What should a superheroINE movie be like?

The Limitless thread started with the idea of how the film would play out with a female protagonist instead of a male one. Looking at how that's pretty much the general thought behind a superheroine movie instead of a superhero movie, so I wonder what exactly would be expected here.

We all know that the big superheroine movies were all ... not that good in general. I couldn't watch through Elektra and Catwoman had nothing to do with the actual character. Supergirl had that beautiful air ballet scene, but the actual plot was confusing to say the least. Then there's the frequent call for a Wonder Woman movie... I'm not really familiar with the character and the variations in her origin don't help, but the fact that she basically wears the US flag as a costume doesn't make any sense. It may have made sense back then, but by now the explanation behind that wouldn't make any sense. Anyway she was discussed several times, had a new TV Pilot and was deemed not worthy of either an own movie or new series ... for now at least.

So the question I ask myself is: Were these characters even fit for a movie in the first place? Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman were all linked to a male character before the films were made - not a good start. And with her appearance in Man of Steel, Wonder Woman won't be able to bypass that in the future. What alternatives do we have? She Hulk? The problem is already in the name. Ms Marvel? Could work but I have no idea who the antagonist would be...

And the most simple alternative: Use an original character!

Instead of wondering which comic book character would be suited for the big screen we could just create the heroine from scratch. Something like that has been done before: Charlize Theron's character from Hancock for example or Uma Thurman's G-Girl in My Super Ex girlfriend. The first wasn't the protagonist, but could have worked as such (just imagine her role being reversed with Smith's) and the second wasn't meant to be a superheroine movie in the first place.

But what do we expect from a superheroine movie? A ubergirl, that's sure but what else? Most superhero movie so far started with the origin story. Peter Parker had to be bitten by the spider, Tony Stark started building his armor and even the X-Men needed to be explained right away. Spiderman even provides a good outline: Nerdy guy gets superpowers, uses them for selfish means before becoming a superhero. Substitute guy with girl and we have something we could work with. Hell some stories here in the library already qualify for that. Of course, the details shouldn't be as similar as the outline, but let's look at "My Super Ex Girlfriend" for a second. The origin story is quite similar: Social outcast girl gets power through a meteor, becomes more attractive and thus popular, but estranges her best friend (and love interest) in the process who goes off to become her nemesis. So instead of a ten year timeskip where her character flaws are only revealed later - and in a comical way - this scenario could actually be used as the actual main plot if it's taken seriously:

Have the nerdy girl be the target of bullying by an alpha bitch in the beginning, and upon being empowered she of course turns the tables and takes the top spot (good opportunity to show off her new powers) with ease. Keep the estranged best friend and have him team up with the former alpha bitch after coming to the conclusion that the main character isn't that much better after all. Maybe she has her own Kryptonite and only he knows about it. He could even use it to not only restrain her, but maybe even give the former alpha bitch the same kind of powers as her - after all every hero needs a villain for the grand finale and allows for a truly badass evil ubergirl. Now all that's missing is for the protagonist to become a better person and an actual heroine and we have all that we need for a movie. The question is whether that is the kind of movie we'd want. (Truth be told some of these ideas also inspired a story of mine that I will probably never finish)

Any ideas on that?

very interesting topic, this is the same question i have in mind; I'm agree with the idea to have a new character, that's for sure: when i will have more time I will explain more and better my plot-idea.
SHTL

Tricky question and easy one

I write a lot here and do a little writing for the screen. I have optioned superheroine scripts. am not going to say that makes me expert on it

but the easy anwser.: A movie with a female hero.

By which I mean a protaginist who tries to save the day.

The problem with a lot of inidpendent Superhero movies-is they tend not to actually do this. Same with a lot of superhero comics done in the last 10 years. Its very easy when writing today to be post modern. My Super Ex Girlfriend is a great example of that- O-Girl, isn't the hero of that movie-its a msygonistic metaphor for power dynamics. Stuff like Super though a good movie has the same problem-its about a guy as an insane fool. In Comics(and looks like TV) Powers is a good example. No one really cares about Retro Girl except as an idea.

They need to be more then an idea.

:

Cinema is good at creating characters-and taking there point of view in there story-which is what you should do here. Agian make her the protaginist. To Super Ex Girlfriend-she wasn't. Luke Wilson was. It should be from her point of vew, her rocky path.

And the path should be rocky. This isn't a peril fetish site-but it should be said-it shouldn't be easy.Even an invulnerable character cares about vulnerable things-and being cared for in return. If you note every sucseful superhero movie-Iron Man, Batman, Superman-what ever-its never quite easy.

You can make her a Nerd. You can make her a bueaty queen. You can make her a spaz, an ordinary girl. At some level she should be likable-which can be a trick in film but can be done. And give her a journey You can make an original character-or an existing one. Its not that hard-but i do think you need some sincerity.


I wrote a post that posisted-well there actually are a lot of superheroine films-Hunger Games, Divergent, Frozen coming out. You can disagree with me-but its there. They don't always have costumes- notibabbly the tend to be more reactive then the classic hero-but its there-and it probably will happen sooner then you may think.


