Christina Hendricks & Nicolas Winding Refn Talk ‘Wonder Woman’ [Updated]

Published 4 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:26 pm,

Christina Hendricks Talks Wonder Woman Christina Hendricks & Nicolas Winding Refn Talk Wonder Woman [Updated]

Warner Bros. has been trying to make a Wonder Woman film for at least the past decade. Additionally, the most recent attempt at bringing the property to television ended in spectacular failure. Needless to say, as far as live-action adaptations are concerned, Wonder Woman is going through a bit of a rough patch.

However, her luck might be turning around. In June, acclaimed director Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) spoke about his desire to make a Wonder Woman film with Christina Hendricks in the lead role. And recently, Hendricks herself talked about her desire to play the Amazonian princess.

On the topic of whether or not she would play Wonder Woman, courtesy of Vulture:

“Sure! I grew up on the TV show, and I had Wonder Woman Underoos, and my brother had a Wonder Woman doll — sorry, Aaron, you’re exposed. [Giggles.] And Nicolas said, when we were on set, ‘I want you to be Wonder Woman.’ And I think he is such an extraordinary and exceptional director, that if he asked me to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat.”

Refn himself went on record to tell Collider how, exactly, he would approach the character of Wonder Woman:

“I think my whole fetish and my interest in Wonder Woman came from three or four years ago…My daughter got obsessed with the Wonder Woman televisionshow. The old, ’70s version. I would watch them back to back with her and really enjoyed them immensely. And I’ve always been fascinated by her as a character. I’m not a knowledgeable comic fanatic, as a lot of other people are. But I was very fascinated by a woman of power. And I couldn’t come [up] with any other great role models for my daughter to, say, ‘That’s a woman.’ Besides her mother. So I started getting wholly, completely obsessed about Wonder Woman and saying, ‘I’ve got to make her as a movie. I’ve got to make my take on it.’ And then I met a comic book writer who told me the origins about her, which was very fascinating and I began to see that myself and the creator of her probably had the same fetish of women. And then I knew that I had to make this film… if it ever gets made.”

Hendricks went on to address the topic of Joss Whedon also having her in mind for the role when he was set to write/direct the Wonder Woman film:

“I’d like to think that Joss would have cast me! I also loved working with Joss [on Firefly]. I’m excited to see what he does with The Avengers. Hopefully the stars would align [for Wonder Woman]. It would be really fun. It would be cool, wouldn’t it? I’d get to kick ass.”

On the topic of whether or not Christina Hendricks would want a Wonder Woman film to be true to its sexuality-themed origins:

“Well, I would certainly do what Nicolas wanted to do, and I can only guess what his version would be, but as I grew up with and am now married to a comic book fan, I think it’s important to be true to the original comic books, because I know that the fans love every detail and it’s very important to them. So I think it would be cool to do that. I look forward to learning more about it, actually. I should probably start reading them, so that if someone were to ask me [to be in the movie], I would be fully prepared. [Grins.]”

Frankly, this particular Screen Rant writer is more excited by the prospect of Nicolas Winding Roth directing a Wonder Woman film than he is Christina Hendricks playing the character. (Which isn’t to say that Hendricks is a bad choice for the role – she’s a good actress, so in all likelihood, she’d do a good job.)

More superhero films need to start thinking outside the box. Everybody and their grandmother was excited when Darren Aronofsky was hired to direct The Wolverine  – and then subsequently crushed when they found out that he’d left the project.

Wouldn’t it be nice to watch a superhero film that didn’t feel like a cookie-cutter superhero film (up-and-coming actor + origin + uncomplicated bad guy = $$$)? Whatever your thoughts are on The Dark Knight, at least that felt more like a film and less like a formula.

What are your thoughts on Christina Hendricks playing Wonder Woman? Let us know in the comments.


Drive, which co-stars Hendricks, hits theaters September 16th, 2011 – so be sure to check out our Drive review. When we hear anything about a live-action Wonder Woman, we’ll let you know.

Source: VultureCollider

Follow me on Twitter @benandrewmoore.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. ‘Wouldn’t it be nice to watch a superhero film that didn’t feel like a cookie-cutter superhero film (up-and-coming actor + origin + uncomplicated bad guy = $$$)?’

    No what would be nice is to watch a Comic Book Hero film (that is what this is not just a superhero film) stayed true to its Comic Book Hero roots.

    ‘Whatever your thoughts are on The Dark Knight, at least that felt more like a film and less like a formula.’

    Yup I enjoyed it as a film but still as Comic Book Hero film it still (IMO) seems lacking as it (in some areas) deviates from the source it is coming from.

    They need to decide coming out if it is a Comic Book Movie, A movie based on a comic book hero, A movie closely resembling a superhero that is in a comic book.

    Laugh all you want but they are different as we have seen.

  2. She’d be great but there is no way they won’t pick some perky talentless tweny something, because that’s the Hollywood way.

  3. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.They need to follow the comic story more definitely. Most superhero films have been cookie cutter movie just just churning them out without regard to the original story.I think the best superhero films to date in my opinion are Cris nolan’s batman films,iron man,captin America, and x men first class.

