"Wonder Woman" (TV) Pre-Premiere Discussion (Update: New pilot in development)

[the greenman]

Ya know, it's weird how Raven series got picked up over this. I'm guessing this WW must be heavily involved in the military and location changes. CGI heavy shows are cheaper, but WW must've had multiple actors, locations, vehicles, and more stuff that raised the budget.

[suss2it]

Ya know, it's weird how Raven series got picked up over this. I'm guessing this WW must be heavily involved in the military and location changes. CGI heavy shows are cheaper, but WW must've had multiple actors, locations, vehicles, and more stuff that raised the budget.

That's true, because you'd think with Raven's powers that'd be the more expensive show. On the other hand couldn't they cut out some of the more expensive ideas, and make the show more character oriented?

[heroman]

That's true, because you'd think with Raven's powers that'd be the more expensive show. On the other hand couldn't they cut out some of the more expensive ideas, and make the show more character oriented?

But supernaturals proven with a big enough budget her powers won't be a problem I could totally imagine it working for her but wonder womans to out they're in terms of storylines.

[the greenman]

Based on Kelley's prior series, he has his characters bouncing all over the place.

[macattack]

Wonder Woman would be significantly more epic than Raven. Raven will likely be adapted as "Supernatural with a female lead". That's not as expensive as WW. The setpieces for WW alone would be significantly more expensive than contemporary Earth for Raven.

Plus another issue is that ABC is out of the picture, they're beholden to Marvel now. They're not going to help a DC project.

CBS being split still shows some hope for the WW project, they just need to tweak it to suit CBS' fancy.

[GWOtaku]

So guess what? The pilot has been greenlighted by NBC.

This is great news. I hope it does well and we get a series. If that happens we're looking at a fresh chance for a superhero to succeed in live-action outside of a movie. And since this is Wonder Woman a decent run for a TV series could help spearhead other media projects for female heroes, if only in animation.

[Michael24]

Too bad Morena Baccarin is tied up with V. She's about the only current actress I can think of who I'd like to see play Diana.

EDIT: Yikes! After reading the article . . .

The project is described as a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her extraordinary life.

. . . now I'm not so sure I'm interested.

[RonDrakenfan17]

Well I'll give the show a shot, might be good and I do like WonderWoman. Guess will see how things turn out this.

[Wounded_Dragon]

If I put up with Smallville for a few years, I can take a few for Wonder Woman.

[Gilgamesh]

The project is described as a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her extraordinary life.

BAHAHAHA.

"Looks guys, she's a modern woman! See how feminist and accepting we are of a female hero by typecasting her as an anvilicious archetype?"

This is great news.

It really isn't. There's nothing "great" about a show about a female superhero that BY CONCEPT wants to try too hard to say, "Hey guys, our main character's a MODERN WOMAN and can HANDLE THINGS with her own strength!"

This is a stupid premise, Wonder Woman or no. It's made slightly worse by the fact they're slotting Diana into it, but it's still just a boring as hell concept. You know what show is great news? Raven. That show is great news. That's a show that simply announces, "Hey, I'm gonna exist." and tries not to hype "LOOK EVERYBODY, BOOBS WITH INDEPENDENCE." This is great news if you don't even try to think about it.

Actually, no. Your post basically indicates this show's target audience. People who want female heroes for the sake of female heroes. And that's stupid. I want INTERESTING female heroes. I also want interesting male heroes. I just want interesting heroes in general, I don't care about gender. But someone can throw this concept of "Let's take Wonder Woman and make her a generic modern woman THEY FIGHT CRIME." and, as you've proven, you'll just eat this idea up.

I'm sorry if that comes off as hostile, but seriously. This is a load of crap. I will give this show a fair chance; after all, it could prove me wrong and I will GLADLY admit I am wrong if the show turns out good. But this approach is the most sexist thing I've ever heard. She can't just be a woman, she has to be a MODERN woman. Because women HAVE to be modern, after all. It'd be fine if this was a small detail secondary to her actual personality, but this is the main frontrunner. This is what they use to explain her to people. She can't be a CEO who is also a vigilante who happens to be a woman. She's a MODERN WOMAN CEO who is also a vigilante.

That's a load. I'm more excited for Raven, which is ACTUAL good news.

[W.C.Reaf]

The project is described as a reinvention of the iconic D.C. comic in which Wonder Woman -- aka Diana Prince -- is a vigilante crime fighter in L.A. but also a successful corporate executive and a modern woman trying to balance all of the elements of her extraordinary life.

