Wonder Woman (2017)

[thecolorsblend]

That's not how creativity works.

[Citation needed]

Snyder, all by himself, doesn't have ownership over these characters or these stories.

Nobody said otherwise.

If Snyder gets to do what he wants, why should no one else?

Because his MOS founded the DCEU. Allowing others the creative freedom to introduce unnecessary continuity problems and inconsistencies in the larger creative tapestry is a bad idea. In the case of Suicide Squad, Johns introduced unnecessary continuity problems within the movie's own context and continuity.

I think that's a double standard.

Oh, I know, I know, if they're not exactly the same then they must be total opposites, right?

What you want, all by itself, isn't owed to you.

You know that expression "The customer is always right"? Do you know what it means?

It does not mean that a customer has the right to behave like a jerk, making unrealistic demands, etc. What it means is the customer wants something. And whatever it is that he wants, he's right to want it. If I want a cheeseburger, I'm right to want a cheeseburger. Or if I want to buy a blue car, I'm right to want a blue car.

And I want Snyder's story.

And if the studio doesn't feel like he's delivered on what they want, they have no obligation to him, on his own, to continue with his vision. He's not special.

In Snyder's case, peripheral players in DC Entertainment torpedoed his plan, aided and abetted by an ally on the WB side. It's like anything, politics is politics.

I don't think Superman as a global protector is shown to be cared about by the people or in regards to his lifespan. And that doesn't equal people suddenly caring about him, like he's more important. He's not. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing, no matter how big in scale it is. To me, I think that's more like people look at Superman like a weapon.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[The Dark Knight]

Because his MOS founded the DCEU. Allowing others the creative freedom to introduce unnecessary continuity problems and inconsistencies in the larger creative tapestry is a bad idea. In the case of Suicide Squad, Johns introduced unnecessary continuity problems within the movie's own context and continuity.

It's that simple and every single comment to the contrary ignores this main point. Other people directing films in the DCEU was to be expected in the long term. But continuity needs to be maintained, otherwise why establish it at all? Snyder's MOS and BvS are the bedrock of the DCEU, and he does have ownership over those portrayals. Any evolutions need to feel organic from that starting point. Otherwise just scrap it and start fresh.

[Dagenspear]

Nobody said otherwise.

I don't see what the issue, if it's not what's being said.

Because his MOS founded the DCEU. Allowing others the creative freedom to introduce unnecessary continuity problems and inconsistencies in the larger creative tapestry is a bad idea. In the case of Suicide Squad, Johns introduced unnecessary continuity problems within the movie's own context and continuity.

Who decides it's bad? If the studio, in control, doesn't care, what does it matter? I don't deny you the right to express your criticisms on what they do. But factually, this isn't important. If the studio wants to do what they want to do, whether by money or acclaim or art, why should they adhere to what Snyder wants?

Oh, I know, I know, if they're not exactly the same then they must be total opposites, right?

I don't remember what this part was talking about, but if they're not the same, they're not the same.

You know that expression "The customer is always right"? Do you know what it means?

It does not mean that a customer has the right to behave like a jerk, making unrealistic demands, etc. What it means is the customer wants something. And whatever it is that he wants, he's right to want it. If I want a cheeseburger, I'm right to want a cheeseburger. Or if I want to buy a blue car, I'm right to want a blue car.

And I want Snyder's story.

Who decides which customer is always right, at what time, for what reason? Which customer should be listened to? Theoretically, WB listened to some customers, and that led them to Whedon's Justice League. Were they always right? If they're not, why is anyone else?

In Snyder's case, peripheral players in DC Entertainment torpedoed his plan, aided and abetted by an ally on the WB side. It's like anything, politics is politics.

I don't think this negates what I said. His plan isn't owed anything. It and he aren't special.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

That I don't think that showcases a caring about Superman, so I don't think it really matters as a concept, if I remember correctly.

[The Laughing Fish]

Here is a nice video tribute to Gadot's Wonder Woman in WW2017, BvS and ZSJL.

