Hollywood Babble On & On #612: What Can A Lion Do?

Welcome to the show folks...

Today we're going to look at options, specifically the options facing the once venerable Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer movie. I think I've written more posts about MGM than MGM's released movies in theaters this decade, but I'm doing it again.

Why?

2 reasons.

1. MGM used to be the biggest game in town, boasting "more stars than the heavens" and many of the biggest and best films of Hollywood's golden age. That has to mean something, and even if it doesn't...

2. The movie needs as many viable competitors it can to survive as a business. Consolidation, synergy, and all those other crap buzzwords MBAs shit out to justify their existence have done more to make films blander, costlier, and downright stupider than ever before.

But there's a problem.

MGM has around $4 billion in debt hanging around it like a pair of cement shoes during one of Albert Anastasia's "fishing trips." That massive debt is the result of it spending the last 40+ years being passed around like the corporate equivalent of a spliff at Snoop Dogg's birthday party.

It does have a massive library, made up of what's left of MGM's post 1986 films, the United Artists library, as well as the libraries of now defunct companies like Orion, Polygram Filmed Entertainment, and American International Pictures. This brings in a couple of hundred million a year, but it's not enough to pay off the debt to anyone's satisfaction, and finance the fresh productions MGM needs.

So what can MGM do?

Right now it has 2 options.

THE SPYGLASS PLAN

Spyglass Entertaiment's plan is for MGM to declare bankruptcy, which is happening, the bondholders then trade their debt for ownership, and the company is restructured into a production only entity, jettisoning its marketing and distribution arms. Future productions would be mostly aimed at TV, and theatrical features would need to find outside distributors.

THE ICAHN/LIONSGATE PLAN

Mini-major/mega-indie Lionsgate Pictures is expressing interest in merging with MGM. This would combine the MGM and Lionsgate libraries, distribution, marketing, and production. I assume that Lionsgate will either absorb the MGM debt as their own, or accept MGM's bondholder-owners as shareholders in the new combined venture.

Let's look at the pros and cons of each plan, now pay attention, because this will be on the test.

SPYGLASS PLAN PROS:

1. It brings MGM's debt under heel. That debt has been holding the company down for decades.

2. It gets new productions going which are essential if it's going to improve the value of the library.

SPYGLASS PLAN CONS:

1. It sacrifices distribution, which I think is a major disaster. The ability to put your movies in theaters is pure power in Hollywood. Sacrifice that power and you are in trouble. MGM will be the red-headed stepchild of their distributor, meant to be used and abused, not respected as a full and equal partner.

2. Any money saved from dropping marketing and distribution will be gone, paying for distributor fees and for the lawyers in the inevitable litigation over profit shares.

ICAHN/LIONSGATE PROS

1. Lionsgate's status as a mini-major could make this a more equitable partnership.

ICAHN/LIONSGATE CONS

1. I'm not sure what this plan is planning to do with the debt. Will Lionsgate give shares in their company as part of the merger? Will they just take on the debt? If they just take on the debt they could end up in the same crippled state as MGM, and then it would have claimed 2 companies instead of just one.

But there's another possibility...

Icahn is buying up MGM debt like a sailor on shore leave. If he forms an alliance with the other bondholders he could put himself in a stronger position to takeover Lionsgate for himself, and get MGM in the bargain as well.

So we're going to have to wait and see where all this is going to go.

Hollywood Babble On & On #611: Another Random Snark Attack!

Welcome to the show folks...

Time for a few random snarks at the business of show biz.

THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

John Woodward the political hack who ran the rapidly dissolving UK Film Council has a new job. He's going to work for a venture capital firm Arts Alliance that was founded by a UKFC board member, and this firm also got around £12 million in taxpayer money.

Now some are outraged at this development, but it was inevitable, if you don't understand, I'll take a moment to explain.

When you're a political appointee to a job like head of the UKFC, you are there not for your ability but as a reward for your loyalty and obedience to your political patrons.

Now you're probably wondering why this is a reward, isn't government service supposed to be about, well, service?