  4. oh christina hendricks. sigh.

  5. I think it totally would work! Let’s get the damn thing made already though! I’ve been waiting so long to see Wonder Woman on the big screen SO LET’S PLEASE GET IT MADE!!!!!!!

  6. Why use The Dark Knight as your example? Why not Batman Begins? Sure they had the origins thing, but they didn’t use an up and coming actor and didn’t have an uncomplicated bad guy… Oh, I keep forgetting that TDK is the new “standard” for comic book movies…

    Talk about formula, it’s like every new movie now has to be “dark and gritty” but hopefully the whole corny wannabe dramatic narration part is left out of future films…

    • Or better yet, The Incredible Hulk, which wasn’t technically a sequel but also wasn’t an origin. Obviously TDK won’t have an origin story since they already had it but this would be the first movie, don’t understand why it would follow a trend set by a sequel in a series…

    • My point was only that The Dark Knight wasn’t in the “superhero genre” — which isn’t really a genre at all, but is used like one regardless — it was in the “crime genre,” and as a film, it benefitted from that. More superhero/comic book films need to explore the vast landscape of genres out there instead of using “comic book easter eggs” like plot points. Cramming characters into the film sans character development. Avoiding any real sense of story besides “there’s a bad guy who wants to do a bad thing and we’ve gotta stop him.”

      • “There’s a bad guy who wants to do a bad thing and we’ve gotta stop him.”

        That´s exactly the plot summary of The Dark Knight. And since when is “the superhero genre” no genre at all? As far as I understand, it´s very well a genre. It started with X-Men in 2000.

        • “That´s exactly the plot summary of The Dark Knight.”

          At its simplest, I guess, but that wasn’t the only thing that I wrote, was it? That was the last in a list of things that make up the “superhero genre.”

          “And since when is ‘the superhero genre’ no genre at all? As far as I understand, it´s very well a genre. It started with X-Men in 2000.”

          You’re missing my general point. It has, indeed, become a genre. However, my point was that it’s not a very good one. It’s very limiting and formulaic. Take Blade, for example. That’s a movie that has a superhero — sort of — but at its heart, it’s a horror movie. It has style and flavor and a voice all its own. I’m not saying none of these superhero films have that — X: Men: First Class did to a certain extent as it was sort of a spy movie, and Captain America did as well.

          I mean, we can agree to disagree. I’m a big fan of comic book movies when they’re homeruns, but I think they’re growing stale at this point. I could very well be wrong, though.

          • I hope you are wrong when it comes to super hero movies going stale. Myself, I think its more a case of over saturation, than general interest waining.

            I agree that they need to shake things up and do different things. Brannah directing Thor was an excellent choice and I would have loved to see what kind of Wolverine movie we would have got if Aronofsky was involved. Personally I’d like to see Whedon’s name attched to this WW movie, but he does have his hands full at the moment.

            Yeah, there is a tried and true formula for Superhero movies, but there is one also for alien invasion flicks, or spy movies, or detective films. Was anyone really expecting Paralax to defeat Green Lantern? Or does anyone think James Bond is actually going to die or not get the girl in the end? Certain things are a given when you go into a movie. Stale popcorn if you go to my local cinema.

            The problems we all see with the superhero genre, are there for all movies, but people used to go see the superhero films regardless. Now that we are getting multiple releases in quick succesion, I think movie studios are starting to realise they need more than a big name star in Comic Book Movie to draw the crowds. I actually found Green Lantern far superior to Fantastic Four. But if Fantastic Four, as it was, was released between Thor and First Class, with Capatin America not far behind, would it have still pulled in over $330 million?

            But yes, nothing beats a homerun superhero movie. I cant wait for 2012, cause I can see at least two on the horizon.

            • Avatar

              I don’t agree. I don’t think there is an over saturation at all and to me saying that is like saying there is an over saturation of action ,comedy or any other genre. Even more specifically that’s like say there are to many films where a guy gets together with a girl at the end.

              I think it’s two things that saw the sag in this year for these films. 1. Low level hereos and 2. Low quality films.

              I enjoyed Thor don’t get me wrong, but it wasn’t a masterpiece. It was not simply the super hero formula it was the marvel studios formula. I could watch Iron Man and Thor side by side and spot so many similarities in timing and style/tone.

              I don’t think people are sick of Super Hero movies I don’t think there is an over saturation I think people are sick of super hero films being mediocre and I think an established name helps. Lets face it Cap and Thor are not exactly Batman popularity wise. Sure you can argue neither was Iron Man, but Iron Man had lots of charm and was in a way kind of fresh it wasn’t bad like so many of the comic films are and it was dark like all the successful ones are. Now though Marvel is pumping out the exact same film over and over with a different character. They are not trying anything new and are simply playing it safe making fun middle of the road flicks.

              X-men First Class had a lot of things against it not only was it a franchise that a lot of people were angry with, but it didn’t feature any recognizable characters for the general public and some fans of the comics boycotted it so it had a struggle ahead of it.

