Wonder Woman (2017)

[The Laughing Fish]

My guess is Jenkins thought she had a sure bet with Johns because they both share identical creative sensibilities, i.e. nostalgic take on superheroes.

Could be.

And hell, I'll say that I don't necessarily begrudge a nostalgic angle. If someone came along and made a Superman movie that hit all the same basic tingles as Donner's STM, I'd be fine with that.

What irks me is that the DCEU had an established creative direction and it got derailed because Geoff Johns (and others) didn't get their way. Snyder's films were profitable by any reasonable standard and the future was wide open.

I share your frustrations. Looking back at what Geoff Johns was saying to these blog sites back in 2017, he took advantage of the first WW film's success so he could outline his agenda:

"Get to the essence of the character and make the movies fun," said Johns with regards to the new approach from DC. "Just make sure that the characters are the characters with heart, humor, hope, heroics, and optimism at the base."

https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2017/06/geoff-johns-says-heart-humor-hope-heroics-and-optimism-are-now-the-focus-of-the-dceu/

I suppose he believed he could take a lot of credit because he rewrote the film's third act, which broke continuity from present-day Diana in BvS.

Now, it'll take a miracle for Snyder to be able to pick up where he left off, even if ZSJL goes swimmingly. The critics will go out of their way to roast the movie so literally everything hinges on audience response.

If there is any continuation of the Snyderverse, it will be based on two factors. The first factor is AT&T and WarnerMedia would want to look at making original content for HBO Max, if they're going to compete with the likes of Disney+ and Netflix. The second factor will depend on the fans supporting the hell out of ZSJL and help it do crazy viewing numbers once it premieres. That will likely include purchasing the film on video on demand on Google Play, on Blu-Ray or whatever. If a third WW film can get greenlit because of WW84 doing well on HBO Max then anything is possible.

The critics want to make Snyder their bogeyman at all costs and will slander him at every opportunity. You know how biased they are when they can't even credit him for his influence in the first WW film, let alone casting Gadot. But I'm not so concerned about them because they are a lost cause, and lots of people tend to see through their nonsense nowadays.

What does concern me is WB Pictures. AT&T and HBO Max are enthusiastic about their investment and support for ZSJL. But WB Pictures - or to be more specific, Toby Emmerich and his cronies - would be seething as they have to follow orders from their bosses.

I wouldn't be surprised if the rumours of internal civil war within the whole organisational level are true. AT&T and WarnerMedia appear to look at streaming as the future of entertainment, whereas not only WB Pictures are still clinging onto the old Hollywood model, they have to accept the film they tried to bury is now coming out. I can't help but feel they will look at every way to sabotage it. Having the original Hallelujah trailer leaked before it premiered at DC FanDome, or writing hit pieces about studio executives describing ZSJL as a "cul-de-sac" despite the investment, is not a coincidence. In addition to writing fake press releases that were slammed by Jason Momoa as an attempt to intimidate those speaking out about the JL investigations, I'm convinced WB will stop at nothing. And that's why the studio needs need to be cleaned up.

Back on-topic: Snyder tweeted this about the Crimean War photo.

Wonder Woman 1854 - This amazing image shot by Stephen Berkman of an else-world, war weary Diana, who had chased Aries across the battlefields of the world and had yet to meet Steve, who would help her restore her faith in mankind and love itself.

https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/1346545263788191744

If Patty Jenkins doesn't do another sequel, maybe they should look at Snyder's synopsis.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well, this is a bit of a bombshell.

Patty Jenkins has been honest in recent "Wonder Woman 1984" interviews about what it's like to clash with a Hollywood studio over a comic book tentpole. The director has detailed battles against Warner Bros. over the original ending to "Wonder Woman" and over the double opening of "Wonder Woman 1984," but Jenkins was at her most candid during her appearance on Marc Maron's "WTF" podcast (via The Playlist). In reflecting on the development of 2017's "Wonder Woman," Jenkins described an "internal war" at Warner Bros., where the studio was apparently less interested in her ideas than in the symbol of a woman director helming a female-fronted superhero movie.

"They wanted to hire me like a beard; they wanted me to walk around on set as a woman, but it was their story and their vision," Jenkins said. "And my ideas? They didn't even want to read my script. There was such mistrust of a different way of doing things and a different point of view."

Jenkins continued, "Even when I first joined 'Wonder Woman' it was like, 'Uhh, yeah, OK, but let's do it this other way.' But I was like, 'Women don't want to see that. Her being harsh and tough and cutting people's heads off... I'm a 'Wonder Woman' fan, that's not what we're looking for.' Still, I could feel that shaky nervousness [on their part] of my point of view."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210104174228if_/https://www.indiewire.com/2021/01/patty-jenkins-war-warner-bros-wonder-woman-mistrust-1234607432/

Jenkins is now saying her comments were taken out of context.

Versions of this article seems to be everywhere and not true. There was no "war" with warner bros. over ww. I'm talking about 10 years of discussions with 10 different execs through them. And whole beard thing was about other projects at other studios.