Castor

PS Ms Marvels-- main antagonist is usually Modok- and i for one think he would be just great in a film. In comics they playoff pretty well.

Woodclaw wrote: I
By comparison many female characters seem to lack this sense of tragedy, which makes them more difficult to relate with. Case in point: Wonder Woman. Looking at WW story from this perspective she seem to had a rather easy time compared to many of her colleagues (both males and females). Think about it for a minute. Diana is a princess of a mythological kingdom, blessed from birth with superhuman abilities, who decided to go out in the world to fix what's wrong just because. I know this is oversimplyfing, but her story lacks any kind of dramatic tension which makes her character even harder to relate with.

Wonder Womans arc tends to be she is either perfect or be expected to be perfect. She exists in an imperfect world, which she doesn't competly understand but both is attracted and repelled. She has to deal with that. You say its easy-i say its very hard-cause she hasn't had experience with it. Its the buddha seeing Death for the first time. And the nature of her invulnerability is she can't slip up once.

Whether you make it explicitly Feminist as in the recent animated movie, or just emphasis the outsider quality thats there. People can relate to the outsider and expectation of perfect. And you craft your story to that.

You bring up the formulaic quality-well thats there. one of the tricks of a movie is you don't have to think to much of the next issue-you can tell a story with a beggining middle and an end. .

She Hulk is a good one. She ultra powerful, Ultra strong but looks like a monster. She comes to accept it.

Now make that last sentance your movie. Its not her being a big green lawyer- but "She comes to accept it" thats the story.

I am not sure you do A she hulk movie-she is quite frankly kind of silly- but i do think its possibe.

Ms. Marvel-she gets amazing powers--she doesn't really want. And has to deal with it. While being an adult. The best Stories tend to emphasis the fact that she wants to be responsible-while wearing a ridiculus costume.

Supergirl- is a trick becuse theres a half dozen sueprgirls- but the one you see a lot today is she wants to be normal. She wants to come to earth and just be like everyone else. But can't quite.

Black Widdow- (Becuse i am reasonably sure this is going to happen). As done in the marvel movies she doesn't really care about anyone, except general idea of the world. She has to care. intresting case becuse the obvious one-of well does she really. The best moments in the marvel movies are when shes lying. This might be a good one to break what i was saying and do it from the perspective of like a boyfriend. Make it a movie about trust.

All of these are relatable ideas which haven't quite been done. I try not to be the guy who says "women be like this" but i do think these are ideas are relatable- you can make it a pov through three acts, and make a movie.
.

Actually one of the points of my first post was that there doesn't seem to exist a fitting comic book character for a superheroine movie. Distaff counterparts can't really work for that, so as much as I'd like it Supergirl and She Hulk simply don't make sense. And if the (female) audience should identify itself with the main character, Wonder Woman won't work at all.

Hence the idea of having an original character start out as an average human being before the powers are thrown into the mix. This would bring up the idea of "What would you do with these powers?" and allows for the character to have a blast with them before reality comes back with a vengeance. As Woodclaw said, there needs to be some tragedy that makes the super to a hero. The idea I mentioned in the intro post was that the female lead goes overboard and gets corrupted before overcoming that through some means and then has to live with the mistakes she made earlier. There are many ways how that could go. For example her own arrogance could estrange her friend(s) like mentioned above, or she could be like Peter Parker and stay her hand when she could help - only to learn that it killed someone close to her like a family member, love interest or worst: family member of a love interest.

Point is that not binding ourselves to a preexisting character, there is enough freedom to make the story actually work in a movie.

I agree with the ideas expressed that the ideal super heroine movie would feature an original character, and the comments below make some excellent points on how POV and so forth should be handled, with the caveat I'd add is that she has to grow and change during the movie in a way that appeals to ordinary viewers. She overcomes, and in the end is a slightly different person than she was before, and its a change we can all relate to. That's the required universal experience of fiction that ties it to our real world -- the protagonist grows and changes based on their experiences, and that growth has nothing to do with superpowers. It has everything to do with being human (even if they aren't).

The problem with all this when it comes to the major studios is that they've invested massive sums of money to buy rights (or ownership) to the characters of Marvel and DC Comics. Its incomprehensible that they would abandon these expensive properties and come up with an entirely new character.

Which says this could only be done by smaller or independent production companies, who don't have the deep pockets for the kind of special effects that a truly great super heroine movie would demand these days.

So its a trap...

That said, the MOS movie an example of a way out of this trap. Take an existing character but approach them as a new property, which is what that movie did, IMHO. Forget previous movies, forget the comic books themselves, take the concept (and something suggesting their costume) along with a few smidgens of their comic book backstory, but basically take all the other constraints off the writers, director, producers, etc. Of course, fanboys will hate it at first, but given you are fundamentally changing the character in the eyes of many, over time people will accept this 'new character' reality and go with it. I'm hoping to see that affirmed with MOS2.

