kegas76
Well-Known Member
This was an interesting view:
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/1h66nr/jill-lepore
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/1h66nr/jill-lepore
Read an article today saying the first WW movie will be set in the 1920s and then the sequel will be in the 30s-40s and then the THIRD movie will be present day. Ugh. Sounds like DC still have no idea they are doing. While it worked for the Capt. Am. original movie, I think doing two period movies is a bit much. I'm not sure the audience wants to see that. I could be completely wrong though.
I'm actually cautiously optimistic about Gal Gadot in the role.
The issue that a lot of people seem to have is that they automatically write off a casting choice because of the person's lack of acting repertoire. Gal Gadot is no exception to this. You guys are writing her off because she had "supporting parts that don't require much because they don't have it to give." You do realize that you are referring to the Fast & Furious franchise, which we all know is not exactly a hallmark of thespian greatness. The whole purpose of the F&F films is to show fast cars, fight scenes, daring heists, and lots of property damage. Hell, Michael Bay might as well be directing. Acting is absolutely secondary or even tertiary to the screen candy. You watch the movies to see Vin Diesel fight The Rock. You watch it to see people blow stuff up. You watch it to see cars hitting 170mph. If you want acting, go watch A Beautiful Mind.
Sorry for the rant. The ultimate message behind the rant is that it's not that Gal Gadot can't act. It's that her biggest role was nothing but glorified eye candy with a few lines thrown in during a movie where the main cast can phone it in and it'll work for the movie.
Give her a chance, folks.
"DC wants to hire a female director for 'Wonder Woman'"
"Warner Bros. Seeking Female Director for ‘Wonder Woman’ Movie"
"Wanted: Female Director for DC Comics 'Wonder Woman' Movie"
The studio still refuses to elaborate on the cliched “creative differences” joint statement that was issued when the two parted ways. But, according to multiple sources close to the project, the director’s vision for the movie was vastly different from the studio ‘s view. The director envisioned the DC Comics-based “Wonder Woman” superhero movie as a epic origin tale in the vein of “Braveheart,” whereas Warner wanted a more character-driven story that was less heavy on action.
My initial reaction was the same, but Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc., all have a romantic element that's central to the story and they worked.
My initial reaction was the same, but Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc., all have a romantic element that's central to the story and they worked.
I get your point, but it's a formula that's already proven successful for several multibillion dollar franchises. It'd be crazy not to have one.Yup. But they're all men.
Not all of them. Captain America moved on from his romance for Peggy Carter after TFA, Jane Foster had to be turned into a literal McGuffin in order to justify her presence in the sequel and X-Men's treatment of Mystique is so gross I refused to see the film at all.
Those are sequels, the originals all featured romances. Whether you personally found them palatable or not is inconsequential. Again, these are billion dollar babies and this is Hollywood.