Yet Another Attempt at a Wonder Woman TV Show

[Operation:Mego]

On May, 16, 2013, it was announced that The CW still has the show in development, with a new script written by Aron Eli Coleite, replacing Allan Heinberg, who wrote the previous script for the planned pilot. Also, Geoff Johns has hinted that Wonder Woman will appear on Arrow in Season 2, marking the first live-action cross-over for DC.

[ctc]

>I'm just having a hard time reconciling what faction of the audience isn't aware of the pron versions yet

I think the nerdosphere is pretty up on things, but the average folk might not be. And I could see DC not wanting to draw attention to it for them. One drawn out trial, and slow news day and all of a sudden your product's been rebranded.

Don C.

[hedrap]

I see what you're getting at, I'm just having a hard time reconciling what faction of the audience isn't aware of the pron versions yet. The "talent" has been baked into the con scene for some time now.

[ctc]

>They stopped it because the pron can take things farther than the legit movie and not be parody in context at all, yet still get away with marketing itself as parody because the studios have lowered the threshhold to meet any criteria.

I think we're agreeing, but saying it in different ways. In a case like this, the publishers do have a big problem 'cos to paraphrase: the porn films can present the same thing, but better. The films could actually harm the books. Plus; it'd be harder for the porn version of Grey to plead parody, since showing characters from a book about sex having sex doesn't take the concept into the realm of the exaggerated or ridiculous that parody inhabits.

>They're putting the characters in visual context that can damage the brand. When pron DVD's are showing up in comic book shops, that's the quintessential case made for C&D's, because it creates what's legally called "market confusion".

That's where the argument comes. The films COULD damage the brand, although you could make the argument that they're still coceptually removed from each other. Is it a good argument? Maybe not, but it's one that a good lawer could keep going for years. Which ties in with:

>from the "look at these corporate bloodsuckers, trying to enforce their norms and mores on the rest of us"

Nah; I was thinking more from the "oh man, maybe if we don't draw too much attention people won't notice that the films show real boobs and not drawn ones!" Sexuality in one form or another has ALWAYS been a draw for the superheroes; but thay've always kept it kinda on the down-low. From Frank Cho, to Byrne's weirdly obsessive She Hulk pics, Oksner's cutsey but leggy characters, "that" cover of the 40's Phantom Lady.... damned near the entire 90's.... Sex sells, and I could see the Big Two-ish not wanting someone stealing that thunder, but being too afraid of pointing out that someone's trying for fear of the process getting pushed past the PG-13 level. That'd severely lessen their potential audience. A long, drawn out case might give the porn versions the exposure (I'm here all week folks! Try the veal and remeber to tip your waitress!) to do just that. So they let it slide, for now. Eventually they'll HAVE to do something for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but I could see them wanting to delay it as long as possible; praying that the trend will run it's course and die off, or they'll have a breakthrough hit comic come out that by far outstrips the porn versions in popularity.

Don C.

[hedrap]

In this case the porn version potentially cuts driectly into their audience.

No way. Pron is bought 90% by males of all ages. Grey's audience was/is 40+ YO women. They stopped it because the pron can take things farther than the legit movie and not be parody in context at all, yet still get away with marketing itself as parody because the studios have lowered the threshhold to meet any criteria.

A superhero porn story can argue parody 'cos they're putting the characters in a situation you'd NEVER see in the original.

Exactly. They're putting the characters in visual context that can damage the brand. When pron DVD's are showing up in comic book shops, that's the quintessential case made for C&D's, because it creates what's legally called "market confusion". It doesn't matter if the DVD has the word "Not" or whatever on the front, by DC/Marvel allowing the product to be distributed, they're effectively giving up control of their trademark/copyrights image. The average person sees pron on a shelf near the legit product is going to conflate the two brands. Wonder Woman is still Wonder Woman, especially when the name and designs are identical.

Any bad press is terrifying. Any POTENTIALLY BAD press is terrifying. Especially nowadys with that social media stuff.

I think we have differing image on "bad press". If Marvel or DC started coming down with CnD's, they'd be seen as repressive, puritans, or whatnot, and raining on other people's fun by certain facets of the film/comic/geek complex. That would effect image because the "bad press" wouldn't be coming from "how could they allow this smut" perspective, but from the "look at these corporate bloodsuckers, trying to enforce their norms and mores on the rest of us".

