Thoughts on a Wonder Woman series

In response to:

If we're going to argue that her origin is hard to relate to (I don't think it is any more than being the last survivor of a dead planet, but okay), then Wonder Woman, while being the protagonist, maybe shouldn't be the main viewpoint character. A human character with a human background would probably serve better to have the story focus on, possibly a Cassie Sandsmark type who has no powers and is (as far as she knows) human. Make her interesting, use her as a foil for Diana and compare/contrast their views on being a strong woman and how they handle associated scenarios. As examples, I'm thinking of Angel or Buffy as shows. Angel and Buffy are outside normal experience, but you have tough, capable supporting characters who provide needed support and focus for those protagonists. As for explaining her origin, it could be revealed slowly and subtly, in pieces. Add mystery. Maybe have her say it to a character and pose it as a joke or a lie, but it's eventually revealed to be true. Maybe she herself doesn't know the reality of it, a twist used in the New 52 series. A mystery like that would keep things very interesting.

As for costume design, I'd go with something that echoes the comics but looks practical. Even more practical than Green Arrow in Arrow, if possible. Rahzahh's design is great, though I would go with long hair, which seems more iconic. Make it look durable, the exact opposite of Palicki's suit.

Tone? I would like something like Arrow but with more mystery and real humor. I'm thinking Buffy again. Even something like Lost, which was suspenseful, highly mysterious, exotic, but laced with emotion and humor. Create a team of supporting characters than make sense and use them to reflect all of the aspects of Diana's character. Keep it present day for maximum believability, possibly the very moment she leaves Paradise Island. A love story could make sense but should not be the focus of the overarching story; I can see a triangle with Steve Trevor (human) and a fellow super-powered person being interesting.

Budget. This is the real problem. Diana may need to start out de-powered, or at least not be able to fly. I don't think a flying hero will work on TV just yet, for budgetary and believablilty reasons. Strength, bracelets, lasso, maybe some other abilities created just for television. Maybe she could earn a piece of her suit every season, much like Clark discovering a new power every season. Her classic cast of Hippolyta/Ares/Artemis, etc. should be included, but maybe appear as their New 52 versions: human-like in appearance and behavior, yet exotic and strange.

It can be done. It just needs a unique take on being a superhero, which the Kelley pilot didn't have at all.


Green Lantern: 23% on Rotten Tomatoes

146 reviews counted.  
That's pretty much what I was afraid of.  Too bad.  GL is my personal favorite DC hero.  I am fairly surprised that this came from the guy who did Casino Royale, which I loved.  
This is one movie that will probably deserve a re-make.  (I never understood why GOOD movies are re-made.  Re-make the crappy ones into better versions.)


Is it really so hard to accept new interpretations of characters?

I've written a few responses about this lately and it's really confusing me.   If someone could rationally explain it, I'd be grateful.
If a new interpretation of a character doesn't conform to the precise continuity and/or details of that character that have been established elsewhere, usually by entirely different writers and artists, why is that a basis to dislike it?
This comes up all the time and I'm beginning to believe self-described "die-hard" fans require continuity to live, much like oxygen.   I've seen complaints about perfectly decent interpretations of popular characters, whether that's in a rebooted comic (take your pick), a television show (Smallville), or movie (any of them, but Nolan's Batman Begins series and X-Men: First Class come to mind) where the complaints have solely to do with how that interpretation matches up to some previous one, even though there are no other valid complaints against the quality or validity of the specific interpretation. 
If these characters and stories were real, then I can see how witnessing a character take on a different origin or modified costume could confuse people to the point of being unhappy.  But they aren't real.  Characters and stories are revised all the time for many different reasons.  Sometimes they even replace previous versions and take on popular qualities that weren't there before.  I'd say that if major fans can't accept the changes that inevitably come when new writers and artists take over and add in their own creativity, then they might be involved with the wrong form of media.
Some people love the history of the characters, and of course that makes sense.  But you can love the history and still accept that continuity gets impossible to maintain over time.  It breaks and needs to be reset, both for the writers' sake and the readers.  Characters do get stale and outdated, and the good ones deserve to be updated.  It's not impossible to jump into a reboot or a new version of say, the X-Men, and appreciate its positive qualities without getting hung up on the fact that it doesn't conform to 1963's X-Men #1 in every way (or any other incarnation of the X-Men, for that matter, including the previous movies).

Granted, some interpretations just plain suck.  They're bad.  They are boring, they make zero sense as stories, or they have some other flaw that fiction of any genre might have in abundance.  Those are criticisms that make sense.  But mentally rejecting good entertainment because it doesn't mix with your firm understanding of other stories just doesn't make sense to me.