5' 1"? that is pretty damn petit.... looks very cute, I think it will not do well to have a mighty Amazon that is a foot shorter than her co-stars.
Obviously, size shouldn't matter, since she has super human strength and agility, but they might want her to look the part...
I have always wondered why Superman has all those muscles. If he can fly, lift trains and do everything without ever getting winded, how come he has such great muscle tone? I mean, is there any reason that he couldn't do all those things with a paunch?
With lack of attention for details, Why Not ?
- theScribbler
- Millenium Member
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: 13 years ago
If 'based just on height," Chewbacca wouldn't have to change a thing.WOW-Girl wrote:Based just on Height Chewbacca is one brazilian hot wax and butt lift away from play as Wonder Woman.
the Scribbler
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism!
If U C attractive brunette in a movie
it's Dark Haired Women Activism!
Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
Especially not for fans of hairy women!theScribbler wrote:If 'based just on height," Chewbacca wouldn't have to change a thing.WOW-Girl wrote:Based just on Height Chewbacca is one brazilian hot wax and butt lift away from play as Wonder Woman.
- Heroine Addict
- Millenium Member
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: 13 years ago
Gal Gadot is under contract to do the Wonder Woman movie and JLA after Batman v Superman. She's not going anywhere in the near future.
I don't get the OP's outrage at this casting, on the strength of one publicity shot. Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway all seemed like leftfield casting choices, but they all turned out very well.
At least wait until there's some footage of Gal as WW before calling for her contract to be torn up. Such bitterness and anger seems incredibly premature. I prefer to critique performances I have actually seen.
I don't get the OP's outrage at this casting, on the strength of one publicity shot. Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway all seemed like leftfield casting choices, but they all turned out very well.
At least wait until there's some footage of Gal as WW before calling for her contract to be torn up. Such bitterness and anger seems incredibly premature. I prefer to critique performances I have actually seen.
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
Not necessarily true my friend. I'm sure Katie Holmes had a multi-picture deal when she signed on to Nolan's Batman movie and was turfed after the first movie in favor of the vastly more talented actress Maggie Gyllenhaal. If she really comes off weak and moviegoers don't like her, she'll be replaced. You can bet George Clooney signed a multi picture deal too before B&R.Heroine Addict wrote:Gal Gadot is under contract to do the Wonder Woman movie and JLA after Batman v Superman. She's not going anywhere in the near future.
Actually, the outrage overall (not just the OP's) came well before that publicity shot. And it is well warranted; stick thin, thin resume and seriously lacking in acting talent. Honestly, in this day and age considering major stars are quite willing to join in on the fun and play these iconic roles, there were far superior choices that could have been made.I don't get the OP's outrage at this casting, on the strength of one publicity shot. Michael Keaton, Heath Ledger and Anne Hathaway all seemed like leftfield casting choices, but they all turned out very well.
In regards to the actors you mentioned above, that's just immature fanboy ranting. Keaton was established as an actor and had an edge to him, and considering Batman 89 was in the classic Burton style, he fit right in. With Burton's movies, just about anyone could have been Batman, they're so out of the realm of realism. As a traditional choice, no, Keaton did not fit the bill. Even now when I see this movie, he just seems so physically wrong for the role, too short and not intimidating at all. It was his attitude, that edge that carried him through. The backlash against Ledger was mostly due to his recent portrayal of a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. I think that was just homophobia running wild. He was actually a very good actor. And Hathaway is one of those actors who people just don't like generally, like Ben Affleck. But unlike Affleck, she was a solid choice and knocked it out of the park. (Yes, I just said Affleck was a bad choice).
