Movieartman: Burton did it better precisely because he DIDN'T focus on the pathology of it. He was making a comic book movie, and knew where to focus on the character's for their arcs and pathos. Dwelling on every death would have dragged down the pacing and tone of the movie in weird ways, while including it demonstrated qualities of Batman's character beyond the film (namely that he was more unhinged than he let on).

In BvS, they pay lip service to it being bad...And that's it. We get the implication that what Batman does is frowned upon, and that there should be some sort of redemptive movement in there, but there's not: in fact, after reaching what might be the apex of that arc, Batman wracks up his single biggest on screen body count. It's awesome to watch, but possesses cognitive dissonance that doesn't fit with the tone and pacing. Saying it is having a toll on a character, and then having that character annihilate a bunch of mobsters to save Martha breaks the tone.

DarkBluePhoenix wrote:Having romance being a subplot to the movie makes sense, as I know some disagree

Well count me as one of the people who disagrees. We're told that Diana regaining faith in humanity was what allowed her to get her powers back. But the way the movie shows it happening, it looks more like the act of proclaiming her love for Steve is what allows her to regain her powers. The writers obviously could have had Diana be saved by regaining faith in humanity, and nothing in the plot would have changed, but they chose to pursue the romantic route simply because that was what was familiar.
But to be fair, that was pretty much the ONLY sore spot I had with that movie. An easy 9/10, would reccomend.

They're putting out a bunch of Gal Gadot likeness WW merch and I'm fighting the urge to make a shrine.

DO IT! Don't fight your natural inclinations. Build a shrine to Our Queen!

Joss Whedon's rejected 2006 Wonder Woman script in online. Come for the poor script formatting, stay for Steve Trevor's 30 kind and determined eyes.

Here let me save everyone a click

SCENE 1

WONDER WOMAN strides forth into battle on her PRECIOUS DAINTY FEET in COMBAT SANDALS exposing her LICKABLE JELLY BEAN TOES and then she does some FLIPPY COMBAT SHIT that looks nothing like real fighting and involves literally shoving her vagina into the faces of her enemies

STEVE TREVOR: You are so brave and strong, Diana!

WONDER WOMAN: It's too bad I can't have children, Steve.

STEVE TREVOR: I am a leaf on the wind. Watch me sound profound.

I flicked through the Whedon script and found out that the invisible jet is in it ... and of course, it's partially visible to the audience but invisible to the people who are actually the movie, so Steve Trevor has to "BONK" into it in the middle of the big monster action sequence in the third act, and then there's this inspiring dialogue:

Steve: Whah! Ow! What the hell?
Diana: It's my glider. My Jet. It's invisible, I'm sorry.
Steve: You have an invisible jet?
Diana: Yes.
Steve: I thought Amazons didn't have modern technology.
Diana: That's because you couldn't see it.

... and then it goes back to the big monster thing, and so it has to be serious again.

Am I projecting or is that the same style of 'shall I pause this big serious action sequence so that they are allowed to say something silly' that Whedon has since done in The Avengers movies? I'm getting the impression he had yet to get that to land in this script.

Chuckman wrote:SCENE 1

WONDER WOMAN strides forth into battle on her PRECIOUS DAINTY FEET in COMBAT SANDALS exposing her LICKABLE JELLY BEAN TOES and then she does some FLIPPY COMBAT SHIT that looks nothing like real fighting and involves literally shoving her vagina into the faces of her enemies

Basically. It's pretty awful so far. I knew it was a Whedon script as soon as it dedicated an entire sentence to the words: SHE IS BAREFOOT.

There are enough technical flaws with the script to make anyone put it down by page 15. I slogged on to page 36 yesterday. I do plan on finishing it, pointing out the technical flaws as I go, but Whedon's narrative sensibilities aren't that much better either.

SCENE 2

STEVE TREVOR: I admire your Amazon fighting technique, Diana!

WONDER WOMAN: On Paradise Island we learn the secret technique of twirly facesitting because no girl can throw a punch even if she can bench press a cement mixer

STEVE TREVOR: Oh my, who is this?

WONDER WOMAN: This is my Amazon friend! She's a prostitute in man's world but that's okay because she's strong and independent and prostitution is not problematic as long as the prostitute is snarky and empowered, and by empowered I mean has sex for money.

I'm reading this in between tasks. I'm on page 46. There's no prostitution yet, but we do get to see Diana's "girlfriend" (labeled as such in the action paragraphs, but no real on-screen or dialogue evidence of any kind is ever presented) fawn over the idea of seeing/using Steve Trevor's naughty bits before Diana's mom tries to kill him.

Well it's a good thing Joss Whedon script never got picked up then. . . I wonder what he's going to do to Diana as a character when he eventually directs Justice League 2.

Anyways I just saw the real Wonder Woman movie.

I'll get my full of thoughts when I have a proper computer.

Long story short it's good. Discusses the horrors of war in a nuanced light And none of the humor felt shoehorned or Forced like I was afraid it would be.

You know, I'm a hardcore Firefly fan, and I think I just lost a little of the respect I have for Whedon.