As far as WW goes, Castor's points were excellent and thought-provoking. How to make her interesting...given that she and her backstory really aren't. The solution is that she's not of this world, and won't understand it at first. While Kryptonians are shown as being very human in their attitudes and emotions and behavior, WW is a perfect, divine being who gets dropped into our raw, violent and incredibly imperfect world, perhaps for all the wrong reasons. She's always lived among order and perfection, so our messy world is going to completely freak her out, and she'll think and do many things wrong, perhaps causing more suffering than she alleviates. Then she encounters Batman and Superman, and they help her figure this place out. She begins to act a bit more appropriately (or effectively), and plays a vital role in helping them save the day at the end. We see her changing from not understanding anything that's going on, and hating everything she sees, maybe even despising men and their screwed up world, not even understanding human women, but at the end, she learns something about the human heart and the possibilities for greatness and heroism that some humans possess. As a result, she might even try to live among us so she can learn more, which would open the door to the Diana Prince alter ego, perhaps something we see at the end of the movie. That works in my mind, and so far its the only thing I've heard that does, but of course I have no idea if that's what they're writing for MOS2.

Shadar

It depends.

Fair number of characters are in the public domain-Phantom Lady is the big female one, but lots of small ones from the 40s up to the 60s-like Wildstar, Black Widdow(40s version), Nightshade, and others. A lot of male characters like the Blue Beetle, Plastic Man, Captian Marvel, Blackhawks and others.

Now none of these are huge characters-but say if you wanted to do a plastic man movie-i would say you could. I could tell you some stories here-some of which are ongoing.

There are also plenty of small presses out there-Dark Horse, Boom, Etc or just guys in there basement.

The example i often give is Iron Man-either the first or second most popualr film last year. of If before 2005 anyone heard of him except real die hard comic fans, there lying. Its important to note: Comicbook films are a huge industry. Comicbooks are a very small industry.

which is why an original character can work. But how much.

One of the problem with man of steel and especially Green Lantern is that they way over did the special effects- i know people, i can tell stories. They spent ludicrious amounts to make a completly digital CGI suit- when i see plenty of good cosplayers.. Its then the question of how much you show. I think superman fighting Zods, thats going to cost.

But say some CGI establishing shots, and maybe a couple minutese here and there? Remember most superheros have paridoxally not huge amounts of special effects. l effects can be done for modest amounts-not 10 20 thousand but say 100,000- maybe a million. Even if you wanted something big-you could do it. there are fan films with amazing special effects out there. a lot of that is work for free if you had to pay for it, you wouldn't pay a 100 million .

Then the question becomes casting, P&A-All of which cost, but there established costs. I think you could do a wonder Woman movie for a 40 million dollars. Right now i am working on a project something smaller and where looking for about a million. Which is a lot of money-but well Hunger Games made about 400 million.
These are big numbers seeking big number-these are risks yes, but rewards are great. Think ambitiously.

So i think it can be done-i am doing it myself:)

Castor

shadar wrote: I agree with the ideas expressed that the ideal super heroine movie would feature an original character, and the comments below make some excellent points on how POV and so forth should be handled, with the caveat I'd add is that she has to grow and change during the movie in a way that appeals to ordinary viewers. She overcomes, and in the end is a slightly different person than she was before, and its a change we can all relate to. That's the required universal experience of fiction that ties it to our real world -- the protagonist grows and changes based on their experiences, and that growth has nothing to do with superpowers. It has everything to do with being human (even if they aren't).

The problem with all this when it comes to the major studios is that they've invested massive sums of money to buy rights (or ownership) to the characters of Marvel and DC Comics. Its incomprehensible that they would abandon these expensive properties and come up with an entirely new character.

Which says this could only be done by smaller or independent production companies, who don't have the deep pockets for the kind of special effects that a truly great super heroine movie would demand these days.

So its a trap...

That said, the MOS movie an example of a way out of this trap. Take an existing character but approach them as a new property, which is what that movie did, IMHO. Forget previous movies, forget the comic books themselves, take the concept (and something suggesting their costume) along with a few smidgens of their comic book backstory, but basically take all the other constraints off the writers, director, producers, etc. Of course, fanboys will hate it at first, but given you are fundamentally changing the character in the eyes of many, over time people will accept this 'new character' reality and go with it. I'm hoping to see that affirmed with MOS2.

I'm not really sure that simply changing/redefining a character will make for a good movie. Sure they did this with Man of Steel, but they kept the key aspects of the character. But with the WW example: If she's supposed to be this perfect being, then how can anybody even try to identify with her? You'd have to change her to the point the character would be WW in name only. Pretty much just like it happened with Catwoman...

But mentioning low budget, I am reminded of the "Attack of the 50 foot cheerleader" movie from some time ago. The plot was quite simple and strangely fitting for our genre: Girl takes experimental serum that is supposed to make her beautiful and athletic. Works at first but soon a sudden growth spurt kicks in. Still within a reasonable size she ignores any warnings until the next growth spurt brings her into the titular range. By then another -evil- cheerleader figured out that she wants what the main character had, a giant bitch fight ensues, both are given the antidote and end of story. Now substitute size with super powers and make things a bit more serious and there would even be a general plot.

