, who gave her a magic lasso that compels whoever she binds with it to speak only the truth.
She was created by a psychologist who fully understood the sexual symbolism of an all-women society ("Suffering Sappho!") and the symbolism of a powerful woman who becomes submissive to any man who can bind her bracelets together.
As far as the fun kids stuff like fortresses of solitude and batmobiles and utility belts, she has a whole island, an entire society, a purple healing ray, a magic lasso, Powers granted by gods and goddesses easily comparable to those of Captain Marvel, she can bounce bullets off her bracelets and she has a freaking invisible jet airplane! Not to mention some sort of magic girdle, whatever that does.
Does anyone who can't see how to get a couple hours of entertainment out of a character like that even have an imagination?
Now the part of this discussion that's losing me is why so many peolple seem to be convinced that a character who's beeen around for SIXTY-FIVE years has look like she's in her early twenties.
Women under thirty are children.
There's actually an advantage to casting a shorter woman in the role. When she's in Diana Prince mode, just don't use any height-manipulating tricks.
Ok, Rachel Weisz is an awesome choice and I'd love it because I love her. But my choice is another Whedonite, Morena Baccarin. She played Inara in "Firefly" and in the upcoming movie "Serenity". Please, god let it be her!
Strangely I used to really wish for WW to be a little bustier but I think it'd be better for a more regal persona and Morena can do it.
Michael J Norton
Honestly, I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd love to see a woman who can fight and not look dorky doing it. I'd love to see an invisible plane, a truth telling lasso, a purple healing ray, and the costume not come off as anything other than hokey. The show was fun, but it was hokey AND it was the small screen.
I've a set designer friend who's come up with full storyboards for a kickbutt WW movie, but it's even further removed than Cathy Lee Crosby was from the source material.
MAYBE you could get away with something set in WWII. Maybe.
"Because it's done all the time. ALL the time. They get the best person for the role and work around that to adjust physicality."
But that's supposing Weisz is the best person for the role, and I don't think she is. She's very attractive, but she's not a good actress. She was just plain bad in The Mummy.
"I have a rather odd favorite that I would nominate: Lauren Graham, of Gilmore Girls fame. Granted, she's about 37, and she hasn't taken any action roles, as I can recall."
Don't feel weird. I've always felt that she'd be perfect. But it will never happen. Nice to know I'm not the only one (For reference, I'm just a couple months shy of 21).
Barring Lauren Graham, I've gotta throw my vote to Evangeline Lilly. When she was first mentioned, I could instantly see her as a younger Diana.
After her appearance as a renegade amazon on "Xena", I would have picked Melinda Clarke of "The O.C."
How about Angelina Jolie? She's got the height, she's exotic, can do the action scenes and will fill out the costume as well as anybody.
After her appearance as a renegade amazon on "Xena", I would have picked Melinda Clarke of "The O.C."
Lady Heather? Um, I don't think so...
Thomas E. Reed wrote: >
::waves:: We're out here. Maybe not on most of the boards you read, but we are here and buying comics... and no, I am not Gloria Steinem. Just a woman who got into comics when she was in college. :)
Back to the topic onhand... I still agree that Rachel Weisz would be one of the best choices out there. Particularly if the movie makers want to pull in female viewers.
I know the "eye-candy" factor is important to the studios, I just hope that isn't all they base their decision on.
On a side note, I saw Lynda Carter in a commercial a year or so ago. She may be older than most prefer, but she has aged well.
I gotta say, this is one of the reasons fans break me up.
I see people rejecting Lynda Carter as Hippolyta by contesting that since she's an immortal character, she couldn't be more than twenty or so.
I have to ask: How many immortals does anyone know? Dick Clark aside.
Where did this notion come from, that someone who is immortal locks in at age twenty? Who says you can't look like you're twenty for a thousand years, then thirty for a thousand years, then forty for a thousand years, and so on.
Honestly, when people start making arbitrary decisions on behalf of fictional concepts--this much and no more--I just start laughing. I'm reminded of the book "A Martian Wouldn't Say That," a collection of truly idiotic and wholly real notes from TV execs on various television shows.
Might I point out that Odin the Almighty was depicted in the pages of "Thor" for decades as an old man. He's a freakin' GOD. I don't recall fans crabbing about it. Or can male immortals look old, but female immortals have to look gorgeous?
Sheesh.
PAD
Please not Angelina Jolie. Am I the only guy in the world who thinks she is freaking ugly?!?
So if rachel Weisz would be Diana, Brendan Fraser should be Steve Trevor?