It's about service all right, but posts like the UKFC are more about self-service than public service.

It goes something like this.

Businesses give money to political parties to help them get elected.

Political parties that get elected appoint their most obedient minions to posts where they can dispense taxpayer money to the same businesses that gave the party money to get elected.

However, parties get voted out, so the obedient minions pre-arrange cushy high paying jobs with the businesses they gave taxpayer money to, in order to replace the cushy high paying job they lost with the change in government.

Those minions then guide their new employers to direct money to the political parties that give jobs to other minions, to give money to the companies to hire the next wave of minions to replace the previous minions who have all retired to country homes and winter getaways on the Mediterranean.

Rinse, then repeat, ad infinitum. It doesn't matter what party is in charge, it just keeps on trucking.

Some call it feather nesting, I call it THE CIRCLE OF BULLSHIT!

ICAHN SUPPORTS LIONSGATE GOING AFTER THE LION

Carl Icahn has changed his position on Lionsgate going after MGM, from opposing it to supporting it. Why?

Here are my theories:

1. He wants Lionsgate mired in the MGM debt quagmire, debt that Icahn is buying up, in order to make it easier for him to later battle management for control of the company.

2. He wants a partnership between Lionsgate (which he owns a chunk of), and MGM (which he will own a chunk of under the bankruptcy plans) and try to get those chunks turned into a bigger, more powerful chunk.

How will this end?

I don't know.

BLAVATNIK'S BLOOPER?

Russian billionaire Len Blavatnik has inked a deal for his Icon UK film company to go into a financing partnership with the embattled Weinstein Company.

Oh Blavatnik, you poor bastard.

Shows that in Hollywood, history doesn't repeat itself, it gets a remake.

IN BETTER NEWS

Film District, a new independent film production-distribution shingle is staffing up.

It's nice to see people being hired instead of fired, or laid off. This company will have an uphill battle ahead of them to make it in today's market, so I wish them good luck, and lots of it.

The Horror The Horror!

Welcome to the show folks....

Egad, Halloween is just 20 days away, time for a young man's fancy to turn to thoughts of UNSPEAKABLE HORROR!

Okay.... Just kidding.

It's time to start looking at my favorite Halloween movies, and for you to look back at yours. Here's my list of fun and scary October movies in no particular order.

1. Abbot & Costello Meet Frankenstein: This film sets the template for how to do a horror comedy right. The comedy is handled by Abbot & Costello, and the monsters, the titular Frankenstein's Monster (Glen Strange), Dracula (Bela Lugosi), and the Wolfman (Lon Chaney jr.) all play their parts dead straight.

2. Suspiria: This film by Italian shock-meister Dario Argento is officially bat-shit crazy. It's extremely violent, gory, and surrealistically weird. It's about a dancer who goes to a special ballet academy in Germany, only to find out that it's run by a homicidal coven of witches. The movie is not for those of gentle, delicate, or nervous disposition because it does everything in an extremely over the top manner.

3. Frankenstein/Bride of Frankenstein: You can't have a list without one of the original Universal classics of the 1930-1940s. The films are stylishly shot, with spookily atmospheric sets, and deliciously hammy performances by all the cast, except Karloff, who humanizes his monster simply with grunts and facial expressions that manage to work their way through the heavy makeup.

4. The Changeling: Not the Clint Eastwood film about missing children, this is an old fashioned ghost story guaranteed to leave you feeling spooked out. George C. Scott plays a successful composer who moves back to his hometown to recover from the recent deaths of his wife and daughter in a car accident. He rents a big historic mansion only to discover that he isn't alone. There's a ghost in that house, it's pissed off, and it's also involved with a powerful Senator with a secret worth keeping. The film is almost perfect, delivering real scares without resorting to gore or excessive special effects. My only problem is with the ending, which seems rushed, like the production ran out of money and had to wrap things up quickly. There are some missed opportunities there, but still an enjoyable scary movie.

