What should a superheroINE movie be like?

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.

That's where I disagree: it doesn't really take that much time to establish who is good and who is bad and why you should or shouldn't like them when you are dealing with archetype characters. You sympathize with Princess Leia because she is under attack, and the person attacking her is clearly evil. BAM! That's all it takes. You're on her side and you want her to survive.

You are giving the origin story credit for making the character more interesting, but all that really does is add "detail". You aren't on Superman's side because he's an orphan from a doomed planet, you're on his side because he's the "good guy archetype" and he does a good deed right out of the gate. You are predisposed to liking him based on his actions, not his back story. (Ironically, despite my own predispositions, I found myself liking him less and less as the movie went on. The more "detail" they added the more they diminished the iconography of the character and his motivations in my opinion.)

The visitors to this site are gaga for Faora... why? Is it because of her astonishing and relatable origin and backstory? Or is it because she simply fits an archetype that is EXTREMELY popular in this particular community. 98% of the regular MOS audience won't be able to tell you who Faora was 5 minutes after leaving the theater... but around here the archetype is powerful all by itself and it has captured the SWM imagination simply because she fits the ubergirl archetype. Iconography trumps backstory in a two hour film.

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

But why would I care about any of THAT stuff if I didn't know she was an ubergirl? If I didn't know where you were going with all of that "detail", then I wouldn't care about how she gets her apartment clean, or her dayjob, or her relationships, or her personality.

Her archetype was the hook, not the details.

It's very easy to make people like your character, the hard part is not screwing up that initial good will as the story unfolds.

...in my opinion of course.

HeroineFX wrote:

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

But why would I care about any of THAT stuff if I didn't know she was an ubergirl? If I didn't know where you were going with all of that "detail", then I wouldn't care about how she gets her apartment clean, or her dayjob, or her relationships, or her personality.

Thats an intresting point. The idea of Mazing Girl is that to larger world she is a mostly Generic supergirl- Flying brick who saves the day. People love her, but other then friendly, not much of a personality. I write this kind of stuff and i don't think thats all that intresting. She is fucking invulnerable.

Yet the story is all about Third Person Limited ommiscent viewpoint. The readers knows whats the Slightly Egotistical, Lacsidasical Nerd girl is *thinking* . As she saving the world shes mentally mocking there wardrobe choices, or thinking about how cute her villans are and how awesome she is. There is tremendious filter to brain to mouth that is her character-which ocasoinally fails.

She is an Archetype-A sacrastic nerd girl. The idea is what if she was an ubergirl-Slightly Plump appearence and all. It tells her story-in a lot of small chunks, some of which the ubergirl stuff is secondary. It tries to make you care--cause well shes human. She has problems which she tries to fix in her real life, while balencing the duty to help people in general. Becuse fundementally underneath, the Snark she is decent.

You don't care about superman becuse hes superman to a degree-but becuse well you feel to a degree for his humanity. IF MOS does anything it does that. Now you can do that quickly. And you can depend on types-Faora is a great use of the ice queen-but you have to care a little bit about her.

Origin may be the wrong word-she needs a story- she needs a begiing middle in the end. She should have time out of the suit. There are plenty of ways to do it, but it is in the end important. If shes just punching poeple for 2 hours that's not really good.

One of the jokes of Mazing Girl- is well she hates the show The Venture Brothers- which i figured if there where superheros in real life that is one show they would absulelty despise-cause thats a superheroish show about characters who treat it for the most part like a game-of terrible people who have amazing potential-but don't do much with it.. I personally like the show fine-becuse well thats the point. Thats the chaacters they are, and does it a lot to establish them as people who are failures, but well you can relate to failure. But that show still spend a lot of time setting it up and the ultimately pointless conflict Between Dr. Venture and the Monarch.

I can relate to the idea you can just put in the "Good stuff"but i do think a good story needs more then that. And thats what i want in a film.

HeroineFX wrote:

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.

That's where I disagree: it doesn't really take that much time to establish who is good and who is bad and why you should or shouldn't like them when you are dealing with archetype characters. You sympathize with Princess Leia because she is under attack, and the person attacking her is clearly evil. BAM! That's all it takes. You're on her side and you want her to survive.

You are giving the origin story credit for making the character more interesting, but all that really does is add "detail". You aren't on Superman's side because he's an orphan from a doomed planet, you're on his side because he's the "good guy archetype" and he does a good deed right out of the gate. You are predisposed to liking him based on his actions, not his back story. (Ironically, despite my own predispositions, I found myself liking him less and less as the movie went on. The more "detail" they added the more they diminished the iconography of the character and his motivations in my opinion.)

