|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All aboard the nope train to nope city
I don't know. Just seems like a completely wrong fit for me. I could be wrong though.
After all, Marvel has consistently proven to me that they KNOW what they're doing. With EVERYTHING.
So I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.
Has she ever directed a movie even?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unbroken that came out this past winter was directed by her, and got pretty good critical review. IMDB also lists another movie in post-production and another announced.
EDIT: reading the article first, it says Marvel is PURSUING her, not that its a done deal. I kind of would be shocked if they can snag her honestly.
This is the Carol Danvers Captain Marvel?
Could be interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably just because DC is getting a female director for Wonder Woman. Political correctness and that stuff.
I remember years ago when the scuttlebutt was that they had gotten Joss Whedon to direct a Wonder Woman movie. Around the same time that Robert Rodriguez was supposed to be doing a reboot of Red Sonja. So few heroine movies seem to actually happen that I'll be glad if a good one does, regardless of who directs it.
I don't know much about Captain Marvel, but I daresay she's got a pretty good background to direct a pulp action hero movie.
This sounds cool and promising.
Which is something of a problem. Captain Marvel is almost Marvel's first 'Cosmic Hero', literally. Now Carol Danvers isn't quite Mar-Vhel on that scale, but unless the completely re-write her origin, (Granted, almost a necessity), she is going to be at least as much that as 'pulp', assuming that by 'pulp' you actually mean 'film-noir'. 'Pulp' is a much broader genre than most people recognize these days.
Well... They're doing quite a lot of stuff with the Kree in Agents of SHIELD, and are building towards the showdown with Thanos, so it wouldn't be too absurd to use the Kree in her origin. Especially since the word is that she'll appear in one of the movies before her stand-alone, although presumably only in Carol Danvers form.
EDIT: Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is due before Captain Marvel too, so that's another opportunity to introduce the Kree and cosmic stuff.
Angelina Jolie has been working on some pretty good projects to build up directorial experience, so this could actually be a good thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Havent they already introduced the Kree in both Guardians of the Galaxy AND Agents of Shield?
The Kree were the ones who experimented on different species with the Terrigen Mists. They've said that in the actual show itself during the most recent Lady Sif appearance. The primary antagonist of that episode WAS Kree.
Ronan the Accuser was Kree.
Between the terrigen mists, The Guardians and the appearance of the Kree on Agents of Shield I dont think that there's going to be a lot of issues with introducing Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel.
Having Carol Danvers get hit or exposed to some sort of Kree tech isn't that hard to set up, especially if her origin is tied in with whatever happens in Infinity Wars Part 1.
Angelina Jolie has been working on some pretty good projects to build up directorial experience, so this could actually be a good thing.I feel I must ask: Why the "actually" as though that in particular is some surprise?
Not a surprise to me, but a counter point to the original and second post of the thread.
It's probably just because DC is getting a female director for Wonder Woman. Political correctness and that stuff.I remember years ago when the scuttlebutt was that they had gotten Joss Whedon to direct a Wonder Woman movie. Around the same time that Robert Rodriguez was supposed to be doing a reboot of Red Sonja. So few heroine movies seem to actually happen that I'll be glad if a good one does, regardless of who directs it.
Looks like "Wonder Woman" is getting crushed beneath the heel of the movie-making machine yet again! Link.
<obligatory Muaha ha ha ha! *snort*>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:I
Looks like "Wonder Woman" is getting crushed beneath the heel of the movie-making machine yet again! Link.
Honestly, I think I prefer the studio's apparent choice to make it a "character driven" movie as opposed to the previous director's apparent "Epic Braveheart level action origin" piece.
Looks like "Wonder Woman" is getting crushed beneath the heel of the movie-making machine yet again! Link.Honestly, I think I prefer the studio's apparent choice to make it a "character driven" movie as opposed to the previous director's apparent "Epic Braveheart level action origin" piece.
You don't think "character driven" is a euphemism for "lower budget"?
|
You don't think "character driven" is a euphemism for "lower budget"?Looks like "Wonder Woman" is getting crushed beneath the heel of the movie-making machine yet again! Link.Honestly, I think I prefer the studio's apparent choice to make it a "character driven" movie as opposed to the previous director's apparent "Epic Braveheart level action origin" piece.
Doesn't have to be. Avengers was pretty much entirely character driven.
Doesn't have to be. Avengers was pretty much entirely character driven.You don't think "character driven" is a euphemism for "lower budget"?Looks like "Wonder Woman" is getting crushed beneath the heel of the movie-making machine yet again! Link.Honestly, I think I prefer the studio's apparent choice to make it a "character driven" movie as opposed to the previous director's apparent "Epic Braveheart level action origin" piece.
I don't think I'd define Avengers as "character driven" when juxtaposed against "epic scale".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The very notion that people feel that character driven may be incompatible with epic scale action kinda baffles me a little bit.