5. The Fog: This is the original by John Carpenter with Jamie Lee Curtis and Adrienne Barbeau. It's about a seaside town under siege by some vengeful ghost-lepers with a bone to pick with the locals and anyone that gets in their way. Despite the low budget and effects that would be considered primitive by today's digitized standards it still holds up pretty well, and has that great WTF ending.

6. The Curse of Frankenstein: Any horror film list needs an entry from Hammer Films. This film marked several milestones, having been their first horror film shot in color, the first pairing of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and sparking a late 1950-60s gothic horror revival. Considered very gory for its time, it's now milder than an episode of CSI.

7. The Howling: Part werewolf horror, part satire of the California self-help culture. A fun game to play is to spot the little in jokes planted throughout the film by director Joe Dante and writer John Sayles.

8. Halloween: The slasher film that took the formula set by the earlier Black Christmas, and took it to the next level. Forget the nonsensical remakes that tried to explain Michael Myers, because he's way scarier when there isn't any explanation at all.

9. The Thing/The Thing: Both the 1950s and the 1980s versions are good for their time and both can still be enjoyed today.

10. Deep Red: Dario Argento's classic giallo is all about a music teacher in Rome who finds himself in the middle of a murder case when he witnesses the murder of a mind reader who read the wrong mind. The plot is all over the place, the blood flows freely, and it is extremely violent. However, its manic plotting, strange supporting characters, psycho-groovy soundtrack, and hyper-stylish imagery draws you in and won't let you go. Also, when the hero solves the case, you'll be kicking yourself for overlooking the exact same clue at the beginning of the movie.

I got lots more horror movies, but I'd like to hear some of your favorites in the comments.

Saturday Silliness Cinema: David O'Doherty

Welcome to the show folks...

Time to take my usual Saturday break from ranting about the business behind popular culture for a laugh. Today, in honor of the combined Columbus Day/Canadian Thanksgiving holiday weekend, I'm showing a video that has nothing to do with either.

It's Irish comedian David O'Doherty, and he has some beefs to share...

Hollywood Babble On & On #610: Random Snark Attack!

Welcome to the show folks...

STOP THE PRESSES SOMEONE IN HOLLYWOOD IS USING COMMON SENSE!!!

Warner Bros. Pictures has decided to drop plans to convert their 2-part finale to the Harry Potter franchise into 3D.

Apparently someone at the studio had the crazy idea that the 3D conversion might negatively affect the quality of the finished film. This is especially true of the Harry Potter series, because both the conversion process, and the glasses needed to see 3D, darken everything and Deathly Hallows will no doubt have many scenes set at night, in caves, and lit only by candles, torches, and the occasional magical glowing thing.

I am surprised that a major Hollywood studio would go for quality over the fad-based financial panacea that everyone in power thinks 3D will be.

There might be some hope for Hollywood yet. Not much, but some.

MGM OFFICIALLY GOES CHAPTER 11

And water is wet.

PACINO IS THE SPECTOR

No, the venerable actor Al Pacino is not playing a 1930s pulp hero, he has been signed to play music legend/convicted murderer Phil Spector, to be made by David Mamet.

So remember Al, the key word is ABC- Always Be Crazy!

That's all for now, if I don't see you before then, Happy Columbus Day to all you Yankees and Happy Thanksgiving to my Canadian readers.

Hollywood Babble On & On #609: Comics, TV, & More Comics

Welcome to the show folks...

Time to look at some little stories, and then my little mind can offer my little opinion.... Wait a minute?

Anyway, let's get down to business.

DC: DISCOUNT COMICS?

DC Comics has chopped the price of their 32 page issues from $3.99 to $2.99.

The fact that this is big news definitely says something. When I was a kid my earliest comic book related memories was buying Batman, Brave & The Bold, Justice League, Justice Society, and World's Finest* for 45¢ Canadian each. In my youth I could get a comic book, a bottle of Coke, a bag of chips, and a night with a prostitute for $2.99. Okay, I kid, it wasn't the full night.

However, this really doesn't do much to solve some of the problems the comics industry is facing.