Ray wrote:Well it's a good thing Joss Whedon script never got picked up then. . . I wonder what he's going to do to Diana as a character when he eventually directs Justice League 2.

Anyways I just saw the real Wonder Woman movie.

I'll get my full of thoughts when I have a proper computer.

Long story short it's good. Discusses the horrors of war in a nuanced light And none of the humor felt shoehorned or Forced like I was afraid it would be.

If at any point in JL2 Diana does flippy waif fu shit or announces that she's barren I will leave the theater and demand a refund. I'm not joking.

Thought for a moment you said "Waifu shit".

"Is a man not entitled to the love of his waifu?"- Chuckman, 2015

That was 2015 right?

It is a natural and seemly love between a man and his dakimakura.

I have no faith in the new JL movie. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Though Professor Marston and the Wonder Women intrigues....

I decided to read through that Whedon's Woman script out of curiosity, and lawdy is it bad! I mean, I didn't think the script to the actual movie was that great (my issues lie with its staggeringly woeful presentation more than anything else, now that I've had time to reflect on the movie), but at least it was competent. The structure of events was sound, the characters were easily understandable and distinct from one another, and you can see what they're trying to do. It has its flaws, don't get me wrong, but at least it's not as bad as this (thankfully) abandoned script.

I'm only at page 61, so I'll save a more in-depth analysis for a later post, but I will cover what is by far the biggest problem with the script - its formatting and description. Consider this a few pointers from one budding script writer on how NOT to format and write your script.

---

Lesson One: When describing events, locations and character actions, please make it painfully clear WHO is doing WHAT, at WHICH LOCATION and WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING. This might seem like a minor thing, but there's a difference between:

"Steve picks a tiny bit of concrete out of Diana's neck."

And:

"He picks a tiny bit of concrete out of her neck."

The difference is that this script is going to be seen by other people, who may end up misinterpreting what is being said. When said people are in charge of directing, camera, props, etc., you need to CLEARLY COMMUNICATE what you are trying to do. Otherwise, production will be held up or made complicated by a misunderstanding of what is going on.

This gets especially annoying when it comes to locations and times that are supposed to be taking place in a linear order. In other words, the beginning of x scene will take place at:

INT. HOTEL LOBBY - DAY.

But for whatever reason, when we cut to a different part of the same scene, we get:

INT. SAME PLACE - CONTINUOUS/SOME TIME LATER

If you weren't on the shoot for the first part of this scene, or maybe it's been a while since you shot the first part, or you're doing reshoots for whatever reason, you'll obviously be wondering where this is supposed to be happening and what time it's supposed to be, and will have to ask someone who does know or flip back through the script. Either way, time is being wasted and people are getting confused because you haven't correctly labelled WHAT IS LITERALLY HAPPENING.

Lesson Two: When writing your script, clarity is the most important thing to do. In other words, SAY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN AS SIMPLE A MANNER AS POSSIBLE. Avoid metaphors ("hung up like the whale in the Museum of Natural History") that can be misinterpreted by your crew, use CLEAR LANGUAGE at all times when describing an action or place, and ONLY MENTION the really important details in your script.

You CAN add descriptions if you feel a certain action needs the PROPER CONTEXT (take for instance, this brief bit from the end of NGE Episode 6 when Rei remarks about how she doesn't know what to say in 'this situation': "Rei turns her eyes away as she speaks. It would be GREAT if there was a faint air of “bewilderment” here!!").

However, it is overall best to AVOID CLUTTER, so that anyone reading the script can CLEARLY UNDERSTAND what is happening, let alone be able to read into what you are trying to do.

Lesson Three: When writing your script, DO NOT DESCRIBE CAMERA MOVEMENTS OR ANGLES. This clutters up the script like nothing else, and makes for an astoundingly confusing read for anybody besides yourself. There is a reason the phrase "a picture paints a thousand words" often holds true, and this is especially the case when writing for a visual medium such as film.

Allow me to use a particularly egregious example, pulled from a scene where Diana sneaks into a camp and confronts the general. There's a short sequence that basically reads as "Diana beats up a bunch of guards," and this is how it is explained in the script:

"ANGLE: THE TRUCK -- as Diana leaps into the midst of the men, the truck is between us and them, but the camera inches UNDER, watching feet going as Diana spins and kicks and one soldier hits the ground as the camera creeps under the undercarriage and another hits the truck, makes it shake inches above our heads as we finally see the third come down with a boot to his throat, and the camera clears the undercarriage to look up at Diana standing over her combatants, extreme low angle."

Did you understand what was basically happening in that run-on sentence masquerading as a paragraph? If so, then you need to become an interpreter for a foreign country or an English language teacher, because that is the messiest shit I've ever seen committed to paper!

Regardless of whether he was going to direct this film, Whedon wants a ridiculous degree of control over how his script is portrayed, to such a degree that he literally inserts his ideas for camera angles, shots, and over miscellaneous detail into the script. The problem is that this CONFUSES THE HELL out of anyone who is not him, aka EVERYONE ELSE.