[ctc]

>then why did Universal sue to stop the porn parody of 50 Shades Of Grey?

They're not afraid of juxaposing Grey with porn 'cos it's already considered porn by many. In this case the porn version potentially cuts driectly into their audience.

>Just because a company stamps xxx or "not" before a title, doesn't make it parody. There is no free speech issue to be made.

Parody isn't a free speech issue so much as a fair use one. And it's complicated. A superhero porn story can argue parody 'cos they're putting the characters in a situation you'd NEVER see in the original.... and taken to a ridiculous (for the genre/characters) extreme. Is it a GOOD case? I dunno.... maybe. But stuff like this can get drug out in the courts for a LONG time.... and during that time there's a lot of attention DC wouldn't want put on their characters.

>then we're looking at a case of people being afraid of how they're company is perceived in the industry

....which is how EVERY company looks at things. Any bad press is terrifying. Any POTENTIALLY BAD press is terrifying. Especially nowadys with that social media stuff.

Don C.

[hedrap]

Re: Freidrichs.

I didn't realize that. I should have looked into it, but that's what I get for accepting Bleeding Cool's coverage without doing my homework.

As for the comic store, that's exactly what I'm getting at. By permitting the parodies, they conflate the markets.

It's the same game WWE played years ago. They would argue the product was meant for high-school age and older, but then, in the PR releases, would tout how they were the number one toy line with boys 6-12.

[palitoy]

They'll sue a borderline destitute artist from the 70's to stop drawing commissions of Ghost Rider, a character he designed, because of infringement, but this is fair game?

That is not accurate, Gary Freidrichs sued Marvel first and he isn't an artist. In fact, he was selling signed art of Ghost Rider without the artist's permission.

There may be different cases where the company has slammed artists for drawing commissions but I'm not aware of them.


As for the porn, I was pretty sickened to find a whole shelf of them in an Ottawa comic shop, they were at my son's eye level and it made me not want to go in there. I'm not a prude but if you're selling adult material in a comic shop and it's on display, I won't shop at your store.

[hedrap]

Don, that's the logical answer, but then why did Universal sue to stop the porn parody of 50 Shades Of Grey?

It's a case of Trademark and copyright infringement. Just because a company stamps xxx or "not" before a title, doesn't make it parody. There is no free speech issue to be made.

They'll sue a borderline destitute artist from the 70's to stop drawing commissions of Ghost Rider, a character he designed, because of infringement, but this is fair game?

If it was an issue of not wanting to draw attention, Quesada or Dido could call Knowles tomorrow and ask him not to cover it on AICN, and Harry would obliged because he's a sycophant, first. But they don't.

If they're not getting some action, then we're looking at a case of people being afraid of how they're company is perceived in the industry, which is pathetic.

If I had the cash, I'd promote an online, live-action crossover series of DC/Marvel characters, call it "Not WGSH", and let them drop the CnD. I don't think I'd have to get one frame shot before the hammer would come down.

Edit:

And pron parodys are not equal to fan-made projects, unless the fan is charging a fee for the project.

[ctc]

>It's a lock half of these hookahs are being pimped out at SDCC to whoever in these companies

I suspect it's 'cos the porn versions could make a case as to being parody; and the big companies don't want to attract any more attention to them then they have to for fear of splitting their audience. (Remember, the focus of DC's last reboot was stated as being for young males.) They know if they turn a blind eye for a bit the porn versions will get some press as novelty bits and then go quietly away. A court case could be very long and public. And imagine the hooplah if the porn version is officially held up AS parody.

Don C.

[supes]

Wow! She looks awesome! Maybe if we are lucky they will lend that costume to WB's to use when they finally make a movie. Washed and dry cleaned of course

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/61620

From AICN:

[Operation:Mego]

So it's safe to say that,this Wonder Woman really does suck......

Yeah, she really blows.

[kingdom warrior]

So it's safe to say that,this Wonder Woman really does suck......




[/QUOTE]

[hedrap]

C'mon - you know why. It's a lock half of these hookahs are being pimped out at SDCC to whoever in these companies. I wouldn't be surprised if their was an indirect kickback or investment since most the majority of pron is financed by private investors.

I'd love to corner Quesada or especially Diane Nelson about this.

[Earth 2 Chris]

^Yeah, I don't get it either. Guys making good customs get C&D letters, but these pornos get by.

Chris