Reason #1. Retailers. There aren't enough of them. Back when I was spending $2.99 on comics, junk food, and wild living you could find comics in every corner store. Now, I would have to go on a 3 hour drive from my house to find a place that sells monthly issues on a regular basis.

Why do I have to travel so far to find a comic book?

Reason #2. The Physical Product. Non-specialty retailers hate, and I mean HATE carrying monthly issues. They're flimsy, they damage easily, they don't fit on their magazine racks very well, and the profit margin on them is razor thin of not non-existent.

Reason #3. The Creative Product. Comics can't attract new readers. It's a simple fact of life. People will pay to see the movies made from comics, but when it comes to buying the books themselves, it's a very different story. They go to their nearest comics shop see that the character they're interest in is featured in a dozen different monthly magazines, each one in the middle of their own elaborate multi-issue story arc that requires full understanding of a continuity that goes back, in some cases, decades. The average new reader literally doesn't know where to start.

While the price cut may help DC sales for a little while, I just think that when it comes to solving the big problems the industry is facing, they might be a day late and a dollar short.

OUTLAW OUT THE DOOR?

NBC's legal drama Outlaw has gone on a "production hiatus." Basically the network ordered them to stop making new episodes, and while they haven't officially canceled it yet, they don't seem to making any plans to air anything beyond the 5 or so episodes they already have in the can.

I tried watching the premiere of the show for two reasons, chiefly Conan O'Brien's Conaco company was producing it, and I thought he could use the support, and because the star Jimmy Smits was always a reliable and likable presence on the screen.

Then I saw the premise in action. Smits plays a conservative Supreme Court justice, with a gambling problem that the media hasn't pounced on like a cheetah on a lame gazelle for some reason. This Supreme Court Justice has one of those Ebenezer Scrooge epiphanies, learns the errors of his ways, quits the highest bench in the land, and become a street level lawyer fighting for the down and the trodden.

That's not a premise for a hit show. That's the sort of premise you sell to folks at the Beverly Hills Country Club, not at the Peoria Municipal Golf Course. Here's why I knew it was doomed to fail in the first five minutes. Even if a conservative Supreme Court Justice was visited by the ghosts of judges past and has a change of political philosophy, they are extremely unlikely to leave the court. They just simply vote the other way. Case in point, George H.W. Bush appointee David Souter, who was expected to be a strict constructionist, but instead voted with his more liberal colleagues more often than not.

And let's not forget flyover country, where the bulk of the TV audience lives. A lot of polls are showing an increasingly conservative population, possibly not as socially conservative as many expected, but definitely more conservative, small "L" libertarian, and strict constructionist than Hollywood would care to admit. When they see a character who they might have agreed with, shed all that they would have agreed with, and then claim to be a repentant sinner, they are going to feel that their beliefs and intelligence have just been insulted.

And let's face facts, Hollywood's record at handling the whole liberal/conservative divide hasn't been exactly all that great in a very long time. The audience knows that little tidbit, and they tune out accordingly. The only people who don't know this, is Hollywood.

It doesn't matter what side of the political aisle you're on, it's just plain bad strategy. That's why I thought the whole thing was Conan O'Brien's plot to get revenge on NBC, tricking them into spending millions on a guaranteed bomb.

OH STAN LEE, YOU ARE SUCH A WHORE

Former Marvel Comics mastermind Stan Lee is doing a new project, creating 30 new superheroes in partnership with the National Hockey League.

The plan is for Lee to create an NHL themed superhero for each of the NHL member cities. Then they're going to do you know, stuff, with these characters, and supposedly watch the cash roll in.

Sorry I can't share their excitement, here's why.

1. 90% of the time obvious product placement creations fail, because they lack any real creative calories being burned over a sincere passion project.

2. Stan Lee hasn't exactly burned up the charts with new creations in a very long time. In fact, I'd peg it sometime around the late 1970s when things started to fizzle out for him. He needs partners like Steve Ditko or Jack Kirby to produce the sort of magic he did in the 1960s. Without them to nudge along the good ideas, and shoot down the bad ones, he's at a loss.

