Warner Bros has released the first image of Adrianne Palicki in her WW costume for the TV show:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/129048-first-look-at-adr...

I actually think she looks pretty good, except for two things:

1. Her boots should be red, to offset her pants, not the same color.

2. Stars.

The comments are definitely running negative, and I'm not sure how those pants will really look in action, but I understand why they don't want her in a bathing suit.

It's by David Kelley, which means it has a lot of potential for being fun or being awful. I doubt it will be somewhere in between.

I've got my fingers crossed that it will be watchable. A lot of that will depend on the supporting cast and villains. The last thing DC (or I) want is a WW that disappears quickly.

-- MSA

 

 

Views: 953

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Remember, we've seen a grand total of five photos ...
True but they are the first impressions we have and they're not great ones! We can only judge on what we got so they should be trying to dazzle and amaze us. Not only the comic fans but the viewing audience should be enticed to watch this show. And that hasn't happened yet!

"I think I'm alone in not being that impressed with The Dark Knight."

 

No, you're not alone. I also thought it was overrated. All that online yakking about how "Dark Knight" brought depth and substance -- even ART! -- to the superhero movie genre, and what I got was another big, bombastic summer blockbuster. With the usual number of things blowing up real good. It was a well-made genre movie, but that was all.

 

I was appalled to see fanboys ranking "Dark Knight" above "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather" ... and proclaiming it the greatest movie of all time before it was even released.

"True but they are the first impressions we have and they're not great ones!"

 

To quote the Onion AV Club's headline: "Wonder Woman costume now slightly less awful."

George wrote:

 

I was appalled to see fanboys ranking "Dark Knight" above "Citizen Kane" and "The Godfather" ... and proclaiming it the greatest movie of all time before it was even released.

 

I think all we're saying here is that "The Dark Knight" was a great superhero movie, and indeed it was. One of the best superhero movies ever made.

I think all we're saying here is that "The Dark Knight" was a great superhero movie, and indeed it was. One of the best superhero movies ever made.

And I think what George and I are saying is that we don't agree with that assessment. It wasn't that good as a super-hero movie, IMO. I expected something great from the reviews, and I got mostly a lot of nonsense.

-- MSA

For some odd reason, the middle parts of trilogys do seem to "drag" (for lack of a better term) compared to the opening and closing movies.

Not that a lot of middle films are bad, just that they're more along the lines of "place holders", for the lack of a better term (again).

The first film attracts the audience's attention. The last film brings everything to a (hopefully) satisfying/exciting conclusion. So what does the middle film do other than continue events from part 1 and set up (again, hopefully) one humdinger of a cliffhanger for part 3 to resolve.

I usually find it's the third parts of trilogies that are the let-downs. Godfather III, Return of the Jedi, Superman III are some that come to mind. I've heard the same about Spider-Man III, but heard it soon enough (and often enough) that I never saw for myself.
Oy, Superman III. As I've said before, I've seen worse movies before then, and worse movies since then, but it was the first movie that made me feel like I got robbed.

So what does the middle film do other than continue events from part 1 and set up (again, hopefully) one humdinger of a cliffhanger for part 3 to resolve.

As we've discussed over in The Married Life, that's the problem with our serial super-heroes. Their Part 1 (most often told in the GA or SA) is exciting, because it's about discovery and new experiences. And that last part resolves the key threads of the storyline, and endings are always satisfying (again, something current comics writers seem to miss and never get around to ending their stories).

That leaves every comic book telling us the Part 2 of the story (except Superman and Spider-Man, but that's another thread). It's a challenge when you can neither start or end the key threads. So you have to create short-term challenges that can be resolved or have events involve supporting characters who might be able to change.

The third movie in a trilogy doesn't have to be the resolution, although a lot of them seem to think three is as far as they can push it. I think the real problem is that they keep trying to up the ante, with more villains and bigger stakes. The movies start getting muddled and confused and lose our interest trying to run a three-ring circus. 

They could take a lesson from Stan Lee, who told the Galactus Trilogy and then, rather than upping the stakes yet again, he told "This Man, This Monster," a small personality-based story that brought things back to Earth. That way, he could up the stakes and they didn't have to match Galactus to feel like things were getting big.

Any time I hear about two or three super-villains being cast for Part 3 of a movie franchise, I figure things are going downhill.

-- MSA

With all do respect to Rob and Clark, Christopher Reeve's third outing as Superman was never planned as part of a trilogy to my knowledge. The first two films were successful, so it just naturally followed for Warner Brothers to make a third. But more care/planning should have went into the making of that film than was evident on the screen.

I do agree with Mr. SA's thoughts in regards to the Stan Lee approach to big events. I just wish that DC and Marvel remembered that today instead of having an annual situation, and then all the issues in between either dealing with the aftermath of the last event or setting things up for the next "big thing".



Rob Staeger said:
I usually find it's the third parts of trilogies that are the let-downs. Godfather III, Return of the Jedi, Superman III are some that come to mind. I've heard the same about Spider-Man III, but heard it soon enough (and often enough) that I never saw for myself.
...Zigging when others zag , again , I am rather inclined to find the third Raimispidey to be , if " best " is perhaps too " serious " a word , my fave rave !!!!!!!!!

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2019   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service