              Green Lantern was simply bad. I think it was not only as bad as fantastic four but worse. Fantastic Four had some pretty bad CGI and IMO it still looked better than GL which was just terrible and over used. Don’t get me wrong Fantastic Four was bad, but I just think GL was far worse. GL was probably the worst film I’ve seen this year. It was poorly acted by some of the actors it was terribly written. To much CGI and it was all bad. It was corny and campy 80% of the time. To much going on for one little film. Not enough character and some things didn’t make sense and came out of no where. Sinistro is bad in the comics and should be in the movies, but there is a reason for it in the coimcs. It’s developed with back story and in the movie it’s like he woke up and thought Hmm evil sounds good today.

              Still despite none of the comic films setting the world on fire the decent ones at least made a profit. Enough money for sequels. Lets face it though they were middle of the road in quality had modest budgets for their genre and were low level heroes. They made what they were expected to make. Honestly would you place Cap, GL or Thor in your top 5? Heck only one of the comic films this year even makes it in to my top 10 that’s Thor and it’s just barely. I know you loved XFC I didn’t, but it had more against it than quality. It still had to battle a down hill franchise with two none fan pleasing films in a row. Not to mention the boycotting fan groups, very few iconic characters and even then used mostly in none iconic ways (IE Xavier with out a will chair and with hair, Magneto notn in uniform, beast in part of the film with out fur), and almost all the actors were virtual unknowns to the general masses. The film had a lot against it no matter how good some think it is that’s a lot to go against. It’s hard enough to get the general public to show up and still make a good movie, but when part of your dedicated fanbase is already saying no to the film there is a problem.

              It’s not over saturation it’s lack of quality. Like Dark Knight or Not most consider it an excellent film and it made lots of money. It changed things it showed both fans and the general masses how good a super hero film can be and it’s a lot harder to go back to average films like Marvel films or terrible ones like Green Lantern.

              • @Daniel F

                But if Fantastic Four was released this year during the summer period of super hero movies do you think it would have made as much as it did? If four spy/thriller movies were released within a month of each other, do you think the the individual films would do as a big a box office gross as compared to if they were released individually amongst a summer of romantic comedies starring Taylor Lautner and Kirsten Dunst?

                Ok, how about this for an example? Fantasic Four did have its charms, and I can see why people would prefer it over GL. But how about Batman and Robin? It made $238,207,122. And thats 1997 money. No inflated 3D prices or IMAX tickets and it was with costumes with Bat Nipples.

                I think my point is low level quality super hero films hasnt really been an issue in the past. People still saw them. Now if they dont, they pass. Why was First Class the last straw? Why wasnt Wolverine Origins boycotted? If it was, they didnt do a very good job at it. $373,062,864 is a pretty good effort for something even I dont even consider an X-Man film. It had all the issues which made First Class worth boycotting from the X-Men purists, and yet made more than First Class when most would agree FC is a superior film.

                Didnt want to see FC becuase you had an idea Fox might return this cash cow to Marvel? Wait a couple of weeks and go see Captain America. Couldnt do that in May of 09. When was the next film based on a comic book character released? Thats not rhetorical. I actually wanna know. But now, if your like me, and like to go see a comic book movie, simply because its based on a comic book, and you dont like whats playing, wait a couple of weeks and go see something else. Couldnt do that not too long ago….

                • Avatar you seem to have missed my point. I didn’t say it is based on quality and quality only. I listed many reasons because there are many factors.

                  Yes Batman and Robin made some money (though still considered a failure). I agree people can still see a movie even if it sucks butnot as many people will see it. Can it still make money? Sure if it has other factors in play. Batman and Robin was terrible, but it was a huge super hero name it was Batman, it had huge name actors like Arnold, it came after a film that wasn’t hated, but just generally considered Iffy which came after two films that were pretty liked in general.

                  Why was First Class the last straw? It wasn’t for everyone. You act as if every one stopped on First class, but Wolverine was clearly lower than X3 by a lot and yet it featured the most well known and liked character. Wolverine wasn’t boycotted because it teased us with a lot of cool things and hinted at playing it close to the comics. It wasn’t until it came out that a lot of us realized we were duped. Most comic fans knew coming in to First class how different it was gonna be and how many liberties were gonna be taken. It was also rushed which frightened people. Can you really try and deny that First class was boycotted ? There was lots of fan out rage and in some crowds there still is. Just go look at the big long arguments you your self had in the XFC threads. Again I’m not saying it’s good or bad it was just well known for a long time going in how many liberties it was taken. It was also just assumed it was gonna be horrible by many. Also unlike Wolverine it wasn’t following one bad film , but two. Lets not forget I mentioned a lot of factors (again I have to mention this ugh) it is more than just quality. Both films followed a bad film, but Wolverine followed one and FC followed two. Both films were X-men films, but one was about the iconic Wolverine with tons of fans favorites like Saber tooth and Gambit in it. Where as FC had Magneto and Xavier but not in their iconic form and with new actors so they were hardly recognizable. Wolverine had well known and popular actors like Hugh Jackmen for example. FC didn’t really the only well known was Bacon who has just as many haters as fans and wasn’t even the star or co star. Wolverine generally looked to be decent to most based on the trailers and poster, but FC looked awful with posters that looked fan made and poor trailers that did little more than show off the past xfilms. Again many factors. Quality is just one.