Personally, I can't blame Stan Lee for doing stunts like this. He spent decades seeing others become rich off his creations. If he can't coast on his past for easy money in his golden years, then nobody can.

_______________

*Yes, I was a DC rat, still am for the most part.

Hollywood Babble On & On #608: Why Why West?

Welcome to the show folks....

You gotta love Hollywood, they never know when to let sleeping dogs lie. The latest news is that Ron Moore, who successfully revived Battlestar Galactica for SyFy, has been commissioned to breathe new life into the 1960s spy-western-spoof Wild Wild West.

For those who don't know Wild Wild West was a series about two 1870s secret service agents, suave man of action Jim West, and gadget & disguise expert Artemus Gordon, who went around the old west saving it, and the nation from various madmen and women bent on conquest and/or chaos. It was basically James Bond on a horse, and its reliance on 1870s style gadgetry was sort of a precursor to today's steampunk.

Now there was an attempt to bring the show to the big screen with a mega-budget feature film starring Will Smith and Kevin Kline that was a monstrous mega-flop in 1999. The most you need to know about that movie was that it had the same plot as the recent Jonah Hex movie, and a giant mechanical spider to make producer Jon Peters happy.

Now I think there are two ways Mr. Moore can do this project, both are fraught with danger.

1. GO CAMPY: Basically doing what the movie did, and use the show's fairly silly premise as the foundation for a pure farce with outrageously cartoonish characters, over the top special effects, and outlandish action. The problem with this is that it could easily degenerate into a 1 joke show, and viewers could tune out very quickly. The audience tuned out from the movie extremely quickly.

2. GO DARK: This is going the completely different direction. Transform the show from a James Bond spoof into a more serious steampunk/alternate history kind of show with more complex story arcs. The risk here is going too dark, and completely turning off viewers expecting lighthearted adventure.

Going down the dark path will need a lot of hard work to pull off, and they must do things like:

1. Make the world they live in believable, but show just how wildly different it is from the world we know. They need to completely separate this alternate history from real history for the audience to fully accept its fantastical elements. Set up an event in the back-story that everyone knows, and then change it up. Perhaps Lincoln surviving the attack by John Wilkes Booth, or something like that, to show how drastic the change in the course of history will be.

2. Study the history, legends, and literature, of the era and see how it can translate into this new alternate-history that's been created. Also look at the technology and science for gadgetry that is believable within the laws of this new alternate universe.

3. Don't do yet another "Confederate wants to re-start the Civil War" storyline. That's been beaten to bloody death. This is alternate history, maybe include the threat of war with a then French ruled Mexico, Russians operating out of Alaska, and the Canadians being up to something, because they're just acting too nice to not be up to something. Audiences want variety and novelty and the show has to deliver it. The American West of that era is a big prize that a lot of nations would have coveted, well, in this alternate universe they're capable of at least trying to get it.

4. Don't be afraid to do something crazy, but please no robot spiders.

While I would like to see something new given a chance, I do hope that this doesn't become the massive waste of money and resources the feature film was.

Hollywood Babble On & On #607: Drippings From The Brain Pan

Welcome to the show folks....

Today a few seemingly random stories that caught my eye.

IS SNYDER GOING TO BE SUPER?

Zack Snyder the superhero cinema auteur behind such eye poppers as 300 and Watchmen has been tapped to direct the next Superman movie, under the supervision of producer Christopher "Dark Knight" Nolan.

I wish Mr. Snyder good luck with the film, and I'd like to offer the sort of advice only a smug know-it-all bastard like myself can provide.

MY ADVICE TO ZACK SNYDER

1. Don't let Jon Peters anywhere near this movie. That man pissed away $50 million and more than decade before a single frame of film was shot.

2. Forget the Richard Donner movie. I know, it's a classic in its own way, but this is your film and your moment. Bryan Singer's biggest error was marrying his vision to another man's film, and trying to make those crooked pieces fit.