The visitors to this site are gaga for Faora... why? Is it because of her astonishing and relatable origin and backstory? Or is it because she simply fits an archetype that is EXTREMELY popular in this particular community. 98% of the regular MOS audience won't be able to tell you who Faora was 5 minutes after leaving the theater... but around here the archetype is powerful all by itself and it has captured the SWM imagination simply because she fits the ubergirl archetype. Iconography trumps backstory in a two hour film.

I think we have different definitions of the term origin here. In the case of Man of Steel, the origin is not only the first act on Krypton, it's pretty much the entire movie. It's similar with Batman Begins, Iron Man, Spiderman and several others. The first installment shows the character actually becoming the hero with the first villain usually being tied into that origin of sorts. Later installments can deviate from that and go the traditional route of having a new villain in town.

Movies that do not go this route include Daredevil, Burtons Batman or the Incredible Hulk (the one with Edward Norton), but that doesn't mean the origin isn't explained. In these cases there are flashbacks explaining how the characters became what they were. And even here the villains tie in to their roots, some more than others. The more the villain is involved in the origin, the better the movie actually. Nicholsons Joker was the one who killed Batmans parents and he was quite the iconic villain while Batman was basically still in the beginning of his career. The Abomination was needed to actually see the Hulk as the good guy in the end. These villains make the movie feel complete and allow the hero to grow over the course of the movie. As a matter of fact they are having their own origin stories there. One could argue that the Kingpin just being there is what makes him the least interesting villain in these three movies.

One could argue that Ledgers Joker didn't require a backstory the way Nicholson's Joker had, in fact he did just fine without it. Or rather, the fact that he teased the characters and the audience by giving different stories about how he gained the scars helps define him as the personified chaos that can't be reasoned with. In other words: He didn't need a backstory. BUT: Neither did Batman. This was the second movie in the trilogy, so if you wanted to know where Batman came from you needed to watch the prequel - which the majority of the audience had. But would The Dark Knight work the way it does if Batman Begins never existed?

Similar could be said about Hathaway's Catwoman or the Black Widow. Both are introduced when the hero has already been established and the story can concentrate on the main plot.

So looking at the more successful superhero movies that star a single main character it seems logical to make the plot the actual origin story. This should also work for a superheroine. After all she needs to appeal to the general audience, not just the people here in the community. And if you say Faora is forgotten five minutes after the movie is over, then it means she's not a good example. The point is that the story still has to be appealing and make sense in the modern context. Going by the archetype, the heroine will have to fit the good girl archetype as well as the strong woman one - which is the tricky part to pull off.

If she has a kickass introduction that already shows off her powers - then the question arises on what kind of challenge and development she should go through. This is how G-Girl was introduced and it was clear from the get go that her powers would be a problem for the actual main character. The actual challenge for her would be her private live - not her heroics. Other examples usually had the aspect that the woman in question was powerful, but not invulnerable. Sometimes not even heroic. As a compromise, the action loaded introduction could feature the villainess, having her show off what the soon-to-be heroine will have to face.

In the beginning the Marvel movies were a joke until a special movie came along.
The movie Blade took a third, maybe fourth tier, Marvel character that 99.9% of the movie going public had no knowledge of and made him a star.
Within the first ten minutes you knew everything you needed to know about him.
He was superhuman and a badass who would never stop until he was dead.
We got to know him as the movie went along but the basic character never changed.
In Ang Lee's Hulk movie ....Boy did we get back story and characterization.
Man we really got back story.
Several times I drifted off and had to rewind back to pick the story up.
That movie was boring.
I don't know how a sequel was ever green lit and THAT movie was boring also.
Boring to the point where in the Avengers they barely referenced his actions.
All you needed to know was Hulk Smash.

A costumed Superheroine movie is at the Blade stage.
Everyone has a passing knowledge of Wonder Woman but just about every other Superheroine is unknown and fair game.
Use the Blade model.
Dive right into the action.
Have her meet somebody pivotal to the story and we learn bits and pieces of the Heroine's backstory through him or her.
The Heroine should be the main character though.
Have a complete story; beginning, middle and end.
Always leave the audience wanting more.

This was the second movie in the trilogy, so if you wanted to know where Batman came from you needed to watch the prequel

If Batman needs an origin to be interesting, then Batman isn't interesting. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin illustrate this nicely. You had all the origin you could ever want for Batman at that point, and the character's were still cardboard. Character development is not the nuts and bolts of a character's past, it's in how the character is portrayed and reacts from moment to moment. You can't give me a spreadsheet of background details and arrive at an interesting character. You CAN throw away the background and still have a good character though...which is where I would put my efforts in a mass market superheroine movie. Character first, not origin.

