Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon The CW's Amazon - Currently on hold
Sign Up


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Get In Touch
 Join SpoilerTV
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

The CW's Amazon - Currently on hold

Jul 30, 2013

Share on Reddit
-
Sign Up for the SpoilerTV Newsletter where we talk all things TV!

25 comments:

  1. Ghost00July 30, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    did they ever recast wonder woman?

    ReplyDelete
  2. DahneJuly 30, 2013 at 5:44 PM

    I have given up on seeing another live action Wonder Woman show on TV in my lifetime. I was a kid when the last one was popular.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RonJuly 30, 2013 at 5:50 PM

    2 years ago it was the same with "The selection" first the script, then the first pilot, then recast then second pilot and then cancelled for this years... lets hope Amazon dont go that way

    ReplyDelete
  4. Folie-lexJuly 30, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    Just put it to rest people... just... let go....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eidnoreid PillsJuly 30, 2013 at 6:51 PM

    Yeah, but this doesn't exactly bode well if there's already problems with the script.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nicolás Caballero MühlbachJuly 30, 2013 at 6:52 PM

    I want a movie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bruce_FJuly 30, 2013 at 7:24 PM

    Yep. The black hole of TV development rears its ugly head once again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pascal219July 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM

    Well this is dead in the water, which is a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  9. InvestedInYourFutureJuly 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM

    Why So Sexist, CW? Just...why.


    To think that WB a channel which brought us Buffy, would morph into something that constantly chugs out shows with sexist undertones and misogyny propaganda.





    Oh well, the bright side being that if they do NOT make any decent new shows(and apart of Arrow, they have yet to do that) in next few years the channel will finally be put out of its misery.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bruce_FJuly 30, 2013 at 9:24 PM

    "Why So Sexist, CW? Just...why."
    This isn't about The CW being sexist. Wonder Woman is a notoriously difficult franchise that has been in perpetual development hell for three decades at multiple networks and also touts numerous failed feature attempts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 12:57 AM

    I think the point is that of all the superheroes to develop, the fact they would pass on a female one for a male one with an already failed TV show (The Flash from late 90s, I liked it but it only lasted 22 eps) speaks volumes. There are lots of female superheroes they could tap that haven't already had shows on the air, for instance: there's never been a Batgirl TV show, the closest was Birds of Prey but she was technically Oracle in that version.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 1:11 AM

    There are very few (and maybe there aren't any) characters that have had as many failed attempts at TV and film revivals as Wonder Woman. Comparing Flash to WW doesn't even come close. Let's also not forget that the producers and The CW have to get the OK from DC/Warner before moving forward with any of their characters. Additionally, although she may have never had a comic book, The CW does have a female superhero and her name is Nikita.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 1:30 AM

    The only part of that that is correct is that the CW has a female named Nikita. The CW is in part owned by the WB which have partnered with DC for adaptions, so that's like saying a new NCIS spin off needs permission from Leslie Moonves, the of CBS.

    Wonder Woman last had a TV show go to air in 1975. The Flash debuted in 1990 (the first time I tried from memory and failed). Wonder Woman lasted three seasons, numerous merchandise opportunities, and ran on CBS and ABC (it switched apparently), two of the three channels everyone and their dog received. The Flash debuted on The WB, when people had hundreds of options of things to watch and failed. Those are just the statistics.

    Wonder Woman has been considered a feminist hero and has had numerous attempts to bring her to the screen because of how influential she still is. With the exception of pure speculation as to the next film WB will make, when's the last time you heard of a Flash reboot? I'll wait.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 1:41 AM

    I'm not saying this to sound like a jerk but you're making my point for me. Wonder Woman has been put in development as a series over and over and over again for decades with no success since the original TV show. There has only been one attempt at The Flash. That makes WW a much worse bet from a production standpoint than The Flash.

    "The CW is in part owned by the WB which have partnered with DC for
    adaptions, so that's like saying a new NCIS spin off needs permission
    from Leslie Moonves, the of CBS."


