Wonder Woman!

Samuraidad · Post by **Samuraidad** » Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:56 pm

drkrash wrote:That's the funny part, considering how much "ink" I've spilt on this: it's not due to be "out" necessarily at all.

All of this is for a pilot, which may or may not get picked up.

However, that being said, with a major comic property, a pretty big name at the wheel, and at least two other well-recognized actors (Cary Elwes, Elizabeth Hurley) on board, I think it's pretty safe that it will at least make the air. This would be Fall 2011, as they are shooting now.

Interesting. Well, I'll be watching it. Who knows...maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

BeardedDork · Post by **BeardedDork** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:53 pm

The real costume is much better.

Artbod · Post by **Artbod** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:17 pm

Bleeding Cool just put up some footage of WW runing and yay she has red boots and a more material looking pair of trousers. All in all a step up.

Post by **BASHMAN** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:19 pm

I just saw a clip where WW is chasing some guy doing "russian climbing" through a traffic jam. WHY THE * IS SHE NOT FLYING / SUPER LEAPING IN FRONT OF HIM? Does she even HAVE any super powers?

Post by **BASHMAN** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:30 pm

drkrash wrote:I think that has a lot to do with what looks good on paper, what sounds good in a description, and what looks good on film. Three different visual perspectives that are not interchangeable.

As for photoshopping an awesome look: that's much easier to do than then translating that look to film. I agree that that fan-made WW looks great...but it would never fly. Some would object to her not wearing pants, others would object to a female character being that bruised up, and Jennifer Connelly (who I believe provided the face for that image) isn't built like that.

But that photoshop image was designed by a costume designer- not just an artist. When we see movies like Batman, Watchmen, etc- they take the unrealistic costumes of the comics and turn them into BADASS live action costumes that work AND still capture the spirit of the character.

Honestly what is unrealistic about these:

Compared to THIS cheap plastic thing?

drkrash · Post by **drkrash** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:46 pm

C'mon, Chris, you can't compare the budget of a major motion picture with the budget of a TV show. You just can't do it. I will fully concede that if this was a movie and that was the costume, I would say they weren't trying hard enough. But it's not.

People said: pants too shiny, boots too high, ugly fabric, wrong color.

The producers change all of it and the rage continues.

Artbod · Post by **Artbod** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:01 pm

I get a REALLY feeling she won't have any superpowers. She's already apparently a CEO at a corporation who is unconfident with her appearance so we strayed way off of the original character concept straight away.

drkrash · Post by **drkrash** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:13 pm

Artbod wrote:I get a REALLY feeling she won't have any superpowers. She's already apparently a CEO at a corporation who is unconfident with her appearance so we strayed way off of the original character concept straight away.

I certainly expect her to be underpowered, but so was Linda Carter. The truth is that comic WW is pretty epic league, which doesn't make for an easy TV show.

I agree that it would suck if she was unpowered, but I really seriously doubt that. (I mean, really: what would be the point?) But I wouldn't be surprised (and disappointed) if they gave her a lot of new, lame powers that are easy to do effects-wise like mind reading and super senses.

As for the CEO change, I'm fine with that. It might even be good. I'm no WW expert, but what I know of her back story is...well...it's not that consistent anyway. So I care a lot less about that.

To me, the biggest concern of the show so far is casting Justin Bruening as Steve Trevor, presumably a significant role. That guy is tall and reasonably handsome, but has a pretty unmasculine voice and is a mediocre actor on a good day.

Saker · Post by **Saker** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:55 pm

I don't know if you listen to NPR, but even they weighed on Wonder Wear.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011 ... c=fb&cc=fp

Benji · Post by **Benji** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:31 pm

Unfortunately, this is what happens when characters become brands. Instead of their stories being based around credible ideas born in the imaginations of writers, they are merely products to be sold by marketing "gurus" and accountants.

Sadly, this happens in comics as well.

This was the same network that butchered Heroes , a show that didn't seem to know whether it was Seven or Seventh Heaven, so I don't have high hopes........The fact that the suit has become the center of interest, and not the "brilliant" ideas of the creative team, makes me smell another V in progress.

Well, I've been wrong before. But a WW that can't fly? Oh dear.

kevperrine · Post by **kevperrine** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:48 pm

drkrash wrote:C'mon, Chris, you can't compare the budget of a major motion picture with the budget of a TV show. You just can't do it. I will fully concede that if this was a movie and that was the costume, I would say they weren't trying hard enough. But it's not.

I call BS on this. It's an *out* for lazy work and/or uncaring developers.

The images BASHMAN shows would not *cost* any more than the ones they've done. Cloth, fabric and materials for a costume are not that expensive (relatively from TV to Movie) and even if they are higher costs - they are FIXED costs. Once a costume design and mold are done, you make them or have replacement materials ready. And the cost is done.

This is 100% a develope "creative" choice. And manytimes that becomes crap. Marketing or Branding isn't the "problem" ... in fact THOSE forces can actually be great boons to a project. It's the interests of the developers, more specifically the understanding, caring and "love" of the creative forces pushing for the decisions. How and why they make those choices.

Look at many of the new best supers movies. All of those costumes and design styles just should NOT work. But the developers LOVED the source... most notably directors such as:

Jon Favreau (Iron Man)
Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight)
Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300)
Robert Rodriguez (Sin City)
Sam Rami (Spiderman)
Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy)

Costumes and effects such as Iron Man and Hellboy - I could agree would be very hard/costly to replicate on the small screen. But the Spiderman, Batman, and Watchmen costumes are one-and-done costs. Make a great design and done.

