• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Wonder Woman (2017)

Hound of UIster said:
And DC (unlike Marvel) simply didn't have control of their movie franchises in that period. It's still debatable now if they have the type of control Marvel had before Feige started reporting to Disney after AoU. To give you some sense of this, the top position of President of DC was at the time being filled by its former publisher and seen largely as a caretaker role focusing on the comics and non-movie aspects before Diane Nelson or the promotion of Johns as CCO.
Click to expand...

Like I said, people tend to use the names DC and WB as synonyms in this area of conversation, but the actual valid criticism is all about the decisions of the WB. The amount of influence DC does or doesn't have on that doesn't make a huge difference.
 
Tetragrammaton Invictus said:
Why did Fox News try to spin "wonder woman is not American enough" in one of their headlines? She's created by Americans wasn't she?
Click to expand...

Because their whole brand is built upon stirring up anger and fear in their audience, convincing them that their way of life is under existential threat from every direction. The more frightened and desperate their audience feels, the more they cling to Faux News as their lifeline that keeps them "informed" about the threats that surround them, and that ensures the network's success and profit. So they make up an endless stream of idiotic, imaginary "assaults on America" and "wars on" this and that to rant and rave about so that their audience never feels safe.
 
Tetragrammaton Invictus said:
Why did Fox News try to spin "wonder woman is not American enough" in one of their headlines? She's created by Americans wasn't she?
Click to expand...
Because the first costume of the original Wonder Woman was virtually a bathing suit with Stars & Stripes
jp-wonder-2-popup.jpg

So their reasoning is the movie ruined what Wonder Woman originally stood for.

The problem is the original Wonder Woman also stood for how much wonderful BDSM is, so...

wwbondageww2.jpg


ETA: If you thought I was joking, the creator of Wonder Woman, William Moulton Marston, was indeed a bondage fan.

Wonder Woman: The Super Secret & Kinky Origin of a Feminist Icon
 
Last edited:
Is it too much to ask for a little bit of common sense? Patty Jenkins having to renegotiate a longer contract in order to cover directing a Wonder Woman sequel is not some big conspiracy theory or even cause for any alarm.
 
grendelsbayne said:
Was a bad movie. And isn't Wonder Woman
Click to expand...

Supergirl failed due to being a wrongheaded attempt to mirror the kind of relationships between hero and villain that worked in the Donner/Reeve films, couched in a dreary, plot hole and convenience-battered story that was anything but the majestic, thrilling launching pad such a character demanded.

On a pure visual level, Helen Slater was a perfect Supergirl casting choice (the best to date)--one of the few times a performer looked like the source in and out of costume, but that was not enough to make audiences forget how poorly written the entire affair was.

And was released in a time when superhero movies were 'for kids'.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. For example, the advertising campaign for Superman the Movie (1978) hard-sold the film as comic come alive as modern epic. Despite a few bits of comic relief, the Salkinds and specifically Richard Donner were steering clear of the negative, "kiddie" weight hanging around the idea of superheroes on film, at the time, thanks to the rapid decline of the 1966-68 Batman TV series. That same mindset--to a far greater degree--was the diving force behind The Incredible Hulk (1978-82) TV series--that young people would find something in it to enjoy, but the characters were treated as adults, not self-effacing sideshows that adult audiences would quickly write off as infantile.
 
Last edited:
DigificWriter said:
Is it too much to ask for a little bit of common sense? Patty Jenkins having to renegotiate a longer contract in order to cover directing a Wonder Woman sequel is not some big conspiracy theory or even cause for any alarm.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. Just because she's not signed yet, doesn't mean she won't sign at some point in the future. Good money says WB are drawing up the contracts as we speak. :)
 
By the way, James Gunn was confirmed as the director of Guardian Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 even before the theatrical release of the first one.

Just saying.
 
Skipper said:
By the way, James Gunn was confirmed as the director of Guardian Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 even before the theatrical release of the first one.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

No need to ascribe to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity.

Marvel's greatest strength has clearly been their dedication to thinking ahead, making an actual plan about where they're going and doing their best to stick to it unless there is a significant reason not to.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of WB's decisions or achievements in recent years, it's pretty much undeniable that every new movie brings new indications that they just don't work that way. They change their minds all the time. Expecting them to think ahead consistently is just setting yourself up for disappointment.
 
LJones41 said:
So . . . Warner Bros is going to screw her over like Disney did over the second Thor movie? Hollywood sexism. Things never change.
Click to expand...