That's just the premise of the recent Power Girl series but with Wonder Woman.

So I take it this won't focus too much on her being an Amazon then. But as long as she's actually a crime fighter I'll be happy since so many TV shows just want to ignore the "hero" part of "Superhero".

[GWOtaku]

It really isn't. There's nothing "great" about a show about a female superhero that BY CONCEPT wants to try too hard to say, "Hey guys, our main character's a MODERN WOMAN and can HANDLE THINGS with her own strength!"

Feh. Your criticism of me rests on the idea that I should assume the hero won't be written in an "interesting" way based on very broad information, which I think would be incredibly presumptuous of me. Knock it after you've seen it, not before. If it's lame, I'm not going to tune in for the sake of doing it. I'm looking for quality, not a quota, and I have more than enough to watch to not waste my time with with a mediocre TV show.

I simply have hope, which I make no apology for. As TV programming goes, this is uncommon.

[Aquadementia]

The air went out of my enthusiasm at the mention of David E. Kelly.
I expect it to be more
Wonder Woman

instead of

Wonder Woman

Now if only this was a Sam Raimi production of Wonder Woman.

[Gilgamesh]

Feh. Your criticism of me rests on the idea that I should assume the hero won't be written in an "interesting" way based on very broad information, which I think would be incredibly presumptuous of me. Knock it after you've seen it, not before. If it's lame, I'm not going to tune in for the sake of doing it. I'm looking for quality, not a quota, and I have more than enough to watch to not waste my time with with a mediocre TV show.

I simply have hope, which I make no apology for. As TV programming goes, this is uncommon.

I'm knocking the philosophy, which should be criticized because it's sexist. I've even admitted to giving this show a chance.

CW advertised their superhero with arguably less marque value without needing to point out HEY GUYS SHE'S A WOMAN. NBC has to pimp out their modern woman by explaining she's a woman and, also, hey guys, she's a woman.

I'll criticize them all I like, if I may make a point, criticize people who think it's great that women get to have their own shows that're all about how cool they are despite being women.

[GWOtaku]

I don't think it has to be cliche just because she is in business. So is Bruce Wayne (albeit on a different scale in a different way). What's the big deal?

[Gilgamesh]

I don't think it has to be cliche just because she is in business. So is Bruce Wayne (albeit on a different scale in a different way). What's the big deal?

Maybe because I never once claimed about cliches and you're putting words in my mouth and trying to win an argument by completely changing my problem.

This does not work when normal people have conversations. Observe.

BAHAHAHA.

"Looks guys, she's a modern woman! See how feminist and accepting we are of a female hero by typecasting her as an anvilicious archetype?"



It really isn't. There's nothing "great" about a show about a female superhero that BY CONCEPT wants to try too hard to say, "Hey guys, our main character's a MODERN WOMAN and can HANDLE THINGS with her own strength!"

This is a stupid premise, Wonder Woman or no. It's made slightly worse by the fact they're slotting Diana into it, but it's still just a boring as hell concept. You know what show is great news? Raven. That show is great news. That's a show that simply announces, "Hey, I'm gonna exist." and tries not to hype "LOOK EVERYBODY, BOOBS WITH INDEPENDENCE." This is great news if you don't even try to think about it.

Actually, no. Your post basically indicates this show's target audience. People who want female heroes for the sake of female heroes. And that's stupid. I want INTERESTING female heroes. I also want interesting male heroes. I just want interesting heroes in general, I don't care about gender. But someone can throw this concept of "Let's take Wonder Woman and make her a generic modern woman THEY FIGHT CRIME." and, as you've proven, you'll just eat this idea up.

I'm sorry if that comes off as hostile, but seriously. This is a load of crap. I will give this show a fair chance; after all, it could prove me wrong and I will GLADLY admit I am wrong if the show turns out good. But this approach is the most sexist thing I've ever heard. She can't just be a woman, she has to be a MODERN woman. Because women HAVE to be modern, after all. It'd be fine if this was a small detail secondary to her actual personality, but this is the main frontrunner. This is what they use to explain her to people. She can't be a CEO who is also a vigilante who happens to be a woman. She's a MODERN WOMAN CEO who is also a vigilante.

That's a load. I'm more excited for Raven, which is ACTUAL good news.