Another point that may be problematic is to have a fitting challenge here. At one point in the past, Solaris mentioned a story idea of a ubergirl that got her powers from a meteor, and would ultimately have to prevent another, bigger meteor from hitting earth. The twist would be that the second meteor is similar to the first one and would depower her on contact. In other words she can save the world, but will die doing so. The story would be her journey from an average girl/woman to the heroine that can pull off the ultimate sacrifice.
Of course, another kind of challenge would be a fitting villain. Comic book characters have a rogues galery to chose from, but an original character would require an original villain. Most importantly said villain shouldn't just be a ripoff of an iconic villain to be believable. For a heroine it would be logical to have a female villainess as well. She could be the aloof, arrogant woman that would abuse her powers in a cold way, while the heroine would have to step up to stop her eventually.
Another version could be that the story deals with two best friends who get empowered, yet take different roads that leave them as the heroine or villainess in the final showdown.

As for 40s-60s characters, I have the feeling that these may be a bit too periodical - especially considering that a movie audience will have trouble identifying themselves there.

As for the overuse of CGI... I think that shouldn't be the first idea here, super feats will require them, but it goes without saying that overuse should be avoided.

I'm all for a new original Superheroine story.
I'd skip the origin story and would just dive right into the action.
Have the story take place over a couple of days.
Have a beginning, a middle and a solid ending.
A complete self contained story.

Markiehoe wrote: I'm all for a new original Superheroine story.
I'd skip the origin story and would just dive right into the action.
Have the story take place over a couple of days.
Have a beginning, a middle and a solid ending.
A complete self contained story.

I can understand that you want to dive right into the action, but wouldn't you agree that the origin story would make it easier for the audience to identify with the character? After all, the idea is to appeal to the general audience AND us as well. THen again maybe it's just my preference to these origin stories

No origin story in Blade or the original X Men movie.
James Bond was an original character at the time and he never had an origin story.
You can always do the origin in a later movie like they did with Wolverine.

In the current Marvel Movie Universe Agent Coulson has the most screen time.
I don't know where he came from.
I don't know his motivation.
We are slowly learning little things about his past.
We do know he can lead a team, kick ass and get the job done.
That was all established in his cameos in the first batch of Marvel movies.
Just dive right in, the audience is pretty smart and can pick it up as we go along.
I can give you a list of non origin story Marvel Movie characters that are pretty popular.
Black Widow would be at the top.

Markiehoe wrote: No origin story in Blade or the original X Men movie.
James Bond was an original character at the time and he never had an origin story.
You can always do the origin in a later movie like they did with Wolverine.

Theres a line from Guy Williams i use a lot. Williams was the actor in the 50s Zorro TV show

"No one can really act while wearing a mask, so i didn't really worry to much about it. What i did was spend a lot of time working on Don Diego, and making sure he was right "

Thats one of the big challenges of a superhero movie. If you watch say a Batman movie-you will note how very little time he wears the costume-if for no other reason then it will look goofy afterawhile. It also lets them interact with people on a normal basis which is equally important. Characters like James Bond don't obviously have the problem, and wolverine in his movies cause he doesn't really wear a costume (though i would argue that the original X men was in effect an origin story for him-its about how he joined the team)

This is one of the reasons they do origin stories a lot in movies. It gets the character out of the costume, and can give hte audience a reason to care. You see a lot of short movies online about superheroines - and other then the...you know factor. one comment about them is that they spend all there time in costume-becuse of it they have an interchangability to them. You need more then kind of tough girl in a suit attacks an evil guy in a lab coat. That won't work for 90 minutes.

and not just why they have powers but why they want to help.Hero means 2 things. someone who tries to help the world, and someone we follow. If you don't establish that you don't have much of a movie

You could do other things and other versions of the idea but as been said for it to really work something has to change about them and who they are over 3 acts

.

Markiehoe wrote: No origin story in Blade or the original X Men movie.
James Bond was an original character at the time and he never had an origin story.
You can always do the origin in a later movie like they did with Wolverine.

...

In the current Marvel Movie Universe Agent Coulson has the most screen time.
I don't know where he came from.
I don't know his motivation.
We are slowly learning little things about his past.
We do know he can lead a team, kick ass and get the job done.
That was all established in his cameos in the first batch of Marvel movies.
Just dive right in, the audience is pretty smart and can pick it up as we go along.
I can give you a list of non origin story Marvel Movie characters that are pretty popular.
Black Widow would be at the top.

The first James Bond novel was Casino Royale ... and Bond isn't exactly a character that needs an origin anyway. The backstory of Blade is mentioned in the movie as is the appearance of mutants for the X-Men movies. The latter actually has too many characters to actually describe everybody.

Same goes for Agent Coulson. He's a side character in the movies, so there is no big backstory needed. The main characters of these stories however DO get their origin story. And the other question would be if Coulson (or Black Widow) could be the main character of a movie. Truth be told I doubt that. A Black Widow movie brings up memories of Elektra - a movie I never fully watched...

As Woodclaw said it's easier for the audience to follow the story if they can track down the path of the main character. You can start with the action and then deliver "how we got here" but that doesn't always work. If we want a female superhero that works, it will be crucial to know where she comes from.