Batman's been around for a VERY long time. You don't need to watch ANYTHING to find out who Batman is. You and everyone else in the moviegoing audience knows already. The same is true of Wonder Woman. There is NO ONE on the planet scratching there heads and wondering who Wonder Woman is. She's is a pop culture icon. Historic details can emerge during the course of the film without dedicating the entire movie to her "origin". The majority of film should be spent defining her "character". I think you absolutely could watch Dark Knight without ever seeing Batman Begins just as most people saw The Avengers prior to seeing Captain America or Thor (based on box office numbers anyway), which is ultimately my point with regards to making a good superheroine film, especially Wonder Woman... don't bother getting "stuck" on her origin, just tell a good story FIRST.

HeroineFX wrote:

This was the second movie in the trilogy, so if you wanted to know where Batman came from you needed to watch the prequel

If Batman needs an origin to be interesting, then Batman isn't interesting. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin illustrate this nicely. You had all the origin you could ever want for Batman at that point, and the character's were still cardboard. Character development is not the nuts and bolts of a character's past, it's in how the character is portrayed and reacts from moment to moment. You can't give me a spreadsheet of background details and arrive at an interesting character. You CAN throw away the background and still have a good character though...which is where I would put my efforts in a mass market superheroine movie. Character first, not origin.

I didn't mean to imply that Batman needs his origin story told each time to be interesting. I just used him because the lack of an origin for Ledgers Joker was brought up - and in that movie the Batman didn't need one either. If anybody wanted to know about that, there was a movie about that. Whether that movie was good was somehow not commented upon. Instead Markiehoe used the first Hulk movie as a good example about how it's NOT done, but let's adress that later.

HeroineFX wrote: Batman's been around for a VERY long time. You don't need to watch ANYTHING to find out who Batman is. You and everyone else in the moviegoing audience knows already. The same is true of Wonder Woman. There is NO ONE on the planet scratching there heads and wondering who Wonder Woman is. She's is a pop culture icon. Historic details can emerge during the course of the film without dedicating the entire movie to her "origin". The majority of film should be spent defining her "character". I think you absolutely could watch Dark Knight without ever seeing Batman Begins just as most people saw The Avengers prior to seeing Captain America or Thor (based on box office numbers anyway), which is ultimately my point with regards to making a good superheroine film, especially Wonder Woman... don't bother getting "stuck" on her origin, just tell a good story FIRST.

I think you're overestimating the fame of Wonder Woman. If she was that iconic a character, then why doesn't she have a movie yet? Maybe it has something to do with her being created during WW2 and the whole premise of her being emancipated in an era where that was far from the norm. Bonus points for the bondage references and her costume incorporating the US flag. Hard to transition that into the modern world - there's a reason her background was changed several times. Which brings me back to my original post where I came to the conclusion to use an ORIGINAL character instead of an established comic book character. That way we would be free of origins that don't really fit into the modern time. Hulk's Gamma radiation origin is another of these things that don't fully fit anymore. The reboot used the super soldier serum as another explanation and not wasting too much time with the origin helped making it a better movie, but another part was ignored here: The fact that comic books were a lot more episodic by default (especially the early ones), making them not necessarily be fit for the big screen.

But that's the point: You need a good story first, and apparently none of the established heroines have a really good one to tell. Using an original character means you can't expect the audience to bring in any prior knowledge. But aside from the aforementioned Hulk movie, there ARE cases where the characters origin as well as the first villain were tied into one good story. We just need such a story here and have it feature a heroine instead of a hero...

I think we can all agree that a good STORY is paramount to a successful movie.
As for an origin story once again there are good arguments on both sides.

Addressing Wonder Woman's Red White and Blue costume.
In the Avengers movie there is a great exchange between Cap and Fury.
Cap: "I thought I was a little old fashioned."
Fury: "Maybe what we need right now is old fashioned."

In the recent Winter Soldier movie Cap ditches his "Modern" realistic costume and goes all old fashioned on the bad guys.
That was a great scene.

Being an American I personally love patriotic costumes.
But that really only works when it is core to the character.
Unless Black Widow goes through a MAJOR life changing event her putting on a R,W&B costume would not work.

Maybe "old fashioned" is what we need in a Superheroine movie.

There are good points all around... which is probably contributing to the problem behind the scenes.

I'm not really seeing a majority opinion emerging here. If this arguement shows us anything it's that there is no clear path. If (as a group) we had to commit millions of dollars to a final decision... whose opinion would we invest in? It's going to take an amazing script or an amazing director to generate the faith necessary to get a superheroine film made.

Either that or a relatively low budget with low expectations.