[The Laughing Fish]

Speaking of GL and JL, did you know that it's heavily implied that he was going to make a surprise appearance in the Snyder cut? FFS.

https://thefanboyseo.com/2019/11/29/we-almost-had-a-green-lantern-in-zack-snyders-justice-league/

Okay, well, that turned out to be a load of bullsh*t. Wayne T. Carr is Green Lantern.

I'm going back on-topic now, to mention Gal Gadot tweeted this the other day:

So much drama...! 🔥😎
#WW BTS

https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1495131744420380678

The shot in the background appears to be from this scene in the final theatrical cut.



This is when Diana unleashed her anger out on all of the German solders, after she witnessed Steve Trevor's death.

Here is the key difference: the shot in the final theatrical cut has the soldiers sent flying and falling, as they're struck down by Diana's wrath. The shot in Gadot's tweet shows Diana doing the same gesture, except it shows flames in the background with no soldier in sight. This is either nothing more than a double take with unfinished effects, or maybe, this is from the original unreleased third act. From what I read online, Steve didn't sacrifice himself in the original ending like he did in the final cut - his plane was supposed to be shot down by the Germans, and Diana killed them all in retaliation. I don't know if that's true or not, but I do know Patty Jenkins made it clear the original third act was changed because of a studio mandate.

Gal Gadot could've tweeted this as an innocuous post and nothing more, for all I know. But I do find it strange she tweeted this freeze frame that was changed in the final cut. If this picture was taken when the movie was getting made, actors like Gadot would've used the the term "throwback" as a hashtag. Whatever the reason is, I find the differences between these two shots fascinating.

[The Laughing Fish]

Last December, WB Games announced plans to develop a Wonder Woman video game with this little trailer.

Nothing else has been confirmed since, but if this game is to become a success, it needs to replicate the warrior tone that was established in WW2017, BvS and ZSJL and the Injustice games. Imagine the combat system mechanics resembling the action from the No Man's Land scene. Huge potential there.

Patty Jenkins can object to the idea of Diana becoming "aggressive" all she wants, but if done right, this Wonder Woman game could become the new Batman: Arkham. One thing is for certain, a Wonder Woman game taking place with goofy action like in the mall scene in WW84 won't impress gamers.

[The Joker]

Yeah, I don't even know how a "Silver Age/Bronze Age" inspired WW game would turn out, unless you're going with Lego Wonder Woman or something, but the trailer doesn't really indicate that, so I would assume the game would center more upon the more modern warrior Wondy that came about during the "Copper Age" and was brought to life in the 2017 film. I guess you can already say there's already a precedent for this approach being successful in the video game world, with the Injustice games, though WW was portrayed as more of an antagonist with the game story line. Sure.

[Gotham Knight]

Wonder Woman 3 has been canceled.

[The Joker]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/wonder-woman-3-not-moving-forward-dc-movies-1235276804/

Sources say that Jenkins recently submitted her treatment, co-written with Geoff Johns, and that Gunn and Safran, as well as Warner Bros. Pictures co-chairs and co-CEOs Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy, broke the news to the filmmaker, telling her the project — as it stood — did not fit in with the new (but still unfolding) plans. Jenkins directed and co-wrote the previous two movies, starring Gal Gadot and released in 2017 and 2020. No decision has been made about next steps.

Interested to know if this Patty Jenkins treatment, that was submitted and rejected, emphasized the DC Trinity team up of Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman (that was rumored to play into the title, and story line as well)), or if it was simply another "Silver Age" influenced followup from Jenkins and Geoff Johns?

[Gotham Knight]

Oh boy! The plot just keeps thickening. Okay you ready? Here goes:

Apparently WW3 was NOT scraped! It was said that Jenkins was told that she had to rewrite it so that it 'fit with the new vision.' She outright refused to play ball, pitched a HUGE fit, and instead of beginning a rewrite of the script she packed up her office and walked. The third Wonder Woman might happen if they decide to find a new director...or who knows, this might mean that this version of WW gets tossed out entirely because to hell with it!