NBC is currently making a pilot for a new Wonder Woman television series. I hope that I end up eating my words, but I reckon it’s going to suck and ultimately won’t get picked up. My basis for this is two-fold. First, the latest on-set picture of Adrianne Palicki in costume as arguably the most famous comic-book heroine (which I include here, sourced from my favourite news site Dark Horizons). Secondly, it seems in my experience that every time someone tries to make a film or a TV series with a female superhero as the main focus, things always go wrong.
"Well, what would you prefer, yellow spandex?" Cyclops in 'X-Men'.
So lets take the picture first of all. This is actually the second costume that we’ve seen Adrianne in. The first was worse (you can still see it at IMDB), with bright blue leather pants and boots. This seems to be a more toned-down affair in response to the uproar the first costume caused, and though it’s an improvement it’s still, in my opinion, crass.
I’ve read a few comments about people’s opinion of this costume, and all the fanboys are still raving that it should precisely mirror the costume from the comics.
I kind of disagree with that, and I can use the X-Men films as a good example. Can you imagine the films doing half as well if the team were dressed up in their bright, multi-coloured spectrum of spandex to mirror their comic counterparts? I think not. Comics and film are two entirely different mediums – sure they can imitate one another, but for the most part what works in one may not necessarily work in the other.
Looking at something that does work, like Nolan’s Batman films (hell, even Burton’s films), the costume changed dramatically. In the comics Batman is almost always in grey with black trims, but on screen that just wouldn’t work unless you were determined to make a camp, slapstick production a la 1960s Batman. And no, I don’t think that would work in today’s market (just like the moderately successful 1970s Wonder Woman wouldn’t work either).
This photo of the new Wonder Woman looks like the production team have literally popped into the nearest fancy dress store. Click on the pic and have a closer look. The trim looks like cheap plastic, the bullet-proof bracelets look like they’ll crack if hit by a stick, and the Lasso of Truth will probably snap if used for anything more than kinky sex games. The financiers likely did backflips when considering how little Wonder Woman’s invisible plane would set them back.
I’m a fan of the superhero genre and I would love to see the number of female-led productions equal that of male-led productions. What gets me, is that the superheroines are never handled properly. I refuse to believe there’s no market for them, and yet the latest Bionic Woman remake was cancelled after about eight episodes – just when it was getting good. I think they’re given a rough deal, with executives treating them as more of a joke than a serious franchise. As such not only do they, and we, get terrible production values but the writing is often on par with the costumes.
Just look at the 1980s’ Supergirl film. Helen Slater was a perfect cast, but the script was downright atrocious. Other examples include Elektra, the spin-off from Affleck’s Daredevil, with a story that left the more realistic world of its parent film behind. And we can’t forget Halle Berry’s Catwoman, swapping a great opportunity for a realistic anti-heroine who’s selfishness is her redeeming quality for a do-gooder dressed in black Playboy Bunny ears.
It does tend to steer me toward the belief that sexism plays a bigger part in the failure of on-screen superheroines than any of us would like to think. There’s no doubt in my mind that were our favourite comic-book heroines given the same respect, care and devotion as their male counterparts in the live-action arena, we would finally flock to watch the sisters doing it for themselves.
And we know it can be done (thank you Mr. Whedon for Buffy Summers).
So after writing this short article (which could so easily be turned into an essay), I’m left wondering what the defining factors are for all the past failures, and the list seems to be topped with: terrible writing, terrible production, and sexism.
But who knows, maybe the new, tacky fancy-dress Wonder Woman will surprise us all… I hope she does.
I agree 100% with the statement. I do feel that it is a shame super heroines aren’t taken more seriously. Hopefully Hataway’s portray of Selina Kyle will be better than any other female character from the comics world, one would think one can trust Nolan to do the right thing. In the same line of thought I would like to read your thoughts on the wardrobe choices for Sucker Punch! Fetish costumes? Maybe it’s why Scott Pilgrim works better but doesn’t make as much money. Sex sells?
As eagerly anticipated as Nolan’s closing chapter on his Batman trilogy is, I’m afraid I am truly disappointed with the casting of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. I’m sure many would disagree with me, but I was so long in the face when I first read that news. Again I hope I eat my words, and there is a good chance I will considering I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Moving on to Sucker Punch. I haven’t seen much of the costumes except for what you see in the trailer. From that, I would say that the costumes reflect the visual style of the movie as a whole. Yes, I suppose they could be toned down a little – they don’t need to show quite so much skin – but as you said sex sells, and that’s a fact. To be fair though, one of Snyder’s first movies – “300″ – did the same for the female audience as Sucker Punch is now doing for the men. All’s fair.
One of the things that struck me about the three Marvel and DC movies in the past ~30 years with a female lead (Catwoman, Elektra and Supergirl) is that they were bad. Historically bad. According to Rotten Tomatoes, they were actually the three worst movies Marvel and DC ever made at 10%, 10% and 8% respectively. (Yes, even Howard the Duck, Batman & Robin and Superman 4 did better).
Since ~2000, I feel like the writing for superhero movies has generally improved vastly–I think the biggest difference is that screenwriters have been able to make the noncombat scenes actually pretty interesting. (For example, the comedy in Ironman 1 and 2, the family relationship in The Incredibles, Peter Parker’s regular life in Spiderman 1 and 2, maybe Harvey Dent’s transformation in Dark Knight, etc).
In contrast, I feel like the 1990s superhero movies were generally just thin setups for as many ridiculous action sequences as possible.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that were our favourite comic-book heroines given the same respect, care and devotion as their male counterparts in the live-action arena, we would finally flock to watch the sisters doing it for themselves.” I agree wholeheartedly. I think that screenwriters (who tend to be male) have had a lot of trouble figuring out how to write narrative arcs about superheroines that don’t amount to mindless action and/or how hot they are. Over the past 10 years, screenwriters have generally come to take male superheroes and villains pretty seriously. (IE: Dark Knight’s boat sequence vs. Batman & Robin’s hockey goons or Heath Ledger vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger). We’re not there yet with superheroines. If a screenwriter tried writing a cosmetics CEO as the main villain of an X-Men or Batman movie, he’d probably get laughed out of the studio. But they actually did that for Catwoman.
Also, I notice that superheroine movies tend to have smaller budgets than their superhero and mixed-ensemble counterparts. For example, Catwoman had a production budget of $100 million ($120 million adjusted for inflation) and Elektra had $65 million ($72 million with inflation). I think most major superhero movies are north of $150 million.* A high budget won’t necessarily make a movie good (Green Lantern bombed even though it had $200 million), but it tends to help. However, I will note that the first X-Men movie did vastly better with $75 million ($93 million with inflation) than Catwoman did with more.
*Spiderman: $139 million ($171 million with inflation)
Batman Begins: $150 million ($166 million)
Iron-Man 2: $170 million
Dark Knight: $185 million ($205 million)
Iron-Man: $186 million ($205 million)
Green Lantern: $200 million
Superman Returns: $232 million ($250 million)
Wow, that’s like a follow-up post all of its own, and a damn good one. Your Batman comparison is particularly highlighting, and Nolan’s trilogy shows that superhero films can be gritty and realistic, as opposed to bright and colourful (Batman & Robin really gave neon-lighting a bad name).
Thanks for your comment, and special thanks for the budget listing. Interesting to note that the two most expensive are GL which we all know bombed (I haven’t seen it yet), and S-man Returns, which I was thoroughly disappointed with as were most. The beginning titles was the best part of that film