I have zero problem with Brendan Fraser as Trevor.
PAD
>>
Probably not the only one, but percentage wise you're in the minority. You could have issues with her off screen antics, claim over exposure both literally and figuratively, don't see how you could criticize her figure for the role, her face is unique but I see that as a plus because the character is unique. She does have an oscar to her credit and has done some great acting including believable action roles (as believable as say Jackie Chan, all three Charlie's Angels or Arnold).
"Please not Angelina Jolie. Am I the only guy in the world who thinks she is freaking ugly?!?"
Yes, dejauu, you are.
Heck, I know a lot of straight women who wouldn't mind spending a night on the Isle of Lesbos with Angelina Jolie... ;-)
"Where did this notion come from, that someone who is immortal locks in at age twenty? Who says you can't look like you're twenty for a thousand years, then thirty for a thousand years, then forty for a thousand years, and so on."
Or to provide an example from your own work of immortal appearances not being what they seem, an immortal could present himself in holographic form as an old man, but in actuality be a young- looking Bucky... er, buck.
Rick
"Peter Jackson could knock about two feet of height off John Rhys-Davies"
Mostly by using a two-foot-shorter scale double wearing the same (proportionate) costume and facial prosthetics as Rhys-Davies wore.
No, no, no -- Brendan Frasier needs to play Captain Marvel. The "Shazam!" one, not the Kree one (ordinarily I wouldn't feel the need to qualify that, but given PAD's resume...).
Or maybe not. Maybe Fred Savage could do it. But I digress...
I think they need to go with a relative unknown for Wonder Woman. Anyone else would probably throw me right out of the movie for at least a second or two. But Lynda Carter does have to be Hippolyta. Maybe they can get Debra Winger for Antiope, Polly's sister.
I repeat my question. Who cares?
Some of you are dedicated to Wonder Woman. I don't know why. I can easily name half a dozen more interesting females in comics - Deena Pilgrim, Lois Lane, Oracle, Fallen Angel, Talia Al Ghul and (despite her movie) Catwoman.
I have seen no evidence that Wonder Woman can, in JamesLynch's words, "kick butt and do it successfully and intelligently." No more than any other of the above females, when given the proper plot support. And when I say "evidence," I mean any of her appearances in comics in the last dozen years.
One of the worst jobs at DC is trying to write an interesting Wonder Woman story. It's worse than trying to write a novel and intriguing Superman story; the Themyscarian doesn't have anything to work with, even with the numerous backstories and soap opera thrown into her history. Now you expect to take such a compromised character and throw her on a screen, and you think the great unwashed audience will flock to her film?
The audience for the next Jenna Jameson porn video will be greater than for any general-audience Wonder Woman film. Unfortunate but true.
Peter David is right, after all.
Hippolyta can be as old as she has to be to get a warm fanboy fuzzy at the expense of the story.
That's why I suggest Jessica Tandy or Bette Davis for Hippolyta.
Writers crack me up. They are funny books after all.
Thomas E. Reed,
Who cares? Obviously, a lot of people, judging by this thread alone. Read Dini and Ross's "Spirit of Truth" for a cool Wonder Woman story.
You don't like the character? Fine. But a lot of people were snide about a TV series based on a forgotten-by-most movie ("Buffy") and a spinoff from "Hecules" ("Xena"). Both of those worked out very well.
And if you don't think ANY girls/women are interested in comics check out a convention and the sales charts these days. Books like "Birds of Prey", "Spider-Girl", "Batgirl", "Witchblade" and "Catwoman" have all been around at least five years. And a book by the name of "Wonder Woman" has been steadily climbing the charts due to good word of mouth over Rucka's storyline.
And the movie stunk, but the original "Tomb Raider" movie made $158 million domestically.
Comments on a couple of the suggestions, and a couple new ones, since we don't have enough already:):
Angelina Jolie is gorgeous, and an extremely talented actress with action experience. The more I think about it, the more she seems like a viable choice (aside from the "too recognizable" problem).
Good call, Richard Howe: get Debra Winger (Wonder Girl, for those who may not know or have forgotten [as I had, actually]) in there as Lynda Carter's sister!
Gina Torres would be an excellent Wonder Woman. Firefly (among other roles) showed her action ability, Angel her "goddess-ability", both her great acting ability. (Hey, if they can change the skin color of the Kingpin - and change the color of Harvey Dent for the first Batman movie, and then switch it again for the third ....)