                  I never once said I didn’t see FC because I thought fox would return it to Marvel. I think it’s a sad mentality when people think that Marvel will get the rights back any time soon. I didn’t go see it in theaters because i simply didn’t want to see it. It wasn’t gonna be an X film to me and I wasn’t gonna like it. I knew that going in. It had nothing to do with Marvel getting the rights back. I not only don’t think that will happen soon I don’t think it will happen at all.

                  • No, I got your point. But mine was that many comic book movies released over a short period will obviously have lower numbers, than a comic book movie released on its own. If people have no choice, mostly they will most likey see whatever is offered up, if that movie is in a genre that they like. (ugh, again i say it lol)

                    Your saying after X1, X2 and X3 that people were expecting Wolverine to be closer to the comics? I think if you went to see Wolverine after X3, you werent expecting to see a faithful reproduction of comic book lore. I understand that First Class was boycotted, and why. (When did this turn from a genral discussion on the quality and quantity of comic book movies into another argument about First Class? lol)

                    Mostly with First Class the advertising and marketing did stink, but the trailers rocked. There was no ‘bait and switch’, as some have said. It was obvious who was in it and that they were continuing to ignore most X-Men canon, putting their own twist on the characters and timelines.


                    I dare anyone to watch the trailer to Batman and Robin and expect a movie like Batman Begins, no matter how much you enjoyed Batman Forever.

                    “Lets not forget I mentioned a lot of factors (again I have to mention this ugh)”

                    Never said you didnt. But as I recall, my original point was that, if you have choice, you need more than just a movie based on a comic book to draw the crowds.

                    Now let me say this. I dont disagree with your assesment of why many people ignored First Class. But I have given enough examples to show, if it was the only comic book movie released over the summer period, it would have drawn bigger crowds. People had a choice. People wanted more than just seeing the words X-Men in the title. People could pass on First Class, or any of the CBMs released this summer, and go see another.

                    Would First Class, or Green Lantern, or Thor, or even Captain America have drawn bigger crowds and done better box office if they went down your list, and did a better job of story, marketing and/or sticking to comic book fact? Yes. But they would have also all done better if they had no competiton. Which is my point. I’m not saying I want less comic book movies so the studios can make more money. I’m saying I want more comic book movies than ever before AND the studios to realise that if they want the general audience to go see them, they need more than just Ryan Renolds in a skin tight CGI costume.

                    • Avatar I guess we will agree to disagree.

                      I think there is a tad bit of truth in what you are saying, but I don’t think it’s an over saturation of comic book movies. If anything IMO it’s an over saturation of summer block busters.

                      I think it’s less “Ugh another comic film” and more “Ugh another big action spectacle ”

                      I think they were less concerned about Thor, Gl and Cap than they were concerned about Thor , GL, Cap, XFC, Pirates, Harry Potter, Transformers and so on.

                      Every year we may seem an increase in comic films, but we also see an increase in big action films.

                      That’s why I see part of your point, but I just can’t fully agree. I just don’t think when it comes to over saturation the issue is comic films, but block busters in general. The problem with comic films this year specifically was mostly that it was none established franchises like Cap and Thor or worn out ones like X-men going up against the juggernauts like HP and Transformers. Tough competition especially when your film doens’t really stand out in any spectacular way.

                      Also I’ll have to disagree on the XFC trailers I thought they were terrible and when they first came out the majority of online comments seemed to focus on how very uninteresting it was. Good or not other than you I’ve never seen anyone say that when they saw that first trailer it hyped them.

                    • True. But I do consider CBMs a genre of there own. And if a bunch of em are released in a summer of block busters, I will be picky about what I go see. Just like I wont see all the horror or action or spy thrillers. Only so much time and money to spend.

                      As far as the First Class trailers went over…


          • However when you break down a genre (lets say superhero movie) and want it to be a little bit (or a lot of bit) of another genre it risks being more of one and not the other.

            People are not ignorant. (not saying you think they are just woke and having a hard time finding words) If they see a Comic book hero come to life on the screen they do not go in thinking it will be Hamlet.

            They (IMO) want a good storyline, with competent actors in the hero, villian and supporting roles. Above par special effects and fight scenes that make sense. It also needs to stay inline with the source material.

            Blade was a horror movie? What exactly made it a horror movie (in your opinion), the inclusion of vampires? That is like saying Superman while a superhero movie is an Alien movie.

            “Rated R for strong, pervasive vampire violence and gore, language, and brief sexuality” is the description for Blade.

            ‘Rated R for violence and terror’
            ‘Rated PG-13 for thematic material, violence, terror and frightening images, and brief strong language’

            I find it hard to believe (regardless of what it is semi tagged as) that Blade would be regarded as a Horror movie.

            Bringing up Blade I find it humorous that the first and second Blades are tagged as Horror…. while the 3rd is not.

            The superhero genre is quite fine if it is done correctly just like any other genre. However I dont see a Superhero genre being created. Most of them are slapped under action, adventure, sci-fi. Which is fine because most Superhero movies SHOULD fall under those catagories.