Spot on, you just never know. But I do think the concern is valid. And as we saw with the Adrienne Palicki WW debacle back in 2011, some people just want to see WW on screen no matter the quality. That "well a bad WW show is better than no WW show" thinking doesn't take into account that when it tanks, Hollywood, in its narrow minded way, will decide nobody wanted to see WW anyway and will shelve the character for god knows how long not considering that the reason it tanked would have been because it was shyte. And that doesn't even begin to address the bad taste left in the mouths of the viewing public ala Green Lantern and Fantastic Four. I think fans would rather the studios took the time to do things right. But then again, when does Hollywood ever do things right?At least wait until there's some footage of Gal as WW before calling for her contract to be torn up. Such bitterness and anger seems incredibly premature. I prefer to critique performances I have actually seen.
"There's no feeling quite as exciting as that of having a helpless superheroine in your arms"
Wonder Woman -- what a casting nightmare. Somebody who has proven themselves dependable in a big production and up to the physical challenges, young enough to play the role for eight years, willing to sign a multi-picture deal that could dictate what other projects they can do, willing to wear whatever costumes they come up with and do whatever the scripts and directors call for, and cheap. And that's before navigating the minefield of fanboys and feminists and old farts and minorities and international markets.
- Heroine Addict
- Millenium Member
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: 13 years ago
Do you have evidence that Katie Holmes was turfed? Virtually all articles published in 2007/2008 state that it was her decision. (So she was not bound by a multi-picture contract.)drh1966 wrote:Not necessarily true my friend. I'm sure Katie Holmes had a multi-picture deal when she signed on to Nolan's Batman movie and was turfed after the first movie in favor of the vastly more talented actress Maggie Gyllenhaal. If she really comes off weak and moviegoers don't like her, she'll be replaced. You can bet George Clooney signed a multi picture deal too before B&R.Heroine Addict wrote:Gal Gadot is under contract to do the Wonder Woman movie and JLA after Batman v Superman. She's not going anywhere in the near future.
If there was a multi-picture contract, as you suggest, buying Holmes out of it would have been expensive unless she breached the terms through misconduct. Besides which, recasting an established character is not a decision that's taken lightly.
As for George Clooney's Batman contract, I'm not sure he did sign a multi-picture deal. Val Kilmer didn't. Even if Clooney did sign for more Batman movies, it's possible he would have had a "play or pay" deal, as with Nicholas Cage in Superman Reborn. If so, Clooney would still have been paid for the unmade sequel(s).
"A brass unicorn has been catapulted across a London street and impaled an eminent surgeon. Words fail me, gentlemen."
Katie Holmes bowed out of The Dark Knight because it conflicted with another movie she wanted to be in, Mad Money with Diane Keaton and Queen Latifah. In hindsight, not a smart move, but I could see why she preferred to work with them versus playing the girlfriend in a superhero sequel.
The whole Katie Holmes thing is murky at best. At the time, she had just started dating Tom Cruise and after they got engaged and later married, she basically dropped off the map and I too remember that it appeared in the media she had made the choice. The folks over at Batman on Film have been sketchy about the reason and have suggested that she was not asked to return. Because he was an insider to that trilogy, I tend to believe there's more to the story than what was officially reported. Taking into account the whole Scientology aspect with Cruise and that Katie was picked for him, you can bet there are a lot of things we'll never know.Heroine Addict wrote:Do you have evidence that Katie Holmes was turfed? Virtually all articles published in 2007/2008 state that it was her decision. (So she was not bound by a multi-picture contract.)drh1966 wrote:Not necessarily true my friend. I'm sure Katie Holmes had a multi-picture deal when she signed on to Nolan's Batman movie and was turfed after the first movie in favor of the vastly more talented actress Maggie Gyllenhaal. If she really comes off weak and moviegoers don't like her, she'll be replaced.Heroine Addict wrote:Gal Gadot is under contract to do the Wonder Woman movie and JLA after Batman v Superman. She's not going anywhere in the near future.
If there was a multi-picture contract, as you suggest, buying Holmes out of it would have been expensive unless she breached the terms through misconduct. Besides which, recasting an established character is not a decision that's taken lightly.
"There's no feeling quite as exciting as that of having a helpless superheroine in your arms"