The Wonder Woman TV series had an excellent origin story episode.
It set up the world she lived in and the outside world she entered.
It set up the character and her powers quite nicely.
Now I'm told that that was corny and could not work today.
The recent Cult Retro movie short Scarlet Scorpion also had a pretty fun origin episode story.
It was a fun power suit story which worked for me.
The Marvel Universe movies have introduced a lot of side characters that seem fully realized to me with out origin stories.
I'm willing to bet Guardians of the Galaxy will be action and story packed with almost no origins referenced for any length of time.
Getting back to Cult Retro their most popular character Stormy Tempest has never had an origin yet has seen lots of growth over the seasons.
In the beginning she didn't or barely talked and now later there have been episodes which were light on action and mostly story driven.
A fine balance can be achieved.

As to costumes and masks.
I blame the producers and actors.
Some are pretty vain and need "face" time and the producers want to get the most return for their investment.
It's almost like they are ashamed of the comic book roots and want to get away from them.

Personally I found the "Batman" more interesting than Bruce Wayne in the recent Batman movies and felt cheated with his lack of screen time.
I can see people angsting in civilian clothes all the time if I want to.

I believe we have ONE shot to see a big budget, live action Superheroine movie.
If the first one that comes along fails we will not see another for many years.
They will just reboot Batman again.

Heres something for fun- and i hope i don't offend anyone by it heres some stories we see on the site- whould they make good movies.

Deep Down inside-this is a very long story and that can problematic in movies-but the root idea i think could work. its a story about power currupting and does have a good 3 arch structure. This is an origin story, but its not quite a tradtional one. .

Svetlokianian Girl- This could make a fun little superheroine movie. Its a story about A woman who comes to earth on vacation and learns to care The problem is that there really isn't a challenge yet-but that could change.

Kiraling- I am not sure it would make a good movie as it depends a lot on Sciece fiction mythlogy, and a unreliable narrator-the unrelable narrator could work, but without an audience knowing what the aurora universe is i am not sure this works as film-but stranger things have happened.

Gloria- This on the otherhand could be a movie. I think you could do a lot to explain the ideas at play and the root idea- evil alien rebels, there something to. I have often wondered if theres a good movie in the Auroura Universe- and i am not sure entirely either way.

MuttenChops Superwoman stories- If one ignores the various intelectual property issues, i am not sure anyone of the stories as formated would make a great 90 movie--however i think theres something there to them and there idea. If you look at them like a comicbook i think muttenchop or someone else could make a great script with the idea.

Miss Dynamyo- would be a very dark superheroine movie- but that could work. Theres an intresting story here that i could see as an R rated movie, that i think would be a bitch to greenlit but thats not a critique. Its an origin story but it does a good job of not being a traditional one.

Viona-is formated a lot like a superwoman movie-hell the first story thats just it. This is slightly tricky in that so much of its internal to her character. However somethings there. A very r rated story.... but.

Michelles Metor Memmeto- Njaes own original character-and this could make a movie. I think you would have to streamline some of the twists and turns, but leave some of them in. The vaugely realistic world that it exists in is a lot of fun That is written in a way that suggests a modern superhero movie. It focuses a lot on Michelle as a realistic person coming to grips with something extrodinary.

Fragile Bindings-This is A science Fiction story and i think the root idea-a woman whose superpower is completly uncontrollable would be very interesting-and werildly not that expensive to film. of course you would probabbly want the current 150,000 words to be maybe your 60 minute mark.

Daylight- My own story. i will admit i wrote about 15 pages of a script before scrapping it-largely becuse well i didn't know how to convey the origin. This would be an intresting superhero movie if only becuse of how the superpowers are conveyed- which is to say there not. Whould mean it wouldn't have to be to expensive though:)

Guns of the Highlands - This is an incident in a movie-but the basic idea- a supergirl in a realistic war movie could be kind of neat theres a long history of taking stories like this and fleshing them out into full length movies. You don't see this kind of thingas much as you did in say the 1960s but its there. .

Tales of An Mazing Girl-My own story- which i will free admit would make a terrible movie. it is way to episodic. There is a root story-A Woman falls in love with another woman and the kind of mental jujitsu it involves for her that i do think would make a good TV show-but how do you fit in bits where she fights star Trek Cosplay ninjas. .

Markiehoe wrote: The Wonder Woman TV series had an excellent origin story episode.
It set up the world she lived in and the outside world she entered.
It set up the character and her powers quite nicely.
Now I'm told that that was corny and could not work today.
The recent Cult Retro movie short Scarlet Scorpion also had a pretty fun origin episode story.
It was a fun power suit story which worked for me.
The Marvel Universe movies have introduced a lot of side characters that seem fully realized to me with out origin stories.
I'm willing to bet Guardians of the Galaxy will be action and story packed with almost no origins referenced for any length of time.
Getting back to Cult Retro their most popular character Stormy Tempest has never had an origin yet has seen lots of growth over the seasons.
In the beginning she didn't or barely talked and now later there have been episodes which were light on action and mostly story driven.
A fine balance can be achieved.