            You mention Homeruns in a superhero movie. What constitutes a homerun? You may have thought GL was a base hit while others thought it was a homerun. Someone like TheAvenger here on the boards may think The Avengers will be a homerun while (to him it may) others wont.

            You appear to be getting tired of Superhero movies in general. Sorry if they meet the above mentioned criteria for me it can never get stale. There is not a ‘superhero’ movie yet that I thought was stale. Different? Better than another? Of course but stale never.

  7. While Hendricks may be a good actress, she does NOT have the correct body type for the role…..she needs to be tall and more athletic. Trying to maneuver around in a physically demanding role would be nigh impossible with those curves and guns she’s sporting.

    • My thoughts exactly.

      The same people that moan and complain about how super hero movies don’t follow the comic cannon turn around and drool when they propose a freckled redhead to be Wonder Woman. For those that are unaware of WW origins, the Amazons are an offshoot of the ancients and came from the Mediterranean to escape the Romans. Diana is dark haired with a statuesque build, lean and muscled. Kristina Hendricks is none of that.

      • You guys do realize that they have personal trainers to get them into the right shape? Of course she will still have huge breasts, but they can still get her to be leaner and more athletic looking. Actors/actresses get into shape for roles all the time. Christian Bale is a great example of that.

        • While I know what you’re saying, losing weight or gaining bulk is a COMPLETELY different animal for women as opposed to men. A curvy, more full figured woman can slim down but only to a certain point. Plus have you EVER seen Hendricks thin enough to match what would be considered the correct look? Another thing that goes with being curvy and having large *ahem* “assets”, is they aren’t very physical in their lives in general. That means she doesn’t have the long term training and experience necessary to pull off the more physical aspects in a convincing manner.

          If you want her to be simply eye candy and look absolutely pathetic and ridiculous when she tries to run around and perform physical feats then you are on the right track. I however want her to have just as much physical presence when in the heat of battle and not looking like an actress who has only trained for the role for 8 weeks.

          That’s why I’ve always though that Jessica Biel would be perfect for the role. She’s a good actress, beautiful and tall with naturally dark hair. She is also a proven athlete (See Blade: Trinity), knows how to work out and is an experienced martial artist. I want my eye candy to also kick ass in battle and Biel will do that.

          • mongoose, you need to stop making sense; Kahless is starting to have faith in humanity. :-D

    • I agree she dosen’t have the build and I the the need to get the guys who wrote Spartacus: Blood and Sand to pen Wonder Woman.

    • I completely agree. She also doesn’t even have the look. May be a good actress, but in my book, that don’t mean anything!

    • No one has the correct body type if you go by the comics.

      Wonder Woman wasn’t buff or physically impossing. She was made simply to be a really a hot chick but they made her have powers. She has very little muscle at all. She is far thinner than most human beings but with a massive chest. She has a figure that if any actual person had they would just tip over. Complaining that someone doesn’t have her body type is just as bad as saying no one has The Hulks body type.

      she is just about as close to the comic books body wise as it gets honestly. Athleticism lets be honest wonder Woman isn’t Spiderman she doesn’t climb walls and do a triple back flip. She flies and punches people and throws a laso around them. It’s not that demanding of a role physically. Wonder Woman is more about the plot and the characters than the awesome athletics.

      • This goes to show you havent been reading the current renditionof Wondr Woman, who not only does all that you stated but now carries a sword and shield. The Amazons were warriors first and foremost.

        • Aleric it doesn’t show that at all.

          Carrying a sword and shield is hardly doing flips. It requires skill not super athleticism especially considering in a movie it would more than likely be a fake much lighter sword anyway. All she needs is training for that. Still it’s not athletic.

  8. Hendricks has been in at least 4 different shows that I have watched in the past year. One of them, I commented to my wife, “That woman looks like a younger Christina Hendricks”. It was Christina and the show was less than a year old. She is very distinctive, but she really can act and in at least a couple of different modes. And by “modes” I am not referring to her shape or curves.
    Can she pull off Wonder Woman? I don’t know, but I knew there was no way Ledger was ever going to be able to pull off The Joker.
    She certainly can’t be any worse than Kilmer or Clooney as Batman.

  9. I will not allow my wife to cavort around as Wonder Woman.

  10. Her boobs are so huge! I’m pretty sure she could smother a man to death between those boobs. It would be one of the most pleasant deaths a man could die.

  11. The voluptuous and sexy Christina Hendricks is very talented and would be a great choice but I think they will ultimately want a younger actress to play Wonder Woman.

  12. I Prefer to see Alexandra Daddario to play “The Amazing Amazon” she did played AnnaBeth Chase from “Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief” what do everyone think ?

    • Yes. She would be perfect as well….maybe donna troy

  13. I’ll watch her in anything, especially that Wonder Woman outfit. Hot.

    • Haha yeeh

  14. Shure… she could do it; After about 1’000 hours of Zumba training in the gym and a breast reduction!

  15. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it everytime a Wonder Woman film or show is brought up: Bridget Regan (Kahlan from Legend of the Seeker) should play Wonder Woman. She’s damn near a spitting image of Wonder Woman and did a fine job with the action scenes in LotS.

