Diane Nelson: "Geoff Johns is no buddy of mine"

[The Laughing Fish]

Just to give some background info: shortly after BvS was released, Geoff Johns was put in charge of DC Films in a bid to change course, and together with former DC Entertainment president Diane Nelson, both were at the forefront of a PR spin to change the DCEU. And by all accounts, they played a critical role in butchering Zack Snyder's vision for JL and his planned story arc.

As you can see from this Vulture article from two years ago, Johns and Nelson supported common idiotic complaints over MOS and BvS, such as this:

Nelson and Johns faced further cinematic frustration: During the development of Man of Steel, they were marginalized creatively. It was a decidedly gritty take on Superman, and its final battle featured him remorselessly destroying skyscrapers and ultimately executing his foe, General Zod. This didn't sit right with Johns. "Geoff Johns and Diane were reading scripts, and Geoff Johns, to his credit, was concerned that there was not enough lightness or humor, given who the character is," recalls one person with knowledge of the making of Man of Steel. "Geoff definitely raised that point, but that current administration didn't care that much about what Geoff Johns thought." The movie came out in June 2013 with the DC Entertainment branding, but largely without its fingerprints.

It also had the seeds of a larger, Marvel-style expanded world. A few weeks after its release, at 2013's San Diego Comic-Con, Warner announced a sequel that would pit Batman and Superman against each other, and it was made clear in the announcement that the film would draw on the famously dark 1986 comic The Dark Knight Returns. Johns's warnings about needing lightness were going unheeded. A new Warner CEO, Kevin Tsujihara, was coronated that year, and he was much more bullish on superheroes than his predecessor had been. Under his watch, the studio rolled out in October 2014 an ambitious slate of ten DC-based movies, stretching to 2020. They were all to be part of the same grand cinematic universe. It was more than a little insane, given that the cinematic universe, at that point, only consisted of Man of Steel, which hadn't been received with wild enthusiasm. But it was too late for second thoughts — Warner was all in on DC properties, if not always on DC advice.

https://www.vulture.com/2017/09/dc-wonder-woman-movie-strategy-universe.html

Reading that bullsh*t feels like a dirty political power struggle, and trying to pander to the lowest common denominator. It appears that Johns was instrumental in bringing Whedon to reshoot JL too, which would reflect to force his idea of humour into the movies. When the reshot version of JL tanked at the box office, Nelson resigned and Johns was ousted, but is still involved in the franchise as a writer, i.e. co-wrote Aquaman and he is contributing to the next WW movie.

Anyway, while Nelson shared her article shilling for the Joker-in-name-only movie on Twitter the other day, a fan called her and Johns out for butchering Snyder's vision, and this was her response.

Too busy helping her buddy Geoff destroy his work from the inside.

He's no buddy of mine.

https://twitter.com/dewnelson1/status/1174169875608043520

I like how she tacitly admitted it, by the way.

Nelson and Johns appeared to have a working business relationship, and perhaps it went sour. Who knows, maybe the two had "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" agreement where Johns promised her changing JL would guarantee greater profits and more favours if he were to climb up the ranks in Warner Butchers. It's pure speculation of course, but it could be possible.

You have to roll your eyes at Nelson for criticising the dark tone in Snyder's movies, but then turns around and shills an R-rated movie about a character who has little to nothing in common with the Joker. This one tweet from a fan nails it perfectly:

You advocated for a Rated R gorefest while supporting a guy (Johns) who ripped apart a cinematic universe that had depth that was considered "too dark". But, you wonder why DC fans question your motives and the motives of people working for DC and WB. It's ridiculous.

The real truth is that nowadays it's acceptable to not cater to fans. And instead spit I'm their faces. All we want is an explanation. Why was Snyder's DC films to dark but "Joker" is the bee knees ? You didn't stand up for Snyder's vision. Why stand up for this film ?

https://twitter.com/ReturnOfTheKool/status/1174926535024762881

One might ask how was Geoff Johns put in a position to get a gig DC Films after his unsuccessful stint with the Green Lantern movie, let alone play a part in sabotaging JL? I would assume his contributions to the Arrowverse had a big influence on that, even more so than him writing for DC and Superman comics. Warner Butchers thought they needed a guy who had comic expertise to give them an edge and they thought they had it.