Heck... even the Superman Returns costume worked. Some designs in the X-men movies worked but I didn't think they tried hard enough (Nightcrawler look and Wolverine's hair-style are the standouts)... And I'm in the minority for loving the Daredevil movie - but I think THAT "realistic" style biker-leathers worked well too.

NOT going for something excellent and in the spirit of the source in favor of cliche-crap "1960s Batman POW!" fakey spandex, shiny rubber/leather, etc.... well ... they might as well sprinkle glitter all over the crap. It's lazy and unloved, or at the very least uninspired and uninformed.

-kev-

drkrash · Post by **drkrash** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:30 pm

Nope. No BS. Comparing the available resources, one time or otherwise, of a $100+ million dollar movie and probably an approximately $2 million pilot that may not get picked up is simply not the same thing. It just isn't.

Look: I'm not saying the costume is awesome. It's adequate. And we know nothing of the show beyond a premise and a couple mediocre videos of shooting without postproduction treatment.

kevperrine · Post by **kevperrine** » Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:05 pm

drkrash wrote:Nope. No BS. Comparing the available resources, one time or otherwise, of a $100+ million dollar movie and probably an approximately $2 million pilot that may not get picked up is simply not the same thing. It just isn't.

So, you're trying to say a costume design and creation is *that* much different from small screen to big screen. Why? Does film need special magical materials that aren't available to TV pilots? Do the film mediums of recording require a different material to show up on film that just can't be seen on TV?

I get that film design needs to be of "higher" quality due to the resolution alone... but I'd need to see a cost-by-cost breakdown of the materials, design and molding/sewing (whatever) creation of a movie costume vs. a TV costume before I can believe anything close to that.

The budget of a film vs. TV pilot does not equate to the physical material costs or the design of a costume. It's only the resourcing that would make it cost more. Clearly, the pilot creators could go to that person that made the photoshop images and pay them a (smaller) fee for the design consulting rather than hire some bigger name film designer for bloated budget expense.

For example. Jon Favreau FOUND Adi Granov's illustrations (from illustration/covers on comics) and was using THOSE images as his guide. Adi then contacted Favreau (through Facebook I believe) and said - 'those are my images, can I be involved' (paraphrased) and BOOM! Favreau hooked up Adi as the advising designer! (I'm familiar with this because Adi went to the Art Institute of Seattle, where I worked for 6 years)

So... it's not crazy. It's lazy.
It just is.

AslanC · Post by **AslanC** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:56 pm

I work in the film industry, so maybe I can speak on this whole costume thing?

On an average day of shooting, just dialog, you need to have 3 identical copies of any costume a character is wearing, just in case. Coffee spills, slips and falls, etc...

On a "stunt" day, you need at least 5.

So, remember the 90s Flash tv show? That costume he wore cost A LOT of money and would tear.... all the time. Like when he would walk and stuff.

So when making a TV show, the only money you get off of it in returns is from the network that buys it and any merchandising you can get from it (We'll come back to that point later).

When all these daily production costs start to add up in TV, the plug can get pulled fast. Unlike in film where they go over budget all the time.

Why do they keep shooting over budget in film? Because once you start shooting a film, it is better to finish it than pull the plug, unlike TV where you can get the plug pulled on you mid-season.

Now as for the "new" and unique costumes, the logic is really about money here and may or may not be something that should be forgiven. Let me explain;

AslanC Productions has scored the license to produce "Power Girl: The TV Series!". We've landed Katee Sachoff in the title role and we have promised the fans lots of action, adventure, cleavage and laughs. To make this happen we have hired Robert Wolfe and Ben Edlund to head up our writing team and sprung for a pretty awesome visual effects team (sorry I don't know any of their names).

Now one of the deals we made with DC was that we get a licensing agreement on toys and other products based on the unique look of our tv show.

There's the problem.

Imagine the show is a hit and little girls and fanboys LOVE our Power Girl! We want them to buy our product and create a new revenue stream for us, not take their existing product and and be happy with it.

So we change the costume a bit. Maybe give her a different hair cut. Etc...

Now we have a marketable "look" that is ours. You want to have a "Power Girl: The Series" action figure? Well that DC Super Powers figure just won't do! The boots are wrong and she doesn't wear her hair like that on the TV show, etc...

Right or wrong, this is how the producer's mind works. He is putting out money (or representing those who put out money) with the hopes of MAKING MONEY back.

As the Watchman movie proved, being as loyal as possible (and even they scrimped) to the fanbase does not equal profits.

Having something that is as digestible by the general public as possible can.

Not always... lord knows how many generic failures there have been.

So in summation your honour, let the record show that it isn't as black & white as we tend to think and in the end we should always create our own instead of trying to please the fans... you never, ever can.

The defense rests

Benji · Post by **Benji** » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:20 pm

This was very informative, and makes a lot of sense, thanks for sharing.

As the Watchman movie proved, being as loyal as possible (and even they scrimped) to the fanbase does not equal profits.

I would say the failure of Watchman (although I feel that is somewhat debatable) is more related to the fact that intelligent science/ social fiction films don't sell in foreign countries (especially non-english speaking ones). The Mummy 3 or 2012 on the other hand goes great guns.....

Nope, for once it's not America's fault.