I'm not sure the side characters in the Marvel Movies can be compared to the main character of a movie. Iron Man wasn't about Phil Coulson, it was about Tony Stark. He may be one of the characters that string the cinematic universe together, but for the actual movie they were side characters. Same with Black Widow actually. She kicked major ass in Iron Man 2 and Avengers, but didn't take center stage. (Note to self: Watch Return of the First Avenger)

Markiehoe wrote: I believe we have ONE shot to see a big budget, live action Superheroine movie.
If the first one that comes along fails we will not see another for many years.
They will just reboot Batman again.

In this case Lucy seems to be the one shot - and from what I can tell it's an original character with an origin story. And it looks awesome.

Btw thanks castor for considering my story for a movie. I didn't really write it on that premise obviously, but it's nice to see it considered.

njae wrote:

Markiehoe wrote: I believe we have ONE shot to see a big budget, live action Superheroine movie.
If the first one that comes along fails we will not see another for many years.
They will just reboot Batman again.

In this case Lucy seems to be the one shot - and from what I can tell it's an original character with an origin story. And it looks awesome.

Btw thanks castor for considering my story for a movie. I didn't really write it on that premise obviously, but it's nice to see it considered.

If it is i hope hollywood takes it into consideration.

Movies sucseed and fail based on scale-and everything about it suggests that its a much smaller movie then Say the amazing spiderman 2- a movie that has a budget of 25 million makes its money back much faster then a movie that cost 150 million. Luc Besson is a director whose real strength sometimes is that that he has really good foriegn distribution to films. Given what it is, it can fail certainly but true failure for it would almost be absulutue-if no one goes to see it yeah, but if it doesn't make 400 million i wouldn't think its a failure.

Also to your point: This is an R rated Crime Thriller that i am not guessing is super sold around a traditional superhero narrative. Its built around a completly original character. Which is to say if it flops, i wouldn't ban wonder woman.

But if it does really well-and looking on the web it seems to be getting some buzz----

I was not aware of Lucy until yesterday.
If this hits in the U.S. we may see a new wave come out of Hollywood.
I believe what others have already said.
Keep the budget down and focus on original characters and story and we may have something.
An origin only takes five minutes, it doesn't have to be the whole first act.

I'm with Markiehoe on the "no origin" issue.

The audience isn't stupid and it's not hard to tell who the good guy is from the bad. You don't need "origins" outside of the comic book genre, so they aren't dramatically necessary within it either. In any well-constructed TV show you can jump in and watch any episode without rehashing every episode that has gone before it. Movies are no different. You just need to tell a good story. They didn't touch on James Bond's origin until the 22nd Bond film. They should do the same with Wonder Woman. Skip the origin and just tell a good story. If the "origin" comes up later then so be it, but you don't "need" it to get the story off the ground.

I read an article from George Lucas long ago discussing a technique that he stole from Akira Kurosawa. Neither of them invented it, but both of them recognized that it's the only effective way to tell a complex tale in under 2 hours. Here's the secret...."Write Act 1 then throw it out and start the film with Act 2".

Act 1 is just plot setup and character introductions (the origin)...you don't need it! Let the audience figure it out as they go along. It keeps them engaged. It also helps your cinematic "world" seem more established. Let the audience learn as the characters learn. This isn't just good "comic" storytelling, it's good storytelling in general.

The Dark Knight did a GREAT job of illustrating this with Heath Ledger's Joker. We did not need to know where he came from, or why he does what he does, and the answer would only diminish the story at hand. The same is true for heroes and heroines. Act 1 (the origin) is only PART of the story (and a very small part). If it takes you 2 hours to estabish your character, then you've probably failed to tell a good story at all. Comic book archetypes simply don't need that much work. Heroes and heroines are not "new" concepts.

As for Stormy Tempest's origin: I know what it is, I know where she came from, I know what initially motivated her to seek justice... but it has no bearing on the stories we are telling now so it would be a WASTE OF TIME to spell everything out. Perhaps it will come up again in a future storyline, but for now it doesn't matter. Would you rather see her saving the galaxy while traveling through time and space and stopping the bad guys?... or would you rather watch an angsty monologue about how her grandma died and an alien killed her puppy and she must now make the galaxy safe for everyone's grandmas and puppies?

Would Marvel's cinematic Black Widow be more interesting if you knew WHY or HOW she became a kick ass spy?
Or would it diminish her mystique and make her LESS interesting?

Origins are overrated.

I like that... write Act 1 and then throw it out and start with Act 2.

The only problem with established comic book characters is that the origin story is part of the superhero trope. Take MOS. If we didn't see the conflict back on Krypton, would the movie be as good, especially given the tweaks to the origin story? If Act 1 had started with Clark on that fishing boat saving people on the burning oil rig, and then the government digging up that Kryptonian ship, etc., would the movie been as good when Zod and Faora showed up?

I think not. I feel the Krypton scenes were some of the best in the movie because I'd never seen Krypton looking like that before. It was a real kick to see something new. I already knew everything there was to know about Clark and Superman and Lois, etc. (although I can be 'entertained' by considering how well or poorly they handled such iconic characters), but the extensive CGI and alien imaging of the scenes on Krypton were pivotal.

