When Joss Whedon announced almost two years after signing on to write and direct a "Wonder Woman" movie that he was no longer attached to the project, the air of shock around the Internet was almost palpable.

Around the same time, David S. Goyer, who wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay for "Batman Begins," was told his vision for the movie "The Flash" was not what Warner Bros. producers wanted, and the movie has been shelved for now.

The story behind the "Wonder Woman" movie, it seems, is that Warner Bros. has purchased a speculative script from newcomers Matthew Jennison and Brent Strickland, and is ready to bring them on board to replace Whedon.

All this leads to the question, "What do people want out of a superhero movie? An escapist action romp or fully fleshed-out characters facing the most painful decisions of their lives?"

While it is uncertain what Whedon has done with "Wonder Woman," it seems Joel Silver and company want an action-oriented story set against the backdrop of World War II -- the time period when Wonder Woman comics debuted. Whedon's vision places Princess Diana in the present day. Based on his previous works ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel," "Firefly," "Serenity"), one can safely assume that his Wonder Woman would be a fully fleshed out character, complete with goddess-like strength, and human foibles. She would most likely be surrounded by fully developed supporting characters, and the story that unwinds would largely grow out from and be advanced by the characters themselves.

We could also count on sharp, engaging dialogue where every word is measured and infused with meaning.

A synopsis of the Jennison/Strickland script has been posted on the Internet. It is filled with highly charged action, it appears to move quickly, and is balanced with sharp contrasts between scenes. It looks like it could be exciting, but because there is no dialogue, and the focus is strictly on the action in the movie, it makes me fear that there will be little in the way of actual character development. There also is no indicator as to whether the two can write dialogue well. It's possible that they can, but in the end, what I read is the basis for a largely formulaic movie with lots of loud sounds, flashy visuals and action. I dont see the groundwork laid for creating characters people in the audience can identify with.

People need to be able to identify with the characters in a movie. They have to be able to feel with the characters and understand why it is they do what they do. The X-Men and Spider-Man movies have been the best of any in the genre. X-Men movies have been analogous to the struggles with racism and homophobia. In both X-Men and Spider-Man, people can identify with the characters' perpetually feeling like outsiders. Each has unique qualities that allow them to do amazing things, and yet, people in general and/or in their immediate surroundings, rarely, if ever, recognize and appreciate this.

Most real people can identify with this scenario. How many of us have proven time and time again that we are unique, intelligent and superbly talented people whose accomplishments go largely unnoticed by many or most of the people around us? It is the same kind of scenario that makes "Buffy" so popular. We now see the same happening with characters in the TV show "Heroes."

It was Peter Parker's angst that drew me to Spider-Man comics as a kid. I often skipped over the action parts of the stories just to catch what was happening in Peter's world. I still remember Duo Damsel heartbroken because she was in love with Superboy, but knew he was destined to end up with someone else. Things like that got to me as a child, and they still get to me as an adult.

Wonder Woman often struggled with being a powerful woman who was rarely appreciated for it in a man's world. Angst is what makes these heroes accessible to an audience. Going through the human experience even if one is not quite human, or is super-human, endears these characters to us.

While it's possible to have a hero who doesn't feel like an outsider or a freak, how that translates into their personality can be problematic. If they are always self-sacrificing, righteous and true, they can end up being downright boring. Then again, someone who doesn't suffer rarely understands the plight of others who are suffering, and usually isn't heroic. Someone like that is likely to come off as arrogant and/or self-obsessed, and uses their power for personal gain. I'm not sure I want to know people who are drawn to this kind of "hero." I might end up being the next person they get all self-righteous and true on.

People simply can't identify with an action figure. An action figure may present an amusing visual and aural experience, but so does a musical mobile hanging over a crib. Both are forgettable once they're out of sight. A fully realized human being makes for much longer-lasting "relationship" between the character and the audience than Action Jackson ever can. How many people talk as passionately -- and for years on end -- about Lara Croft as they do about Buffy or River Tam?

Then there is the issue of the setting for the movies. Wonder Woman has gone through many eras. She hasn't always been stuck in WWII, as Superman hasn't always been stuck in the 1930s. In the early 1970s, Wonder Woman had been revamped to fit the times. Steve Trevor was killed, she lost her powers, traded in her bathing suit for a mini-dress, and learned martial arts from some old guy named I-ching. While that probably wasnt the best version of Wonder Woman, it kept her in the present.

Since then, WW has been reinvented several more times, keeping her in the present. All the Superman and Batman movies are in the present (or future). Why must Wonder Woman be stuck back in WWII?

My favorite DC-based movie last year was "V for Vendetta," which while it wasn't a superhero movie, was the kind of movie I prefer to shell out money to see. I dont make a whole lot, and I have a lot of kids to feed, so I can't often waste money on something that is a purely escapist formula movie. Most of the superhero/graphic novel movies - regardless of their origins - are lackluster at best. "Daredevil," "Electra," "Catwoman," "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," and "Sin City" were all substitutes for Sominex.

Unfortunately, superhero movie producers have grandiose expectations, but usually resort to mediocre stories and big special effects or artful facades to pass their production off as marketable. Superman Returns, while somewhat better than previously mentioned movies, still suffered the fate of presenting a formulaic plot with some bad casting choices (that was NOT Lois Lane), and uneven acting. Hell, Brandon Routh barely got to do anything beyond his Christopher Reeve-as-Clark Kent impression. While Bryan Singer, Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris tried to infuse some humanity and allusions to Supes being Christ-like into the story, the actual plot was simply a rehash of old plots with Lex Luthor abusing different pieces of real estate.

There are passably good comic book hero movies out there ("Hellboy," and even "Fantastic Four" to some extent) that take the action formula and make it interesting and entertaining. For far too many, though, the formula starts to become rancid after too long. I had been looking forward to something fresh and different in Joss Whedon's "Wonder Woman." I had hoped it would be the one movie about a female superhero that wasn't abysmal. I can still hope for this. Jennison and Strickland may turn out to be great writers. Still, Im not going to put much faith in the judgment of movie studio moguls. They have been wrong many times before.

Robin Brownfield is a staff writer for Airlock Alpha, writing out of New Jersey. She can be reached at rbrownfield@airlockalpha.com.