And speaking of Whedonverse actresses, I really like the suggestions of Morena Baccarin. A certain exotic beauty, regality .... Haven't seen her be physically formidable, but if Boss Joss is mentioning her, "jokingly"....
Now, to throw more names in:
If we're concerned about height for Wonder Woman, what about the tallest actress I know of, Uma Thurman? She's 6 feet tall (give or take an inch, I can't recall _exactly_), and has both incredible acting and action chops. She would have the "big star" factor against her, if you see that as a problem, but I am surprised that I'm the first to mention her.
Or ... if you want a Wonder Woman with some height - not hugely tall; certainly long-limbed - youth, a "wide-eyed innocent" look some have mentioned, a very good and experienced, but not hugely famous, actress with at least some action history, plus experience with our director ... why not Michelle Trachtenberg? :)
Can't see Uma in the role, even though I love her...and after BATMAN AND ROBIN she probably doesn't want to be anywhere near a superhero film.
Michelle Trachtenberg...hmmmm.....
"The audience for the next Jenna Jameson porn video will be greater than for any general-audience Wonder Woman film. Unfortunate but true."
balderdash. Obviously, you're joking, but the "problems" you cite with the character will have little to any effect on the box office; if they cut out all the Amazon stuff most viewers will not know it. Basically all the public really knows is her name and costume. Which gives a talented writer like Whedon pretty much an easy opportunity to go in any direction he wants. If the story is good and the special effects are bright and shiny, people will come. Jerome's observation is correct--if a video game character like Lara Croft can pull in over 100 million in a pretty average film, a good one with WW can clean up.
Thomas E. Reed - Who cares? Every female old enough to remember when Wonder Woman was the only really well-known female superhero. Anyone who was a kid when the tv show came out and spun herself silly when pretending to be WW while playing in the backyard. I know *I'll* be seeing the movie with those memories in mind.
---
PAD wrote "Might I point out that Odin the Almighty was depicted in the pages of "Thor" for decades as an old man. He's a freakin' GOD. I don't recall fans crabbing about it. Or can male immortals look old, but female immortals have to look gorgeous?"
Excellent point. Unfortunately, I think a large portion of society has fallen into the Hollywood frame of mind - males can have a variety of looks, but women must be young and beautiful. Hopefully nostaglia will reign and LC will be cast as Hippolyta.
I just one (more) thing to say on WW casting. If Sarah Michelle Gellar gets any closer to this movie than just buying a ticket at the theater, It likely won't get my moviegoing dollars.
-Rex Hondo-
"Heck, I know a lot of straight women who wouldn't mind spending a night on the Isle of Lesbos with Angelina Jolie... ;-)"
Yeah, it's weird. For some reason, straight women and gay men seem to find her more attractive than straight men do. I'm not sure what it is about her.
uh....hello!?!?!?
JENNIFER CONNELLY
I say again
JENNIFER FREAKIN CONNELLY!!!
I mean, come on! This woman was BORN to play WW. She is the right choice in every way possible! she is the right height, the right build (in every sense) and has the commanding screen prescense to play diana, not to mention she can be extremely feminine when she tries.
She's not too young, and not too old.
She would look great next to lynda carter as a mother/daughter duo, and her name has JUST enough star power that it would add something to the movie, but not so much star-power it would muffle the role (i.e. zeta jones, jolie, bullock etc.) This woman has all pros and no cons!
I mean, come on! Jennifer connelly! AM I the ONLY one who sees this potential?
Bill,
Thanks for supporting my argument, although, as much as I LOVE Angelina Jolie (and I'm one of many straight guys who do, Robert Fuller:) ) I would have to say the first "Tomb Raider" movie was pretty awful, not average. That's the reason I think the sequel had such a disappointing opening weekend, despite being at least decent.
But I DO have to say I feel Wonder Woman SHOULD be tall. She should also be exotic-looking. That is why as much as I love Sarah Michelle Gellar, Charisma Carpenter and many of the others bandied about, I feel they simply do not fit the bill. She is SUPPOSED to look like an ideal warrior-woman goddess. Is it really that difficult to find a stunning woman over 6 feet tall who can decently act.
Christine,
Count me as one of those who do not have a knee-jerk reaction to an "older" woman being sexy. Heck, I still think - besides Lynda Carter - Pam Grier and StevieNicks are both DAMN HOT, to name just two. And playing an immortal goddess? She would be a perfect choice.
I would be insulted by all the remarks thrown at me, as I have pointed out that a Wonder Woman movie is going to be less popular than that forthcoming crappy "Bewitched" movie. I would be insulted, that is, if I didn't remember that you guys are comic book fans. As such, you are less than a tenth of a percent of the box office needed to make the film work.