Bottom line to me, the back story scenes screamed out the essential truth about Superman: Kryptonians are are really, really, REALLY alien beings. Which really gets the crucial point across to the audience. That Superman comes from a horribly dangerous, awful alien world full of people who'd kill an entire planet to preserve their race, but that Superman is NOTHING like that because he was raised by humans.

The movie ends with Kal El choosing Earth over Krypton, when any other Kryptonian ever born would have sided with his own people. He could have allowed Earth to die and Krypton to be reborn. But he's one of us now. A god has chosen to be human, despite all the limitations and misery that will bring him, not the least the end of his own race. He's now the last, but by his OWN CHOICE.

I thought that was a powerful concept in this retelling, and one the critics largely missed, other than the few who mentioned the Christ-like comparisons. It was a departure from the comic book history, but a change that I thought was very much needed to make him interesting.

Now he's got to live with the fact that he's responsible for the end of his own race, plus he's now got Earth to protect, a very heavy burden. That's why its so crucial to me to see Batman and WW in MOS2. Batman will teach him about the seedier side of humanity, the monsters in the dark, if you will, and how to deal with them. WW will inspire him to a world that could be, a higher purpose and vision, a view of what perfection could be. Bruce knows the evil that lurks in men's minds, and Diana envisions a perfect world of equality, free from strife.

Earth, of course, isn't exclusively either of those things and never will be. But this way we have a cynical voice speaking to what humanity at its worst can be, and an altruistic one speaking to what it could be at its best, with Kal El in the middle, balancing both. A man who is still scarred from his experiences with Zod and Faora and the end of his species and perhaps even his guilt.

And don't forget, all three of these heroes can seriously kick ass to save Earth. So lots of CGI battles to entertain and amaze. But the deeper theme, if they are actually handled correctly, could be interesting.

Shadar

HeroineFX wrote: I'm with Markiehoe on the "no origin" issue.

The audience isn't stupid and it's not hard to tell who the good guy is from the bad. You don't need "origins" outside of the comic book genre, so they aren't dramatically necessary within it either. In any well-constructed TV show you can jump in and watch any episode without rehashing every episode that has gone before it. Movies are no different. You just need to tell a good story. They didn't touch on James Bond's origin until the 22nd Bond film. They should do the same with Wonder Woman. Skip the origin and just tell a good story. If the "origin" comes up later then so be it, but you don't "need" it to get the story off the ground.

I read an article from George Lucas long ago discussing a technique that he stole from Akira Kurosawa. Neither of them invented it, but both of them recognized that it's the only effective way to tell a complex tale in under 2 hours. Here's the secret...."Write Act 1 then throw it out and start the film with Act 2".

Act 1 is just plot setup and character introductions (the origin)...you don't need it! Let the audience figure it out as they go along. It keeps them engaged. It also helps your cinematic "world" seem more established. Let the audience learn as the characters learn. This isn't just good "comic" storytelling, it's good storytelling in general.

The Dark Knight did a GREAT job of illustrating this with Heath Ledger's Joker. We did not need to know where he came from, or why he does what he does, and the answer would only diminish the story at hand. The same is true for heroes and heroines. Act 1 (the origin) is only PART of the story (and a very small part). If it takes you 2 hours to estabish your character, then you've probably failed to tell a good story at all. Comic book archetypes simply don't need that much work. Heroes and heroines are not "new" concepts.

As for Stormy Tempest's origin: I know what it is, I know where she came from, I know what initially motivated her to seek justice... but it has no bearing on the stories we are telling now so it would be a WASTE OF TIME to spell everything out. Perhaps it will come up again in a future storyline, but for now it doesn't matter. Would you rather see her saving the galaxy while traveling through time and space and stopping the bad guys?... or would you rather watch an angsty monologue about how her grandma died and an alien killed her puppy and she must now make the galaxy safe for everyone's grandmas and puppies?

Would Marvel's cinematic Black Widow be more interesting if you knew WHY or HOW she became a kick ass spy?
Or would it diminish her mystique and make her LESS interesting?

Origins are overrated.

HeroineFX wrote: I'm with Markiehoe on the "no origin" issue.


I read an article from George Lucas long ago discussing a technique that he stole from Akira Kurosawa. Neither of them invented it, but both of them recognized that it's the only effective way to tell a complex tale in under 2 hours. Here's the secret...."Write Act 1 then throw it out and start the film with Act 2".

Act 1 is just plot setup and character introductions (the origin)...you don't need it! Let the audience figure it out as they go along. It keeps them engaged. It also helps your cinematic "world" seem more established. Let the audience learn as the characters learn. This isn't just good "comic" storytelling, it's good storytelling in general.

The Dark Knight did a GREAT job of illustrating this with Heath Ledger's Joker. We did not need to know where he came from, or why he does what he does, and the answer would only diminish the story at hand. The same is true for heroes and heroines. Act 1 (the origin) is only PART of the story (and a very small part). If it takes you 2 hours to estabish your character, then you've probably failed to tell a good story at all. Comic book archetypes simply don't need that much work. Heroes and heroines are not "new" concepts.