Still, everybody involved played a part in this whole debacle. I have no respect nor sympathy for any of these people.

[thecolorsblend]

You advocated for a Rated R gorefest while supporting a guy (Johns) who ripped apart a cinematic universe that had depth that was considered "too dark". But, you wonder why DC fans question your motives and the motives of people working for DC and WB. It's ridiculous.

The real truth is that nowadays it's acceptable to not cater to fans. And instead spit I'm their faces. All we want is an explanation. Why was Snyder's DC films to dark but "Joker" is the bee knees ? You didn't stand up for Snyder's vision. Why stand up for this film ?

This is kind of a dumb question. For starters, nobody expects a fun, lighthearted Joker origin film.

But second, JOKER is a low budget character piece. It's virtually no risk whatsoever for WB to produce and release it. If it fails, so what? WB isn't out much money. And maybe no money at all depending on how they structure the distribution deal.

JL failing is a much bigger deal. I'm not excusing the butchery done to JL. You know me better than that. I'm team #ReleaseTheSnyderCut all the way. I'm just saying that JOKER and JL are two very different things.

[The Laughing Fish]

This is kind of a dumb question. For starters, nobody expects a fun, lighthearted Joker origin film.

But second, JOKER is a low budget character piece. It's virtually no risk whatsoever for WB to produce and release it. If it fails, so what? WB isn't out much money. And maybe no money at all depending on how they structure the distribution deal.

JL failing is a much bigger deal. I'm not excusing the butchery done to JL. You know me better than that. I'm team #ReleaseTheSnyderCut all the way. I'm just saying that JOKER and JL are two very different things.

I think you're missing the point. That fan is having a go at Nelson because she, along with Johns, ran with this agenda that DCEU didn't have enough "hope and optimism". That was that motto behind the supposed course correction following BvS and changing JL. For fans like that guy, it gets frustrating watching Warner failing to stand by their products as they got ripped apart for having a dark tone, only to turn around and stand by what is reportedly a much darker movie than anything that came before.

Is it an emotional outburst? You might say so, but I don't think it's totally without merit.

[thecolorsblend]

This is kind of a dumb question. For starters, nobody expects a fun, lighthearted Joker origin film.

But second, JOKER is a low budget character piece. It's virtually no risk whatsoever for WB to produce and release it. If it fails, so what? WB isn't out much money. And maybe no money at all depending on how they structure the distribution deal.

JL failing is a much bigger deal. I'm not excusing the butchery done to JL. You know me better than that. I'm team #ReleaseTheSnyderCut all the way. I'm just saying that JOKER and JL are two very different things.

I think you're missing the point. That fan is having a go at Nelson because she, along with Johns, ran with this agenda that DCEU didn't have enough "hope and optimism". That was that motto behind the supposed course correction following BvS and changing JL. For fans like that guy, it gets frustrating watching Warner failing to stand by their products as they got ripped apart for having a dark tone, only to turn around and stand by what is reportedly a much darker movie than anything that came before.

Is it an emotional outburst? You might say so, but I don't think it's totally without merit.

I think it's a bit dumb to equate two such different things. As far as we know, there isn't an entire cinematic universe riding on the success or failure of JOKER. There was an entire cinematic universe riding on the success of JL.

JOKER seems rather popular with the core audience right now. The DCEU in general was evenly split.

As I've said, if JOKER tanks, WB isn't losing much money. JL tanked and WB lost a lot of money.

The tone of JOKER seems just about right for what that movie needs to be. The tone of the DCEU up through JL was disconcerting for large swaths of the fans.

These two movies are very different from each other with different stakes, different expectations and different appeals to wide audiences. It misses the point to treat them as though they're the same.