Joe Sixpack and his wife Joleen are not going to bathe and go to this movie. It can't be the sleaze Joe wants, and it can't be the romantic fantasy Joleen wants. They are the people you need to make the film successful - people who never did and never will read a comic book.
And I stand by my judgment that Wonder Woman is too compromised and confused a character to be the basis of a decent feature film. AOL-TW couldn't make a decent film with Catwoman, whose image is a lot clearer (ex-prostitiute and present-day burgler). If they screwed up such a clear and obvious character, what will they do with an all-over-the-map character like Wonder Woman?
Thomas E. Reed,
If they do go with all the twists and turns of the comic, then you could be right about WW being "too compromised and confused a character to be the basis of a decent feature film"
However, my guess is that they will simplify things like they did with the tv show to make it "non-comic" fan friendly.
In addition, please remember that the tv show - and the subsequent DVD release - makes Wonder Woman a more household name than Catwoman. More people remember the show, and Lynda Carter as WW, then the comic book. That should pull in more non-comic fans for the movie.
Oh, I firmly believe the movie will be horrible, but it will do quite well on name recognition alone. I doubt it will become a franchise, but you never know.
And, y'know, if Jennifer Connelly played WW, I'd be there in a heartbeat. I doubt she'd do it, but I like that lady (though, how did she go from the Rocketeer buxom babe to the svelt Hulk babe? Was it surgery, herbal therapy, exersize or just age????)
Two Spider-Man and X-Men movies later, and it seems that comic-based movies that, interestingly enough, lack elements of "sleaze" or "romantic fantasy," yet manage to not only pull in huge and respectable profits, but also positive critical review. And all without the elements that Joe Sixpack and Joleen seem to demand from their movies.
Well, based on those numbers, I'd say that appealing to a comic-based audience can indeed provide a movie with successful numbers. In fact, I'd say Catwoman, where it's pretty obvious the studio had way too much influence over the creation of the film, is a prime example of what happens when you divert too much from the comic origins of the character...the comic fans, the ones that will pay to see a good adaptation multiple times, can almost single-handedly make a movie a success. Does it really matter how you get to your $100 million in box-office receipts? Assuming $10 a ticket, you could either get 10 million people in to see it once, or 5 million people seeing it twice....
Charisma Carpenter. There's a Mammazon if there ever was one.
Thomas Reed,
You are the worst kind of poster. You ask "who cares"? Then when your question gets a response you play victim.
I, and others, have responded in an intelligent, thoughtful, non-insulting manner.
Our opinion is simply different from yours. If you cannot handle that, perhaps you should go to a site of your liking, where everybody thinks alike.
Two Spider-Man and X-Men movies later, and it seems that comic-based movies that, interestingly enough, lack elements of "sleaze" or "romantic fantasy," yet manage to not only pull in huge and respectable profits, but also positive critical review.
And yet, for every Spider-Man, there is a Catwoman.
We can hope that FF and Batman Begins are done right.
But I have to wonder what a WW movie offers any more than the Elektra movie did.
Which is to say, for me, nothing - I saw Daredevil, enjoyed it, and had no real desire to see Elektra.
Craig:
>But I have to wonder what a WW movie offers any more than the Elektra movie did.
Ya know, I used to have the same initial reaction when people kept telling me that I needed to watch Buffy the Vampire television series. I'd seen the film, why bother with the show? I shake my head at the difference. The difference? Well, to only begin with a basic list of differences... Joss Whedon, a man with vision and who had creative control over the show, behind the stories, solid charactization, great comedic and tragic moments and a cast and crew that took the material they were given seriously in putting together the series.
One can certainly wonder what WW has to offer over Elektra...... Whedon to begin with. That alone has my interest and the belief that this could be a damn good flick.
>Which is to say, for me, nothing - I saw Daredevil, enjoyed it, and had no real desire to see Elektra.
Wow.... DD was somewhat of a disappointment to me. Saw Elektra on DVD when a buddy lent it to me and was sorry to see that what they were shooting for in the first half of the film didn't quite make it to the screen.
Fred
Craig Ries,
"And yet, for every Spider-Man, there is a Catwoman."
And for every "Gladiator" there is a "First Knight". What's your point?
"But I have to wonder what a WW movie offers any more than the Elektra movie did."
I believe you meant to say 'What a WW offers that the Elektra movie didn't.'