Skipper said:
By the way, James Gunn was confirmed as the director of Guardian Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 even before the theatrical release of the first one.

Just saying.
Click to expand...
And DC took four months to publicly release details that they were re-hiring David Ayer for another project (Gotham City Sirens, announced on 13/12/2016) and even now no director has been formally announced for Suicide Squad 2.

Further to that The Flash has gone through two directors so far and, like SS2, it's all rumour-mongering and "what ifs" about who will eventually take the chair.

Couple that with Zack Snyder's tragic loss and need to step away from the franchise, it's clear that unlike Marvel, DC/WB still haven't got a true handle on their infrastructure and with such a fluid and dynamic environment it's of no surprise that they haven't bolted out of the gate to throw Jenkins more work. Given both the financial and critical response to the film they would be foolish not to give her more work, but the back-office politics at WB has always appeared to be fractious and without vision or direction.

Perhaps with Geoff Johns stepping up and Joss Whedon stepping in things may find a groove, but given the company's current track record with its ever shifting production slate, NOT hearing news about Jenkin's future is pretty much the norm.

Let's also remember that Jenkins now has her own leverage and clout. I've not doubt she would love to return to the universe to play with Diana again, but that doesn't mean she won't have other offers and options that may suit her own desires and wants.

Random, self-generated conspiracies based on baseless sexism charges (in this case at least) is pointless and a mis-representation of how disjointed and rudderless WB/DC are. It also doesn't acknowledge Jenkins herself who has brought the franchise back into critical repute and holds more cards than she expected following the past weeks positive media/public reaction.

Hugo - Let the negotiations begin and may the odds be ever in her favour.
 
Hugo Rune said:
And DC took four months to publicly release details that they were re-hiring David Ayer for another project (Gotham City Sirens, announced on 13/12/2016) and even now no director has been formally announced for Suicide Squad 2.

Further to that The Flash has gone through two directors so far and, like SS2, it's all rumour-mongering and "what ifs" about who will eventually take the chair.

Couple that with Zack Snyder's tragic loss and need to step away from the franchise, it's clear that unlike Marvel, DC/WB still haven't got a true handle on their infrastructure and with such a fluid and dynamic environment it's of no surprise that they haven't bolted out of the gate to throw Jenkins more work. Given both the financial and critical response to the film they would be foolish not to give her more work, but the back-office politics at WB has always appeared to be fractious and without vision or direction.

Perhaps with Geoff Johns stepping up and Joss Whedon stepping in things may find a groove, but given the company's current track record with its ever shifting production slate, NOT hearing news about Jenkin's future is pretty much the norm.

Let's also remember that Jenkins now has her own leverage and clout. I've not doubt she would love to return to the universe to play with Diana again, but that doesn't mean she won't have other offers and options that may suit her own desires and wants.

Random, self-generated conspiracies based on baseless sexism charges (in this case at least) is pointless and a mis-representation of how disjointed and rudderless WB/DC are. It also doesn't acknowledge Jenkins herself who has brought the franchise back into critical repute and holds more cards than she expected following the past weeks positive media/public reaction.

Hugo - Let the negotiations begin and may the odds be ever in her favour.
Click to expand...
50 Shades of Grey and Twilight were both successful at the Box Office and directed by a female director. And in both cases they were replaced by a male director for the sequel. So, if we are going by the precedents that have been set...
 
Poor examples to use to shore up your argument. It's been well documented that Sam Taylor-Johnson struggled dealing with the demands of the 50 Shades original author when it came to the adaptation and no one was surprised to see her walk away following being "creatively handcuffed" during the process to meet studio demands. Link

Catherine Hardwicke was actually offered a shit ton of money to return to direct New Moon but walked away from it due to the deadline and budget constraints Summit were trying to impress upon her. She wanted to return but didn't feel she could craft what Summit wanted within their strict guidelines (read: cheaper, faster, more). Link

So both the examples you raise involve two directors who realised they were the wrong fit for where the respective studios wanted to take their franchises/films, so decided to step away. They weren't fired, they weren't passed over for men, they walked away of their own volition as they weren't being offered the opportunity to make films they were comfortable with. Step back, look at the bigger picture and note how DC is working these days. After greenlighting BvS/SS/WW and teeing up JL with nary a measured plan or even a true notion as to the wants of an audience, they appear to be slowing down and taking more considerations before jumping face first into the fire. I expect them to start negotiating and planning properly once WW has had a good months run and most of the initial worldwide revenue has been tallied up.

Hugo - (Edited for formatting, links and spelling mistakes.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top