    No, it's not. DC is still a completely separate division and they do have to give the green light for the use of any of their characters, and in the last decade (with the management overhaul and much stiffer competition from Marvel) they have become very picky.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 1:49 AM

    Could have fooled me with that Green Lantern film. Or Justice League: New Frontier.



    And no, I'm not "making your point." Doctor Who failed many, many times before coming back as the BBC's most popular show during David Tennant's run (Chris Eccleston went a long way towards making that happen.) Just because producers/writers/directors can't get their act together doesn't mean that a show won't be popular once they do. Just as just because they get something on the air, it doesn't automatically become popular i.e. The Flash from 1990.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 1:59 AM

    "Just because producers/writers/directors can't get their act together doesn't mean that a show won't be popular once they do."

    No it doesn't. What all that failure does do is make the powers that be really gun shy about investing time and money in a notoriously difficult franchise.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 2:24 AM

    The last time it was on air, Wonder Woman was successful. It's still talked about as a "classic tv show from the 70s." The animated film DC put out in 2009 with Keri Russell in the lead out-performed the Green Lantern animated released the same year. It's not a "notoriously difficult franchise," it's a franchise with some ups and some downs, much like the Spider-Man movie from the 70s no one talks about or the Captain America film/s/ from the 80s are black spots on Marvel's record.



    The problem with Wonder Woman is that when Joss Whedon pitched his movie, there were already two recently failed female superhero films to contest with. (His being a famous recent failure.) Everything that leaked ahead of time for the attempt with Adrinana Padalecki failed, and rightly, because it looked terrible, sounded like too big of a departure from the comic books, and she is a terrible actress; not that that's stopping Nikita being popular in some circles.


    Wanna talk "notoriously difficult"? Batman had the legacy of Bat Nipples, scenery chewing villains, and films steadily declining in quality since the original Tim Burton to overcome when Christen Bale took up the cowel. Superman had a number of widely panned films, along with the "curse" of the Superman role, to contend with when Tom Welling brought Clark Kent back to television (Lois and Clark helped but was easily forgotten by most people.) The Man From UNCLE film franchise has been trying to get off the ground since the 80s. The Hulk had one widely panned film and one o-kay film before being brought back in The Avengers and becoming popular enough to have his own regular series on Disney XD.


    If "notoriously difficult" was a problem, then the one failed tv movie, one failed web series, and three failed and not screened attempts would have prevented Doctor Who from coming back.



    The problem is never the previously successful franchise, it's not listening to the fans about what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 2:49 AM

    - A success from forty years ago means little to nothing today. That's like saying The Beverly Hillbillies was a success all those years ago so they should have no problems getting a gritty re-imagining of the TV series off the ground. Also, using animation as an example is a non-starter for many, many reasons.


    - Batman wasn't notoriously difficult. Regardless of the quality of the product, that franchise makes money hand over fist in every way imaginable. Whether it was Adam West, Michael Keaton, or Val Kilmer the out come was almost always great for their bottom line. That's not the case for Wonder Woman.


    - Superman has been successful over and over again. Whether it's the original b/w TV series, the 80's Christopher Reeve franchise, the awful cheesy Lois & Clark series that lasted four seasons, or Smallville, Superman finds himself a sustainable audience and puts money in the bank. Supes is a bad example.


    - I don't know why you'd bring up Doctor Who. That show was on the air for decades. Decades. It's had a couple of false starts between '89 & '05 and then was a smash all over again. Notoriously difficult doesn't come close to describing this franchise.



    - Marvel is not DC. Marvel has been more progressive about getting their characters onscreen for a long time. That philosophy has given them plenty of failures and successes. It's easy to point out Marvel's live-action duds because there are simply a lot more to choose from. Practically all the FOX produced Marvel material is sub-par but plenty of those projects still made money. That's just not the way DC does things.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 3:34 AM

    (I'm publishing the first part of my response to tumblr http://justifiablysupernatural.tumblr.com/post/56932270930/re-the-wonder-woman-situation because it is not nearly as important)

    None of the rest of what either of us mentioned matters so here are the facts that count:

    ★ Wonder Woman is a troubled franchise...