BRAVEHEART is remembered for it's battle scenes and action but in a movie that ran 3 hours long? Comparatively a small amount of it was action and battle. MOST of it was dialogue and character focused.
If we go back even further:
William Wyler's BEN HUR was much the same. yes full of spectacle but at it's core it was how a man's need for revenge against a man who wronged him almost hollows him out and the realization of what revenge does to you when it's all consuming.
David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA as well as THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI were films of epic scale that were were character driven as well. BRIDGE was a pretty much the definition of a battle of the will to survive vs. doing your duty.
I think alot of the talk of having a character driven film is a misplaced too cool for school approach combined with an ignorance of what film in the hands of a capable director can do. In the end "character driven" doesn't mean "better quality film". There are crap loads of character driven indie GARBAGE that came out during the 90's during the indie boom. I know, I saw a lot of them.
"Epic Braveheart level action" doesn't mean hollow, empty action either. Mel Gibsons APOCALYPTO is a movie that was shot entirely in another language and is one of the BEST action/chase films that I've ever seen in my life. You do get invested in the characters in that film (if you have any sort of empathy that is) and that's because both the characters and the actions that they take drive the film.
I think that Wonder Woman deserves an "EPIC level action" film and the reduction to a 'character driven" approach is a cop out in an attempt to appeal to what they think women will want to see. I just saw a movie, TWICE, where a woman was the co-lead (and arguably the lead) and with MAYBE 30 min worth of dialogue in the whole film it was pretty darn character driven. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD and specifically Charlize Theron's performance might is pretty good template for what a epic scale action movie with a female lead could be.
But instead we're probbaly going to get something smaller and toned down.
Because that's that they feel that women want.
Because that's that they feel that women want.I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.
I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."
While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.
The most recent Superman movies have been "epic scale action films", yes.
Know what else they had in common? They both sucked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of that may be expectations. Superman has generally been the "Boy Scout" of the hero clan, which is why he's accepted as being nearly omnipotent in power. The current generation of Superman movies, starting with Superman Returns and Man of Steel and continuing with Batman Vs.Superman are among the darkest the superhero genre has come up with, which is something we've come to expect with Batman, but feel a bit uncomfortable with Superman.Because that's that they feel that women want.I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.
I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."
While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.
The most recent Superman movies have been "epic scale action films", yes.
Know what else they had in common? They both sucked.
Dark is good when done well. For instance, I don't think Superman killing Zod was a bad thing, or even a poorly done scene. Probably the best in the movie, actually. It actually feels like there's some emotion in it.
It's just the tone doesn't seem to know where it wants to be. It's more of a faux "dark and gritty". It LOOKS dark, but for the most part it's really not. It's "epic" but not in a way that's done interestingly (the fights in Man of Steel felt cold and passionless somehow).
Perhaps DC trying a more character driven story is a good thing. Something new to try, they might be better at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She seems like as good a fit for the project as any other name I've heard tossed around. She certainly has the background and mindset to tackle the story. Its mostly a matter of having the director experience. She doesn't have much yet, but I've seen relatively novice directors make fantastic films. Her last one was well crafted. I say why not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that's that they feel that women want.I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.
I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."
While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.
We're agreed on that point. Wonder Woman is part of DC's Trinity of super-heroes (or at least she WAS when I was reading DC years ago...). Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.
Superman gets a huge sprawling movie (Man of Steel), Batman gets not a HUGE movie but then his scope and stakes are different (Batman Begins). Still Batman Begins wasnt a small movie. Diana is a DEMI-GOD with super strength, flight and a warriors mentality and the skills to back it up. She's also capable of great compassion and unerringly loyal to people she calls her friends. She SHOULD have an epic film of some sort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because that's that they feel that women want.I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.
I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."
While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.
The most recent Superman movies have been "epic scale action films", yes.
Know what else they had in common? They both sucked.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diana is a DEMI-GOD with super strength, flight and a warriors mentality and the skills to back it up. She's also capable of great compassion and unerringly loyal to people she calls her friends. She SHOULD have an epic film of some sort.
[Wonder Woman tangent]
I tend to think of JLA Superman and JLA Batman as being opposite sides of a Mutants & Masterminds Power Level chart. (In their solo books, things change.) Supes has power level 10, but isn't a skill master. Bats has skill level 10, but has no powers. Each of them does things the other doesn't. (Again, barring solo Superman books, where they play up that he's 100x smarter than Batman and can think faster than lightspeed and has the sum total of Kryptonian science / martial arts / etc. downloaded into his head when he was a baby.)Diana is kind of a mix, and just as Superman and Batman don't really have any reason to measure how awesome they are *by each others standards,* she doesn't either. She's not as powerful as Superman (usually), but she's got skills (in some cases centuries of fighting skills baked in) more like Batman.