    • She would be perfect as well…,definitely…however would she still be wanting to do more action stuff??

  16. Admittedly, it’s no easy task finding the perfect big screen actress fo rthe role.

    They need someone who has the body and physique of Kelly Brook, the intelligence and demeanour of Alica Keys and the sexual appeal of Eva Mendes.

  17. TITTYS

  18. 1) Refn as director does nothing for me. I saw both Bronson and Valhala Rising and wasn’t impressed with either.

    2) Christina Hendrick is NOT suited for this role imo. Big boobs doesn’t make this character. I think Amanda Righetti would actually be a better choice as she has more of a beauty that can still transition into being a tough chick as well. Even though the Wonder Woman tv show wasn’t picked up,I think that Adrianne Palicki did a very serviceable job in the title role,but ultimately…

    3) Wonder Woman just isn’t that interesting of a character these days. Sure,you could sexy her up more than what the character is,but do we really need another Catwoman fiasco? Furthermore,there’s a reason why a Wonder Woman movie has been in development hell,and I’m willing to bet that it’s mostly because no one in Hollywood is convinced that it can be made into an interesting character for the big screen.

  19. Christina does not appear to be athletic but
    Hollywood trainers could fake that with enough time.
    Fortunately, the other requirements in her case are real.

    Christina is a good actress but can she project
    Wonder Woman strength and power? Doubtful.
    And her age is borderline at this stage as well.

    Curiously, thinking of a more fit and younger
    Christina made me think of Hayley Atwell.
    An actress who could play this role.

  20. She could definitely play Power Girl in a movie.

  21. Christina is one hot enchilada and I think would be an awesome Wonder Woman!
    She’s got a lot of acting under her belt and she’s a fine actress. BUT, I can’t see this happening. I’m sure Warner Brothers wants to get going with their DC cinematic lie ups, and WW is high on that list; However, the suits are going to cast a much younger actress. That’s what it all comes down to.

    Has anyone seen the pictures of General Zod in his new black Kryptonian suit? Also some cool new pictures of Clark Kent in Metropolis!

    SUPERMAN AND ZOD!! 2013!!

    Go team Snyder!

  22. I’m all for a look at her. After seeing this article I went and looked up some pics of Christina and holy crap does she have some ‘size’ to her chest but that aside, I have to say she might be a little to voluptuous. WW’s costume is pretty revealing and keep in mind that DC has to keep this at a PG-13 rating at highest…I’m all for a look at her in the costume as I said above, but I’m not sold on her.
    Regarding her age? Hell, thats nothing. Batman (Bale) is easily in his late 30′s. Superman (Cavill) is easily in his late 30′s at oldest. It only makes sense to have the final member of ‘The Big 3′, to be around the same age. Besides, she’s still extremely hot!

    • Henry Cavill is 28.

      For the most part, I agree with you.

      But I do think she’s probably TOO voluptuous to be Wonder Woman. NOT according to me, but to the movie executives. It’s all about making money and mass marketing to the biggest general audience.
      Hendricks is 36 and that’s not old at all. However, the movie industry is much more harsh on women than it is on men.
      Consider the fact that Warner Brothers won’t get to getting this movie off the ground for at LEAST another 3 years. Do the math. Of course they are going to make spin offs and sequels. A second movie would span another 3 years. And then a third?
      DC and WB want mass appeal that will progress over a number of years. And Wonder Woman is different than Supes and Batman in the sense that she will be heavily marketed to a young female audience as well as the usual fan base AND a general audience. Add all of these factors together and it makes Christina Hendricks a very long shot at being the next Wonder Woman.

  23. Skimpy outfit + massive frontal real estate + running = PG13? Maybe not. They could do better with an early 20′s less endowed actress who can act. Madmen does not a movie star make. *Note: she is smokin’ hot!!

  24. I don’t get it, so she has big boobs, so everyone calls her hot?? Eh, I’ll take Katrina Bowden over Christina Hendricks any day of the week…

    • Eh, I think it’s just a matter of preference, I like her eyes and she’s got a unique look. Hey, some guys like large women some guys like brunettes. That’s the beauty of attraction, it’s all subjective.

    • She has big boobs sure, but I don’t think most people call her hot simply because of that. She has a very beautiful face and she looks like a woman. She isn’t simply a paper thin model. She is almost the perfect shape unlike your average actress who could stand to eat.

    • I googled that beanpole Katrina bowden…..I was disappointed.

      • Same here.

      • Ehhh… I wasn’t, but there is no comparison. Christina is gorgeous, Katrina is super cute

        • @Danny

          “Ehhh… I wasn’t, but there is no comparison. Christina is gorgeous, Katrina is super cute”

          LMAO “super cute” That’s what you say when refering to less attractive girls that aren’t really that cute or chicks that are younger than you. Oddly enough she’s older than me by a year and I still would refer to her as “super” cute. lol

          • Um, yah… I guess it’s too bad she doesn’t have DDD’s or all of a sudden she’ll be considered attractive…

            • @Ken J

              Sir, you need to stop this. You are looking more and more simple by the second.