    ★...but being a troubled franchise doesn't mean they should stop trying because many production-troubled franchises have succeeded in the recent past.

    ★ Animated series to animated series, Wonder Woman outperformed the Green Lantern, a character DC put a lot of promotional money behind. WW with a fraction of the promotion still did better. Guess which one got a live action movie.

    ★Of all the characters that have failed or succeeded, the only two the CW have succeeded in producing from the DC line are men. Yet...

    ★ ...Women have been and continue to be interested in comic books.

    ★ There is a lack of positive female hero representation in the media as a whole and the CW in particular. Nikita is not someone young women should look up to. An assassin is never a positive role model.

    ★ Wonder Woman is and has been a positive role model for decades as someone who doesn't use weapons except as a last resort.

    ★ Wonder Woman comes equipped with an invisible jet, bracelets that deflect gun fire, and a lasso of truth. She deals with real problems women face and demonstrates a positive outlook when faced with issues both real and imaginary.

    So, to get back on topic, women are underrepresented and some of us are disappointed that another male superhero should be picked over an at least equally qualified female one. If Black Canary was getting a spin-off from Arrow, we would not be having this conversation. If Kara Kent has gotten one from Smallville, this conversation would not be happening. Same goes for Chloe Sullivan and Hawk Girl. Ditto if, when it comes to people with powers, the strong female role models weren't all on male fronted shows.


    Asking for the world to chance overnight is absurd. Asking to be represented is not.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 3:47 AM

    - Where the hell did I ever say they should stop trying? WW may be a production black hole but there's still a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow for whomever gets it right.
    - Again, we're talking about live-action entertainment for adults and animation isn't relevant.
    - "Of all the characters that have failed or succeeded..." What? The CW have only given two DC characters their own show and have only attempted three. The third was Wonder Woman and they haven't let go of her yet. They just aren't satisfied with the material they've been presented with.
    - "Nikita is not someone young women should look up to. An assassin is never a positive role model." I guess by that standard Oliver Queen is just as bad.

    "So, to get back on topic, women are underrepresented and some of us are
    disappointed that another male superhero should be picked over an at
    least equally qualified female one."


    Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that female superheroes are underrepresented compared to their male counterparts. Where we disagree is that the decision to put a hold on the latest Wonder Woman project has anything to do with sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 4:03 AM

    Animated DVDs are bought mostly by adults. My dad bought it without any prompting. Most people I know who watch superhero direct to DVDs are adults. It's a built in audience. Of course it's relevant. If audience wasn't relevant across platforms than Blue Beetle would have just as much of a chance as Batman of having a film. Are you seriously going to keep arguing this? It still isn't the point.



    If you think that the lack of female heroes has nothing no do with sexism, truly 0% to do with any type of patriarchal world, we can keep having this conversation. But if you truly think it is unfair that growing up, I had no currently running female heroes to look up to with Xena ended, Buffy ended, Veronica Mars ended, with every female hero I wanted to see an ended series long before I was of an age to see them (because you can't show Xena to a five years old, because you can't show a rape scene in season six of Buffy to an eight year old, because you can't show a series with a raped heroine as the main plot point to a ten year old), then why are we still having this conversation?



    The fact I grew up without a female hero was due to a societal sexism. The fact my mother won't watch any show with a female lead without a good reason (much more of a good reason than a male lead), you tell me that isn't internalized sexism. The fact that this starts at a young age, THAT'S why it matters less that this is Wonder Woman failing than it does that NO OTHER female hero is in development. (And yes, Oliver Queen is a terrible role model. Clark Kent on Smallville which ran for ten years far exceeds him.)


    The fact that 2012 has just 37 female main characters with speaking roles in films compared to 187 male characters is a problem. The fact that men still say things like they don't know how to write convincing female characters when women claim no impairment, is a problem. The fact that women have been calling for greater representation and have been making little to no progress in the fight is a problem. So when women call the fact that they don't have any superpowered women to look up to as main characters while men have an overabundance and they choose to call it sexism, listen up as opposed to talking over the people who actually are being oppressed.