Hmmm. Okay. There's some leeway to interpret a complaint with cliches here, but the bulk of this is how upset I am that a woman has to be a "modern woman". But I never outright complain about cliches. If only I had a post that bluntly explained my proble-

I'm knocking the philosophy, which should be criticized because it's sexist. I've even admitted to giving this show a chance.

CW advertised their superhero with arguably less marque value without needing to point out HEY GUYS SHE'S A WOMAN. NBC has to pimp out their modern woman by explaining she's a woman and, also, hey guys, she's a woman.

I'll criticize them all I like, if I may make a point, criticize people who think it's great that women get to have their own shows that're all about how cool they are despite being women.

Oh. There it is.

[GWOtaku]

Yes yes, you say the philosophy is sexist. This isn't obvious to me, hence my question. And look, it's not unfair to use the word cliche when you did complain about "typecasting her as an anvilicious archetype". Unless you're saying you are taking that back via your second post, I am not misunderstanding you.

Note "misunderstanding", by the way, not "misrepresenting." If you're going to condescend to me and imply that I'm actually lying about what you believe, then we really don't have a conversation that is worth having. It's sure not one I'm going to indulge.

[Gilgamesh]

Yes yes, you say the philosophy is sexist.

Because it sets Wonder Woman back 70 years.

This kind of blatant "I'M A WOMAN AND I CAN DO THINGS!" crap is fine in an era where the idea of women voting scared our pants off, but we're not there anymore. Trying to make the ideal modern woman for the sake of making her a modern woman, especially when the character has both strong ties to Greek mythology AND a history as an ambassador is inexcusable.

Which would be your show right there. Amazonian ambassador comes to man's world with light political intrigue to support the inevitable superhero action. BAM. Not that hard. Here Diana's an Amazon, but that's not the forefront because she's trying to understand and help the political climate of the modern world. We can use MALE AND FEMALE politicians to make this equal so Wonder Woman can be an actual character.

That's why this is sexist. They don't care about who Diana is as a person. They care she has boobs, which gives them the idea "Hey, she can be a MODERN BUSINESS WOMAN. THIS IS TOTALLY NOT A STEREOTYPE GUYS." Which is a sexist load of crock. They should be ashamed of themselves for coming up with it and people who support this should be ashamed of considering this a proper representation of the character and not being aware of the sexist implications this development has.

Which, again, is why I like Raven as a TV show and how CW brought it out. TV show about the character of Raven, supernatural teen drama. Bam. All they needed to say. They didn't need to break your face open with "HEY ISN'T IT COOL A WOMAN CAN DO THIS?", which is what NBC and Mr. Kelley are doing because they think they are feminists but are actually being ridiculously sexist.

And I'm going to BE condescending if I'm given a reason to. If someone is going to think this is great on the basis of HEY GUYS, WOMEN ARE DOING THINGS without caring what it actually is, that's being sexist. If you think it's okay that a character with a rich history and a genuinely interesting character and premise is turned into a "modern CEO woman" sexist stereotype that screams "ISN'T IT GREAT WOMEN CAN DO THINGS?", you are being sexist. I'm not saying you ARE sexist, I'm saying you're being sexist for the sake of being what you think is feminist.

We could've had a cool show with light political intrigue supported by Greek mythology and superhero action. But we have David E. Kelley taking away everything that makes Diana a person and turning her into a sexist caricature.

[Jedigreedo]

I wonder if Kelley is limited to Wonder Woman characters or if most of the well known DC universe would be available to him. Mostly I'm curious because I could see him "reinventing" Mr. Mxyzpltk as a random manifestation in the form of a dancing baby.

In seriousness, it sounds like the trainwreck I expected it to be. Regardless of the needless "reinvention," it sounds too much like yet another super-soap. I'm sick of shows where the superhero(es) can't just be heroic and has to be OMGDRAMATIC. It needs to stop.

[CyclonatorZ]

I think you have some good points Gilgamesh - but remember, we're talking about a character who, at least in the eyes of some people, doesn't really have any actual traits besides her looks. Even though making Diana into a female Bruce Wayne probably isn't a good idea, I'd say it's probably preferable to at least some possible interpretations.

I think the real question here is not what they're doing with this show, but how they're doing it. The format they've chosen has both potential strengths and weaknesses, and getting some good writers onboard could really help the show. Even though this isn't like any interpretation of Wonder Woman before, we should still be willing to give it a chance. If it's bad, then at worst, the pilot will fail, and NBC won't try to butcher any more female superheroes. But we don't know that it will, so I say we hold our judgements until we at least get some more information.