To which, I can only say...Are you serious?
Let's start with characters. Elektra is a somewhat popular character to comics fans who, in the Daredevil movie, played one of the lamest "heroines" to ever grace the screen. She had that nonsensical fight on the playground, sees her dad die, hits some bags for five minutes and is then impaled by the main villain.
Plus, the majority of people probably still don't know or care who the character is.
Wonder Woman is one of the three most recognizable comic book characters in the world, with Superman and Batman being the other two. She has been continuously published for over SIXTY YEARS! That is quite amazing. Few characters are even around 60 years after their creation, let alone on a continual basis.
She is THE female superhero. A Greek goddess. Compare that to an anti-hero/assassin and...well, there IS NO COMPARISON.
RECOGNIZABILITY - As stated above, few people know who Elektra is. But between the comics, numerous animated series, and the Lynda Carter TV show, virtually everyone knows who Wonder Woman is.
DIRECTORS - Mark Johnson directed Daredevil. Why Marvel expected better results with him doing Elektra is beyond me.
Wonder Woman will be directed by JOSS WHEDON who has a vast knowledge of and strong love for the character. He also seems to be able to write strong women well, and is perfect for this project.
Wonder Woman will be directed by JOSS WHEDON who has a vast knowledge of and strong love for the character.
I like Whedon, but I don't care for Wonder Woman.
I like Singer, but I don't care for Superman.
So, regardless of director, since I don't care for the characters, I probably won't see these movies.
But, imo, Singer is at least directing his efforts into something that can be successful. I don't see how a WW movie could be very successful.
So, the whole thing is summed up this way for me: I fail to see how the character of WW appeals to enough people to make a movie worthwhile.
A Wonder Woman film is almost a given in the current climate of comic book films. A film trades on mental real estate and Wonder Woman has it that in spades. I have no doubt the movie will open (even a modest publicity effort will bring them in; an immodest costume will bring even more in -- remember the ratings spike in the television show when Lynda went to the high cut bikini bottoms?)
My concern is that the concept of Wonder Woman isn't exactly filmic (beyond the costume and cheesecake) without leaving the source material behind - which might betray the mental real estate.
Who would be the villian? WW doesn't have the most visible rogues gallery. I'd say Cheetah would be good, but the cat thing was just done (and done badly). Mars during WWII would be good maybe. If they hired me to write it, that's where I'd go. Not sure about how well the bondage thing would go today...
I don't understand why there are people saying you can't have a good Wonder Woman movie. She lassos you and you have to do everything she tells you. You'd think the US had no working dominatrixes.
You can criticise the premise for any movie before seeing it. Without "Getcher stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape" and the buried Statue of Liberty, Planet of the Apes was just Charlton Heston talking with monkeys -- it's a wonder anyone bothers to make movies at all.
Craig Ries,
"I like Whedon, but I don't care for Wonder Woman."
"I like Singer, but I don't care for Superman."
Ouch! You don't like Wonder Woman OR Superman? Not that you have to, of course. But could you at least state some reasons why, so we know where you're coming from?
"So, regardless of the director, since I don't care for the characters, I probably won't see these movies."
I think you are only cheating yourself with this argument. I was never a big Blade fan, but the movies were a different experience. If the directors have a good track record, why not just forget they are comic book characters and judge each movie on it's own merits?
"So the whole thing is summed up this way for me: I fail to see how the character of WW appeals to enough people to make a movie worthwhile."
Putting aside for the moment you seem to think because YOU don't like the character and therefore everyone must think like you and a movie will fail - I'll ask you a question.
By worthwhile, do you mean commercially or creatively? Because creatively, I don't think you could have someone better at the helm than Joss Whedon, who loves the character, turned what was an almost-joke character into a character known worldwide and - most importantly - has talent.
Commercially, the movie stars a character that has been in comics (and on mugs, t-shirts, etc.) for over sixty years. She has been part of numerous cartoon shows and had a memorable live-action TV series.
Are you showing a sexist side here? Do you feel no female comic character can have a successful film?
I remember Joseph Campbell devoting, like, a chapter or something on sleeping gods detached from the material world.
The movie could be based on a threat to the world calling Wonder Woman to return to it, like women with killer-bods and kitten faces walking around naked except for leopard spots, seducing men and -- not as strange as you may think -- women, too.
This could be played as a threat to marriage, which would prompt all the poor people who voted to reelect George Bush to go see it. With the right kind of lasso action, you can title it "The Passion of the Wonder Woman." Dude, who wouldn't go see that?