    So, are we still having this conversation because you really don't think Wonder Woman not getting on the air is indicative of a much bigger problem or are we just arguing for the sake of arguing? Choose wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM

    "Animated DVDs are bought mostly by adults"
    And straight-to-DVD animated superhero features and animated series DVD sales are a drop in the bucket compared to live-action features and series. It's a niche market and not even it the same ballpark as what we're discussing.

    "If you think that the lack of female heroes has nothing no do with sexism, truly 0% to do with any type of patriarchal world, we can keep having this conversation."
    Oh, for the love of... [pause] No. I think in the specific case of Wonder Woman, even more specifically referring to the current situation at The CW, that the decision to put a hold on a potential series has nothing to do with sexism.

    So, are we still having this conversation because you really don't think
    Wonder Woman not getting on the air is indicative of a much bigger
    problem or are we just arguing for the sake of arguing? Choose wisely.
    Do I think there's a larger problem. Yes. Do I think what happened with "Amazon" has anything to do with it? Nope. We keep going round and round about this because you seem intent on transforming the trials and tribulations of getting one specifically tricky character from page to screen into an indictment on the "boys club" culture of the TV and film industry.


    There is undoubtedly sexism throughout the entire span of the TV and film industry but it's wildly reactionary to believe that the long-standing troubles of one hard to adapt character is the poster child for that issue.



    "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 5:02 AM

    And sometimes what's a good old-fashioned smoke to you is a cancer causing plague to the rest of society. I don't think you truly comprehended what I was saying. Let's have the discussion we aren't having and put all the cards on the table.


    You, Bruce, are not a woman. You, Bruce, have no standing as to whether something can be read as sexist towards women. You, Bruce, do not have anything to say on the subject of whether this is sexist or not.



    Can you Bruce, name one popular tv show on the CW, note I said popular so already the choices are limited, that is a positive role model for young women? Remember, Gossip Girl, was revealed to be a boy after nine seasons. Nikita kills people. Vampires aren't positive role models. There are no main female characters on Supernatural. Arrow has...well...typing "Arrow female positive characters" into google only brings up an HIV positive female character. That's not the type of positive we're looking for.

    Now of the ones you named, how many are leads in their story? Now how many leading men are on the CW? Now how many times did Smallville get shuffled around until it aired? Or Arrow?


    Now, Bruce, Amazon taken by itself not being picked up is not nearly as telling as all the evidence put together is it? Now tell me, how many other female DC characters has the CW (not UPN, not the WB) attempted to give a show to?



    Then with all your new-found knowledge about the state of female heroes on the CW, can you tell me that it is out of line to take all this knowledge and want something to be done about it?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Bruce_FJuly 31, 2013 at 5:25 AM

    Aaand I'm out. In one post you've managed to tell me I'm not allowed an opinion because I'm a man and then you proceed to both expand and change the original topic of conversation multiple times to fit your point. You've turned what started out as a normal conversation into a condescending diatribe. I fully accept my part of the blame for getting us here but this is definitely not what I come to Spoiler TV for so I'm bowing out.

    You have a good evening, Robin Smyth, and I'll see you around the site.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Robin SmythJuly 31, 2013 at 5:57 AM

    Oh no dear, whatever am I to do?


    All I had meant was that in the charge of sexist vs not-sexist, it makes as much sense having a man contribute to the conversation as it does a duck. Unless you have been a woman, at which point I apologize for my misunderstanding, you cannot possibly have the first hand knowledge to contribute to whether something is sexist against women. Or to put it another way, I'm not and probably never will be black, so I have no valid opinion on what is considered racist towards black people. I can suggest that something is or is not but if someone who happens to be black says opposite, then I would defer to their knowledge and experience.


    As for seeing you around the site, it's an unfortunate reality that our paths shall meet again. Perhaps next time your comments will not be trying to say my comments are incorrect. BTW if you think parroting what I said back at me is any less condescending, you're only a little right. On a scale from one to ten, yours was an eight. I took it up to eleven.


    Bye! ⚘

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.