3. Don't let it be all Superman vs Lex Luthor. I know the rumors say the villain will be General Zod, but don't be afraid to give Brainiac a chance, he's ready, he's hungry, and he's ready to kick butt.

4. Don't let Superman mope for one goddamn minute.

5. Never forget that no matter what your critics say, you are still a better choice than David E. Kelly ruining running Wonder Woman.

6. No owls in this movie please.

7. Casting Lois Lane is very important. She has to be plucky, brave, but avoid being annoying.

8. If you put nipples on Superman's suit, someone will need to be vigorously and repeatedly slapped.

9. Don't try to make Superman dark and gritty. He's all about hope and heroism not exploring the grim corners of the snake-pit of the human mind.

10. Save the slo-mo to regular speed effect that you love so much for really special moments. Just because you can do it with every punch doesn't mean you should.

THE AUDIENCE HAS BEEN PUNK'D

The prank show from the ever grating Ashton Kutcher is coming back, this time it will be hosted by haircut kiddie pop sensation Justin Bieber.

My question: Why?

Oh, right, all those brain-dead brainwashed tweens who will watch or buy anything with his haircut plastered on it.

FILE THIS UNDER WELL D'UH

Peter Jackson will be directing The Hobbit.

That is, if the film ever gets made.

NOW YOU ARE ALL JUST MESSING WITH ME!

Yesterday I wrote about book publisher Macmillan getting into the movie biz, now resurrected movie producer Hammer Films are creating a Hammer publishing imprint in partnership with Random House.

Book people are making movies, movie people are making books! What's next, are dogs going to start cleaning up after themselves?
That's it, I give up.

Hollywood Babble On & On #606: Books Made Into Movies In One Easy Step...Maybe...

Welcome to the show folks...

Mega publisher MacMillan has announced that they are getting into the movie & TV business.

Basically the plan is to produce movie adaptations of some of the books their company publishes. While they are keeping their eyes open for books brought to them by writers, most of these projects will be generated in house, with the actual writing being done by hired guns who won't actually have any ownership of the material outside of whatever fees and residuals agreement they make with the authors in question.

Now let's look at the pros and cons of this idea:

PROS:

1. It could ensure that more novel get made into movies. The big studios tend to be feast or famine, either buying everything they can get their hands on, or buying nothing but a few of the biggest bestsellers and comic books from companies they already own.

2. It could streamline the development process. Even during times when the studios are buying books in bulk it still doesn't mean that they're going to made into movies. Studio development is extremely expensive, slow, and easily derailed by the petty whims of big egos. If there's a partner with some bulk, so to speak, they can keep a tight leash on their studio partners.

3. Hopefully the people running this operation will understand that some books just don't translate well into feature films because they're just too darn big. However they can translate into the sort of "novel for television" format that are used by British broadcasters, and during the heyday of the TV mini-series in the 1980s.

4. Movies and TV shows can promote books sales, books promote the movies & TV shows, and it also opens up other revenue streams with licensed merchandise.

CONS:

1. The concept of generating most ideas in house has some limitations. There is only so much a company can create from within their own ranks before their internal creative resources are completely spent. This happens way faster if the people who do the grunt-work of creating feel they aren't getting their just rewards from the company that profits from their creations. In order to avoid this a generous, and transparently operated reward system for quality work must be implemented.

2. If you deal with Hollywood, which Macmillan will have to do, you will be swimming with sharks. They will need the best lawyers, accountants, and maybe even hired goons they can get to ensure that they don't get screwed over by Hollywood's self-fulfilling idiocy. Remember, in the eyes of Hollywood, outsiders with money are not viewed as partners, but as pigeons.

3. Movies are exponentially more expensive to produce, market and distribute than books. If a publisher doesn't know that business inside and out, they can lose their shirts in more ways than one.

Hopefully, Macmillan has their best people on this project, and that they know what they're getting themselves into. They are going to need it.

Hollywood Babble On & On #605: Wonder McBeal?

Welcome to the show folks...