              I am hundred percent positive that NO man (or boy) here likes her just because of her breast. Her larger than average breast are only an added quality and an obvious one at that. Hence all the attention given. The fact that she is beautiful with the addition of large breast is only bonus not the end all characteristic that defines attractive and unnattractive. There are unattractive girls that have large breast but im sure if we blogged about them like we are doing Christina Hendricks,  most (if not all) would not salivate over said girl.

              Her breasts are one of those shiny objects we all notice. Put Jennifer Lopez or Jessica Biel up there and we will have post concerning their large back sides and playing with them like congo drums. Put Angelina Jolie up there and there will be (some) clever comments about what creative excercises she can do with her lips.

              Im happy you like women with proportional figures (or the body of a 12 year old boy) but don’t continue to make silly comments and create bias lists to foolishly attempt to proove your point, WHICH IS WRONG.

              On a more positive and entertaining note for the rest. To answer the question that has plagued every man’s (or boy) mind. Research shows those breast are indeed built for comfort over speed. In short, motor boat material.

              • LMAO, I’m glad you can speak for everyone. Speaking of simple. I’m at least saying that SOME people feel one way, while obviously others don’t. You know, how not everyone is the same? Maybe? Lol. But you’re the one saying that NOBODY is a certain way, since you’ve gone and interviewed everyone and read their minds to come to that conclusion. Yes, NOBODY feels that way man, you’re right. I’m sure NOT a single woman in the world will marry a man only for his money. Yep… :-D

                • Ignur Rant’s post was better. KenJ fail.

                  • LMAO, basically you just said “The person who has the same opinion as me’s post was better. The person who has a different opinion fail.” LOL, niiice. :-D

      • It’s ok, Katrina can get those fat bags if she just eats about 5 double cheeseburgers every day for a month…

        • I highly doubt Hendricks eats that to get her figure. That’s just how she naturally is, you can tell cause her face is sharp. Breasts aside, I think a lot of people that find her hot is because she has a pretty face and full figure. To each their own.

          • Ok, sorry I implied that’s why everyone likes her, but a lot of people do like her for that. At least with comments like “natural melons,” “massive frontal real estate,” and people talking about skimpy outfits, don’t really seem like they are talking about her face or acting ability… Or maybe somehow I’m just misreading those comments…

            • Ken of course some people like her for that, but most don’t feel that way. Heck just look on this post there are several people saying “She’s a great actor” or just say she is attractive with out mentioning her breasts. Your cherry picking 3 or 4 posters.

              I like her because she is beautiful all around not just her breasts. She has a pretty face and a great body. I hate skinny twigs. I hate it because they look so unhealthy and it just isn’t attractive to me. She has the perfect body to me and she is a talented actress.

              • @Daniel

                Ok, let’s not “cherry pick” between posts. So I went through all of them and have put a count on the ones that have positive comments on her and grouped them by the reasoning behind those positive comments:

                For her “OMFG BIGGG BOOOBZZZ”
                1. “Her boobs are so huge! I’m pretty sure she could smother a man to death between those boobs. It would be one of the most pleasant deaths a man could die.”
                2. “I’ll watch her in anything, especially that Wonder Woman outfit. Hot.”
                3. “Haha yeeh” (in response to the above)
                4. “TITTYS”
                5. “Skimpy outfit + massive frontal real estate + running = PG13? Maybe not. They could do better with an early 20′s less endowed actress who can act. Madmen does not a movie star make. *Note: she is smokin’ hot!!”
                6. “I want to see those beautiful natural melons in a wonder woman costume.”

                For both her “BIG BOOBZZ” and another reason:
                1. “The voluptuous and sexy Christina Hendricks is very talented and would be a great choice but I think they will ultimately want a younger actress to play Wonder Woman.”
                2. “Christina is one hot enchilada and I think would be an awesome Wonder Woman! She’s got a lot of acting under her belt and she’s a fine actress.”

                For reasons other than her breasts:
                1. “She could definitely play Power Girl in a movie.”
                2. “But she also has a beautiful face.”

                You’re welcome. :-)

                • Ken give me a break some of those comments don’t belong in the catagory they are in at all.

                  Some of your so called “Omg Big Boobs” comments don’t even mention her boobs. Number 2 says nothing about boobs they say she is hot. Hot refers to many thanks not just boobs. Number 3 is in response to 2 and again doesn’t mention boobs at all.

                  While some of the others mention her having big boobs none of them say she is only hot because of them. She has big boobs you can’t deny that fact. So some people are pointing out that she has big boobs and suddenly that means that they think she is the hottest chick alive and only because of her big boobs? For example number 5 is talking about how she is wrong for the part and shouldn’t get it simply because she has big boobs yet that fits in your “OMG I love her boobs ” section? Give me a break. How dare someone point out a fact about her phsyically. The only comments that belong in “OMFG BiGGG BOOOOBZZZ” are 1 , 4 and 6.

                  As far as the second category number one doesn’t mention boobs at all and simply says she is attractive. No mention of boobs your just injecting what you want it to say in to it even though it clearly makes no mention of her boobs. Same could be said for the second one in that category. Those two comments merely say she is attractive and make no mention of thinking that because of her boobs. They do more to prove your point wrong than to help it.