Having said all of that, nothing about Geoff Johns's tenure as a film producer or whatever tf his job was supposed to be has been a success. It seems that the movies with his name on them that did well tended to minimize his involvement entirely. The films where his influence is more clearly noticeable are some of the lowest performers. He needs to stick with writing comics and leave filmmaking to the grownups.

[The Laughing Fish]

These two movies are very different from each other with different stakes, different expectations and different appeals to wide audiences. It misses the point to treat them as though they're the same.

With all due respect, you're the one who is still missing the point here. That guy wasn't even trying to equate the movies as if they should be treated the same. His point was that Diane Nelson played her part in sabotaging Snyder's movie and went along with the narrative "DC movies shouldn't be dark", when it seemed convenient for her to do so. The subject is less about demographics or business economics, it's more about sentiment. Honouring directors' vision and intentions once they're hired to make a movie.

Look, I wouldn't have started the discussion if the Snyder cut got released in theaters and performed just as poorly at the box office as the reshot version did. Had that happened, you'd still get upset fans complaining if Warner decided to abort the whole franchise, but I'm sure anyone who is objective and has common business sense would've understood.

But as you know, that's not what happened here. As time goes by, it appears this the sabotaging of JL and the original plan for the DCEU was motivated by self-interest and boardroom politics, and done so in the most insulting - even malicious - manner possible. So it's a bit disingenuous from Nelson to champion another movie's dark content when she, along with Johns, interfered another director's vision to make it lighter for selfish reasons.

If Warner wanted to meet mass demographic demands responsibly, they would've been better off postponing JL, and look for another director to make the movie. Or cancel altogether if they think they couldn't make a return on investment. Sure, it would've been sad, but it's not anywhere near as sad as betraying the very same director they hired to make the damn movie, kicking him when he was down by reshooting the whole thing and alienate a large section of the fanbase that want the cut to see the light of day.

As for the different expectations of what people want from DC movies, we can debate that, but that's another discussion altogether.

JL failing is a much bigger deal. I'm not excusing the butchery done to JL. You know me better than that. I'm team #ReleaseTheSnyderCut all the way. I'm just saying that JOKER and JL are two very different things.

If you don't mind me asking, have you heard of anything about the letter writing campaign to the new Warner CEO? Would you consider writing if you haven't already?

EDIT: If nothing that Nelson has done so far has made you pause, then what do you make of her comments hyping up Joker-in-name-only?

LOVE IT! Great story, great actor, specific and string vision from talented director. What DC should have been doing since Nolan, even if die hard fans struggle with his vision.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/new-joker-photos-ex-dc-chief-talk/

Very two-faced person if you ask me. I love the fact she still sucks up to Nolan as the golden standard to aspire to, when A) he co-wrote MOS with Goyer - the very same movie she never supported, and B) it was Nolan who was instrumental in Snyder getting the job to direct Superman in the first place.

Once again, this is all boardroom politics bullsh*t. Shame on her.

[The Laughing Fish]

JL failing is a much bigger deal. I'm not excusing the butchery done to JL. You know me better than that. I'm team #ReleaseTheSnyderCut all the way. I'm just saying that JOKER and JL are two very different things.

If you don't mind me asking, have you heard of anything about the letter writing campaign to the new Warner CEO? Would you consider writing if you haven't already?

I didn't exactly require an answer when I asked this question, but I must admit, your silence isn't very encouraging.

Meanwhile, I read this article reporting how JL cinematographer Fabian Wagner cried in disappointment while watching the theatrical cut, lamenting how it was completely different to what was originally shot and scripted.

Source: https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/justice-league-cinematographer-hated-joss-whedons-cut-so-much-he-cried-all-the-way-through-it-191626133.html

As you can see in the source above, Wagner had an otherwise very fond experience shooting the movie. Too bad the great memories he had were sullied by the studio's disgraceful conduct. This is the legacy left behind by Nelson, Johns, Whedon and everybody else involved with the decision making at Warner. Shame on all of them.