If you have an internet connection then you've probably already heard that TV producer David E. Kelly has received the green-light on a TV series based on the DC Comics character Wonder Woman. If you don't have an internet connection HOW THE HELL ARE YOU READING THIS BLOG?

But back to my main topic, this isn't the first time Wonder Woman has graced the small screen. In fact the curvaceous Lynda Carter donned the star-spangled satin hot-pants back in the late 1970s as many eternally young boys above a certain numerical, but not emotional, age may remember....

Of course the first thing I thought when I heard Kelley was taking on the franchise was that Wonder Woman was going to be retconned from an Amazonian warrior princess with super powers who fights crime into an anorexic big city lawyer who whines about being single while taking on cases involving quirky, and annoying characters.

This surprise announcement comes after years, and I mean YEARS, of development hell for a feature film adaptation from writer-director Joss Whedon. Whedon, who created Buffy The Vampire Slayer, among other cult shows is considered the best man to call when you're looking to capture a kick-butt female hero on film. Also Wonder Woman's position in the cultural lexicon could have been just what Whedon needed to leap from cult favorite to mainstream appeal.

Sadly, he was ultimately hounded from the project by the indecision and interference of the then overly complicated Warner Bros./DC Comics development bureaucracy, and rumors of disapproval from the estate of Wonder Woman's creator/psychologist/inventor/bondage enthusiast William Moulton-Marston who managed to still hold some sway on how the character is treated.

Whedon is now helming the mega-comic adaptation of The Avengers for Marvel, and Wonder Woman is now in the hands of David E. Kelley.

So let's look at the pros and cons of David E. Kelley when it comes to adapting Wonder Woman.

PROS:

1. David E. Kelley has a long track record with many successful shows going back to the early 90s.

2. David E. Kelley's track record and clout with the major broadcast networks combined with the bulk of the Time-Warner-DC empire could ensure that the series, if it goes ahead, isn't lost in the network shuffle.

CONS:

1. Kelley has no track record with this sort of genre. He has no experience or perceived interest in science fiction, fantasy, comic books, or action-adventure. If he's a closet comic geek, he's extremely good at keeping it secret. The bulk of his shows are essentially pseudo-comedic soap operas draped in the trappings of the law.

2. Kelley's shows have a habit of exploding onto the scene in a blaze of hype and high ratings, then fade out in the second or third season, until no one cares, possibly Kelley included. Some are canceled outright after that, but a few remain on the air for a couple more seasons after that like a limpet, becoming more outlandish and silly, until someone at the networks works up the courage to bring down the axe.

3. Kelley's penchant for super-skinny actresses may make it near impossible to fill Lynda Carter's red and gold bustier by any definition of the word. Wonder Woman is the archetypal powerful Amazon warrior princess. That means hiring a young actress that not only looks good, but looks capable of handling herself in a fight. I'm not sure Kelley's proclivities would allow him to go in that direction.

Of course let's not forget the big question: What about the villains?

Many times live action TV adaptations of superheroes would leave the villains from the original comic book out. There were two reasons for this, one was budget, because comic book villains required costumes and special effects of their own, and the second was uncertainty. This uncertainty came from a certain blind spot many TV writers have when it comes to super-villains, if they aren't presented as campy comedic foils like in the 1960s Batman TV series, they're stumped. So unless they're going for campy comedy, they usually stick with run of the mill gangsters, spies, and other banal forms of thuggery.

Whedon was generally pretty good with his villains, especially in Buffy, the prototype of the modern female superhero show. He made them interesting as characters while never losing their nature as a threat to the main characters and the world at large. Even his use of three comical characters trying, and usually failing, to become super-villains turned out to be a complete bait and switch, setting up a new, and more dangerous threat from within the ranks of the heroine's allies.

I fear that Kelley will take another path, either reducing the villains, who help define the hero, to campy comedic misfits loaded with annoying attempts at "quirkiness," or just forget them all together, preferring the aforementioned banal thuggery heavily salted with pretensions to the sort of social relevancy that gets producers invited to the better dinner parties.

Anyway, let me know what you think about this development in the comments.