Ideally, she's not competing for who can lift the most in a benchpress with Superman, because, as Black Widow says in Avengers 2 'That's not something I need to prove.', and she's not competing with Batman for 'world's greatest detective,' because she *still* doesn't need to measure her swinging Amazonian **** against the boys.
Where she is wildly different is that possibly her most iconic enemy, the Cheetah, she has spent years *trying to save,* and regarding as a friend who has gone terribly astray. Unlike Superman and Batman, who really don't have any illusions about 'redeeming' Lex Luthor or the Joker, not only does Diana want to rescue Barbara Minerva from the Cheetah curse, but she's redeemed bad-guys in the past, something Superman and Batman, more 'catch and release' sorts of guys, aren't so good at.
Indeed, Wonder Woman's first recurring foe, *a Nazi*, Paula von Gunther, ended up living on Paradise Island, using her skills for good.
That's something not a lot of superheroes can claim, that they've turned a villain around, and in so doing, eliminated their threat far more effectively even than killing them would have (and certainly more than a trip to Arkham would have), since dead people in the comics don't always (or even often...) stay dead.
But anywho, that's Wonder Woman.
[/Wonder Woman tangent]
As for Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers, I'm not really a fan. Strikes against her include; got her name and powers from a dude, wore a bikini as a costume for years despite being an Air Force captain we were meant to take seriously, was an alcoholic and got pretty pissy about it when Avengers tried to suggest that 9 AM was a bit early to hit the hard stuff, picked the wrong side in Civil War, and (through no fault of her own) ended up giving birth to a son that was the father of the child and then went off to live happily ever after in a creepy mind-control relationship with him, which, unfortunately, is her most memorable storyline (other than losing her memories and powers to Rogue).
Give me a movie about Monica Rambeau any day of the week, instead. She didn't get her powers (or name) as a hand-me-down legacy, and her powers are unique and visually interesting (instead of third-rate Superman knock off). She's also led the Avengers. (And Nextwave!) And while I'm sure she'd look fine in a bikini, Monica wears pants to a gunfight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is we really don't have a worthy successor to Lynda Carter, who set the defining benchmark on playing the Amazing Amazon.Because that's that they feel that women want.I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.
I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."
While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.
We're agreed on that point. Wonder Woman is part of DC's Trinity of super-heroes (or at least she WAS when I was reading DC years ago...). Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.
Superman gets a huge sprawling movie (Man of Steel), Batman gets not a HUGE movie but then his scope and stakes are different (Batman Begins). Still Batman Begins wasnt a small movie. Diana is a DEMI-GOD with super strength, flight and a warriors mentality and the skills to back it up. She's also capable of great compassion and unerringly loyal to people she calls her friends. She SHOULD have an epic film of some sort.
Yeah whereas I dont think that's the problem at all. The Wonder Woman TV show is not one I remember fondly, if at all. Just like the Hulk it was a show with all the limitations of it's time including crappy special effects and really bad writing.
There are probably more than a few actresses out there who can portray Diana today. As much as Lynda Carter was the definitive Diana she's really the ONLY widely remembered live action Diana. I'm eager to see someone else take up the mantle frankly.
|
Because that's that they feel that women want.I think there's a bit of chauvinism therein, too. A woman's story, many still feel, on some level should be smaller in scope than a man's.
I mean, "How could Wonder Woman have a story bigger than Superman? He's Superman! She's just Wonder Woman."
While that's a complete crock, in my opinion, I think the sentiment, whether conscious or not, is still out there.
I disagree. To the best of my ability to judge, almost all superhero movies are "character driven" in concept. They are a personality shrine to the main lead.
Taking a look at the MCU movies, they were all primarily about the characters. Iron Man movies are the best example but I'd say that the first Thor and Captain America movies and both Avengers have really just been about the characters and almost nothing else. With cocky cutter villains and stories that don't even try to be interesting, the whole focus is the superhero and the way he reacts to stuff.
Man of Steel *was* character driven, even though it was very badly executed. If you ask yourself what the story of the movie was, the answer is not "A deadly alien conflict threatens Earth", it's "Superman begins his way as a superhero".
Sprawling, epic movies tend to be about more than just a personal journey of the main character. See "The Dark Knight", for example, as a movie that tackles big questions and has a lot more going on than just Batman.
Now, what I feel is a very smart move by Marvel is that to differentiate between their billions of movies, they try to bend stories into slightly different genres - CA 1 has been a world war 2 drama, CA 2 has been a spy thriller, Avenger movies have been the most comic-book-like, Ant Man appears to be at least partly a comedy, and Iron Man has his very own style.
So, I actually think that doing an epic, wide, Braveheart style movie for wonderwoman would have helped set her apart from Superman. People will think, "superman - earth destroying aliens, wonderwoman - epic battles. Got it."