                  You’re Welcome :)

                  • Oh yes, I’m sure watching “her in anything, especially that Wonder Woman outfit” is talking about her face or her talent, lol. Keep lying to yourself buddy. :-D

                    Just because you’re trying to convince the world that you’re not like that doesn’t mean others are not…

                    • Okay, okay… you don’t like boobs. We get it.

                    • Actually, wrong as well, I love breasts, but it’s not simply the size that counts…

                    • Yes, I would watch her in anything, even if she had a small bust. Her face is IMO strikingly beautiful and her body is a plus. Seriously, if she wasn’t as pretty she is her breast size wouldn’t matter. Again, to each there own. Skinny rail girls = not my bag of tea :).

                    • Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with liking a woman’s figure and appreciating it in an iconic costume that gives women empowerment. Women shouldn’t be afraid of their bodies cause of shallow people who think that “skinny” is the key to beauty. She’s all natural and that’s what makes her shine.

                    • And I’ve never said that anyone has to be skinny to be beautiful. I just think it’s kind of dumb to go all gaga for one thing, in this case, big breasts… Hell, I don’t think any of my girlfriends have been skinny, none of them were overweight, but skinny is kind of beyond slim in my opinion… Most of my girlfriends have been slim and fit and one was curvy in all of the right places…

                    • I’m not trying to convince the world of anything. I like big boobs and I’m willing to admit it with out hesitation. It’s not the only thing I care about and it’s not that ONLY thing that anyone cares. It maybe the favirote feature of some, but no one in the world only cares about boobs. There are always other things that will matter to some one.

                      I don’t know what your problem is on this post you seem to have nothing but negative things to say about eveyrone including Christina lord knows what she or we did to you.

                      We get it you hate people who like boobs. Good for you why bash them? Everyone has their own personal tastes in females if Big boobs are not your thing that doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with liking them.

                    • Weird, I like breasts myself, it’s just more than just the size. But I guess I hate myself because I like breasts?? What, I’m just trying to avoid telling you that you’re wrong… lol :-D

  25. you know megan fox is stupid but she was right about one thing and that was that wonder woman is lame and her powers r stupid

    • And that’s pretty ironic, because if you think about it, Megan Fox could actually be a pretty convincing Wonder Woman. Visually, anyway. Her acting may be suspect, but I doubt any of us would kick her out of bed.

      • Before she slamed WW, Megan was on my list to play her. Now I think she might be better off playing Raven or maybe Blackfire.

    • Funny thing is I could say the same things about Megan Fox

      Wonder Woman is not lame at all. Even if you think she is how could anyone actually say her powers are stupid. You may as well say Superman’s powers are stupid. She’s really strong and she can fly. Two of the most wanted powers by people generally.

      • Oh no… Invisibility….. :D

  26. I love the idea of him making the film and her being Wonder Woman.

    Unfortunately it will never happen. It will be a young talentless attractive actress and a easy to control film maker with out any respect for creativity.

    They may consider a talented film maker and then have him write a script but would probably just change their mind and move on … Oh wait they did that with Joss Wheadon already.

    • @ Daniel F

      Joss Whendon left because the studio kept not liking what he had in mind in a number of drafts for a Wonder Woman film. So he pretty much said “the heck with it”.

      • Wally that’s not what I read in an interview from him. He said they kept having him re-write and finally just told him they decided to go another way.

        Not saying you are wrong just that I read differently.

  27. I cried a little when I saw this headline.

  28. I believe Gina Joy Carano (born April 16, 1982) is an American model, actress, and mixed martial arts fighter who appeared as the Gladiator “Crush” on American Gladiators should play Wonder Woman. I think she possesses the perfect look and physicality for the character. Imagine her scene presence and the awesome action scenes? She embodies the strength and spirit of the character and we already know she looks spectacular in skin tight apparel.

  29. “Everybody and their grandmother was excited when Darren Aronofsky was hired to direct The Wolverine”

    That’s not accurate. Most people sure, but there were those against it my self inclduded. I think they guy they have now is a far better choice.

    Personally I hate Aronofskys work. I think his film kind of suck. That’s just my opinion before people stab me with harsh words.

    I think he tries to hard to make his films weird when he should try harder at telling a plot that makes sense and isn’t riddled with plot holes. His movies are not even mind benders they are just jumbled messes of weird scenes after weird scenes to make you think it’s smart. To this day The Fountain is still one of the worst films I’ve ever scene.

    IMO The Wrestler was the only film of his I liked. It’s because he told a story with it. He told a strong emotional smart story and didn’t rely on his typical bag of tricks. He simply made a good film. It probably helps that he didn’t write it unlike the others. Maybe Wolverine would of been more like the Wrestler, but I don’t think so I think it was a fluke amongst a group of films that were nothing more than a jumbled mess of random scenes edited together.

    • I went to see The Fountain because I heard it was such a great film. After watching it, I figured there must be another movie by the same name because the one I just saw was awful.

      • Kahless it’s funny because despite all the praise some people give it it was actually poorly reviewed. I really don’t understand how some people love it.

        • Just went to RT and you’re right. This is one of the rare times I agree with those reviews.