As for Stormy Tempest's origin: I know what it is, I know where she came from, I know what initially motivated her to seek justice... but it has no bearing on the stories we are telling now so it would be a WASTE OF TIME to spell everything out. Perhaps it will come up again in a future storyline, but for now it doesn't matter. Would you rather see her saving the galaxy while traveling through time and space and stopping the bad guys?... or would you rather watch an angsty monologue about how her grandma died and an alien killed her puppy and she must now make the galaxy safe for everyone's grandmas and puppies?

Would Marvel's cinematic Black Widow be more interesting if you knew WHY or HOW she became a kick ass spy?
Or would it diminish her mystique and make her LESS interesting?

Origins are overrated.

Depends on how you define origin.

you mentioned George Lucas- who does tend to start his stories late...but that doesn't mean its not there,

Star Wars(okay the new hope) starts with a giant space battle, fighting and Princess leia who we don't really know being captured by Darth Vadder.

It then doesn't go to trench runs on the DeathStar.

It then spends about 40 minutes setting up in fairly long detail of who Luke Skywalker is and what his story is. Hes a bit winny at times and i know a lot of people don't like him., but it is kinda his story. It also sets up who R2 and C3PO are and there even more smaller characters- it doesn't tell us there orgins but there relationship. It does setup the basic version of superpowers are in the universe(the force) but more on hes a guy who wants to get out of this place. It takes its time. I have heard Lucas say that one of the things about the first movie is that the first act he thinks is kind of long. But it has its place.

And becuse of it the trench run stuff has meaning. You care about him and the other characters.

Now to clarify-you don't need "radioactive metors" or "industrial parent killers" or anything like that. but it does help to spend a little time iwth the characters if you want to understand them, when there not blowing stuff or fighting I was thinking of 1989s Batman Movie-which does have an origin story brief towards the end of the second act. However mainly Instead it focuses a lot on the introduction of a Vikki Vale to Both Batman and Wayne- which is it self a kind of origin. its the start of a relationship. Micheal Keaton is a great actor and he really sold a quirky guy who wants to make contact with someone-but well.... which made Batman More intresting.

You saw something similar to this in Iron man 2 for Black Widdow. I agree we don't need to know to much about Russia or any of that stuff-However in Iron Man 2 she starts off as a lawyer they bring in, who maybe a little more then she appears However up the "more then she appears" for the rest of the movie. This kind of functions as an origin story for her to a degree. Its not really her story- but it is a story to introduce her. Even though we never get a great idea of who she is and what shes really thinking(other then onescene when she gives devil eyes to Happy Hogan when hes watching her change into her costume). If you where to do a feature about her, you would want to give her more then that- but what is there works.

You bring up the Joker in DK- and that is a point-i would also comment that they kind of make his lack of an origin an origin. He tells conflicting stories. No one knows his finger prints-etc. .Whats more they setup the idea that he is always the joker. He doesn't take off his makeup and underneat hes a proctologist- hes a man with no friends, no family nothing. Hes just the joker 24 hours a day. This isn't an origin-but it tells us who he is. He is a force of Chaos in the world. And it works. And you would note: Heath Ledger Won best "Supporting" Actor. He doesn't have that much screen time probabbly on purpose.

I can tell from one of my own stories- I wrote Tales of an 'Mazing Girl. I wrote 42 stories -the second to the last is the origin story, and it only spend a couple of pargraphs on it. However as anyone can tell it spends a fuck load of time setting up who Sarah Jennings is, her various relationships her day job in the entertainment industry, her desires to participate in illegal underground Arm Wrestling tournaments, how she has parties to clean her apartment, and a lot of detail about her well everyday life. in particular the first story is just her at San Diego Comic-Con in which she wears not her own costume but the most half assed cosplay imaginable. I did it because i thought that would make interesting the stuff when she does put her costume on, and create a comic spin on the idea of the most powerful superhero in the world, being kind of a flake-albeit one who means well.

Which is i guess the thing. You need to degree to make us care a little bit about the people in the story- thats what i kind of mean by origin. thats the important bit-you do need to get saving the galaxy etc-. That can be tricky. You can't just put someone in a super suit and expect us to care all that much.

For your kind of Videos-its tricker-your doing sorts don't have that much time- can't really introduce side characters- so i can inderstand the impulse to get to the good stuff-but for like a feature that's very important.

but my thoughts.

Castor

To Castor's point... starting off by showing relationships is more important than belaboring an origin story, or so I interpreted his comments. In almost all cases, I agree. Once the reader cares enough about a character, then they will be interested in bits and pieces of their origin story. But no need to just lay it out.

As in real life, we don't meet people and then listen to a story of their life (well, non boorish people, that is). We get to know them and then over time, and in drips and drabs, we learn some things about their past as it influences the present. It rounds out our understanding of people, but you can have acquaintances and casual friends and know little or nothing of their origin. It's only close friends who open up that way.

Same goes with characters. You want the reader to see them as someone they'd like to have as a close friend (or avoid as a dangerous enemy). But that takes time. Something short stories cannot do, but which makes novel-length serial stories, ala Tales of 'Mazing Girl, all the more interesting.

Shadar