And what if he's not the director? What if he's busy, or management decides to go for a different director while still using his script? Then the director, along with everyone else involved, is going to be baffled by the poorly laid out, meandering, cluttered script and are going to endure a difficult production SIMPLY TRYING TO DECIPHER THE BASIC PLOT AND ACTIONS.

If you feel you must communicate to the crew as to how the film should look, or what camera angles you want for a particular action, that's fair enough. But I can think of at least two better ways of doing this:

1. Use simple sentences that imply the kind of shot you want. For example, let's say you want to have a character lying on a bed, and you want to vaguely imply a feeling of loneliness about them. Here's what you could write:

James lies on his bed, staring up at the ceiling.

The ceiling is illuminated by shafts of moonlight passing through the blinds.

There is a blank look in James' eyes.

Each sentence implies that the camera cuts to focus on whatever is the point at hand, and CLEARLY CONVEYS to the reader WHAT IS CURRENTLY IMPORTANT.

2. Use storyboards. Storyboards are how you VISUALLY tell the story of the film, using only pictures to get your points across. This involves all manner of techniques known to producing artwork or photography, such as shot composition, the use of negative space, comparing and contrasting, etc. This can also be used to EASILY SHOW the kind of camera angles you want to use for a particular part of your film, and help the production crew in achieving that shot.

In short, LEAVE CAMERA DETAILS AND WHATNOT UNTIL AFTER THE SCRIPT HAS BEEN APPROVED. Or at least have someone do storyboards to get your points across.

Lesson Four: When writing a script, please please please please GET SOMEONE TO PROOFREAD YOUR SCRIPT. It is simply staggering how many spelling errors, omitted words or punctuation marks, and run-on sentences are in this thing. When you want to show your script off to someone in the hopes of getting it developed, PRESENTATION IS EVERYTHING.

Make sure it is well written and contains as few mistakes as possible (ask someone to read it in case you missed something), because the script will otherwise be dismissed as incoherent trash doled out by a talentless amateur.

---

That's pretty much all the important problems plaguing the basic formatting and descriptions of Whedon's Woman. If you think I was being patronizing in all-capping certain sentences, you're right. But there's a reason, and that reason is because YOU SHOULDN'T BE GETTING BASIC SHIT WRONG WHEN YOU'VE BEEN WRITING POPULAR SCRIPTS FOR AT LEAST A DECADE.

I understand seeing formatting errors or cluttered descriptions in scripts written by people with little experience writing scripts; people who transitioned into script-writing from fiction and never thought to change what they do; people who are eager to write but haven't yet learned the basics, let alone do it well. It's all part of the learning process, and you can only work with what you know, which isn't a lot when you're starting off in any new hobby (trust me, this happens to everyone).

But when you are Joss Whedon, a writer with at least two TV shows behind him, numerous film scripts, and the involvement in a good deal more scripts (doctoring, drafts, etc.) over the course of a decade when this script was written, I shouldn't expect anything less than good AT BARE MINIMUM from you.

The amount of mistakes here make me think that Whedon isn't so much inexperienced, but someone who has never felt the need to change what he does. And the fact that he can be so complacent and self-satisfied as to never correct himself, or run this by somebody else to see if he's made a mistake, or just take some fucking criticism to heart and work to improve himself! Well, I see that as a much bigger problem than badly written characters, incoherent dialogue exchanges, the typical 'quirky' banter, foot fetishes or anything else this man has done.

(I'd feel bad for criticizing someone for a rejected script they did over a decade ago, since writers can change over time and may come to hate their older work, but people seem pretty okay with enabling Whedon to do whatever, so I imagine he's never felt the need to change his methods and still churns out crap like this. What a tosser.)

FreakyFilmFan4ever wrote:Joss Whedon's rejected 2006 Wonder Woman script in online. Come for the poor script formatting, stay for Steve Trevor's 30 kind and determined eyes.

No offence intended if you like Joss Whedon but I think this just proves why he shouldn't be directing or writing any female super hero movies period and why they should keep him far, far, away from Starwars. Plus he always pulls out his "I'm a feminist" card when ever any one calls him out on how badly written his female characters are and how they haven't improved since he wrote Buffy.

No offense taken here. I think the only show Whedon ran that I was somewhat invested in was Dollhouse, and that's mostly because poorly written characters could be attributed to the "brainwashing" techniques of the "Dolls." (Though, Yu Aida's Gunslinger Girl manga series still handles that core concept much better, as does Season 1 of the anime.) I stopped watching Firefly after about 4 episodes, the "clever and witty" dialogue in Episode 1 of Buffy made my ears bleed, and I could only muster bemused enjoyment at works like Avengers and Cabin in the Woods. (Avengers 2 was also enjoyable, but a little too peachy coming from a self-proclaimed atheist such as Whedon.)

Oh, and Dr Horrible was neat, I guess. Can't say as though I watched any of his other works outside of Aliens Resurrected and the first half of Waterworld, both of them are bore fests.

Waterworld? You mean the terrible Kevin Costner movie? Joss Whedon didn't have anything to do with that.