I felt extremely supported in my vision on both films by @wbpictures, @ZackSnyder all the producers and everyone on board our eventual team. Just was a long road to get to make it. Let's chill the dramatic headlines like "war".

https://twitter.com/PattyJenks/status/1346643637891780609

I pinpointed her comments in that interview with Marc Maron, and yes, it appears half of her comments were indeed taken out of context. She made the beard comment when she spoke about the attention she was getting after Monster, her directorial debut, and long before she was hired to direct WW. She had an on-and-off working relationship with WB over doing WW since 2004.

However, Jenkins did describe how she suspected "an internal war" was going on over what Wonder Woman should be, because the production had thirty different scripts by the time she was hired.

You can hear from 48:50 to 53:45.

http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1187-patty-jenkins

[The Joker]

The Crimean War photograph is interesting, and one way to go about it.

Although I think the Wonder Woman movie we got in 2017 had about the right balance of the character/history that one would expect from a long awaited cinematic debut of Wonder Woman, the Crimean War photograph idea of her having fought during many wars over the span of many years, collecting warriors from various locations far and wide to her cause, in search of the goal in reaching the God of War, Ares.

Actually, I would go a step further, and have the film take place over decades/centuries with the Crimean War photograph taking place somewhere around the middle of the film. With the 3rd act taking place during the 1918 setting where she meets Steve, and finally faces off against Ares with the backdrop of World War 1 (conveyed as being Ares' endgame) being firmly established. Only for Diana to find out, just like in the movie itself, that killing Ares wouldn't just automatically stop humanity going to war. As that was something I liked about the movie, where Ares states, and I'm paraphrasing here; "I merely provided the suggestion, Diana. I didn't make them go to war. They WANTED this!"

That sort of revelation, under the pretext of believing a God was solely responsible for all the wars that she took battled in, would have carried extra weight within the narrative I believe. Course Diana stays the course, and rejects Ares offer to join him and turn her back on humanity, but in the grand scheme of things, a depiction like this would be in keeping with Diana's subdued/withdrawn intro in modern times with BvS. Where she is clearly hesitant/resistant to get involved as Wonder Woman until she feels like it's absolutely necessary (with the arrival of Doomsday making it unavoidable!).

With WW1984, it's clear Patty Jenkins probably gravitates towards a more Silver Age/Bronze Age Wonder Woman (which I'm sure was enthusiastically prodded and supported by Warners brass during the development), just as Geoff Johns obviously has a overt infatuation with the more gentle Donner Superman formula. However, the 'warrior' aspect/depiction of Wonder Woman in the comics has been more pushed to the forefront for years now. The character is pretty pliable.

EDIT: Fun little homage to the Crimean War photograph combined with the ZSJL. 

[The Laughing Fish]

Nice idea Joker. But even so, I've seen comments online saying they would be up to see this come to life, as an Elseworlds-type of production. From what I've heard WW84, it appears that's what Wonder Woman solo films have become, episodic in nature at best.

I found this interview with Allan Heinberg, as he talked about his experiences writing the first WW film. He mentioned Ben Affleck was supposed to reprise his role as Bruce Wayne in the end, in what would've been a bookend going into JL.

Heinberg claimed it never got filmed because Affleck was unavailable, but I suspect Johns and Jenkins scrapped the idea seeing as they wanted Diana to keep fighting for the next one hundred years. The problem with that is it completely neglects the question over Diana's whereabouts in WWII.

[Kamdan]

The problem with that is it completely neglects the question over Diana's whereabouts in WWII.

There was a picture of Diana in WW84 appearing at a liberated concentration camp. No doubt Gadot used her producer credit to have that in the movie so that no one would question why didn't Wonder Woman help out during the Holocaust.

[Dagenspear]

Yes, that's correct. Gal Gadot even showed her gratitude on social media. As much as most people don't want to admit, Gadot owes her career to Snyder.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I wouldn't say any actor particularly owes their success to a director who may have hired them based on their performance or whathaveyou. God blessed her with everything she's gotten, LORD willing. She'd also already had a growing role in the Fast & Furious movies by that point.

Snyder was credited for the story in WW2017 along with Jason Fuchs and Allan Heinberg, while Geoff Johns did some uncredited rewrites. Even if Snyder's input within the story was small, his casting of Gadot in the role was influential enough as it is.

The critics want to make Snyder their bogeyman at all costs and will slander him at every opportunity. You know how biased they are when they can't even credit him for his influence in the first WW film, let alone casting Gadot. But I'm not so concerned about them because they are a lost cause, and lots of people tend to see through their nonsense nowadays.

Lost cause? Why does someone disliking those movies, make them that? This isn't the Gospel. It's a dumb movie. Casting Gal Gadot can mean somethings, but that doesn't have to mean he's responsible for who the character is written as, as a whole, in the WW movie. And he can have influence on it, but, as far as I've read, he didn't write the script, but wrote the story, with other writers. I don't really pin Man Of Steel on Nolan for a similar credit. Why should I, or maybe others, do that for Snyder?

Patty Jenkins, what a letdown. As I understand the situation, casting Gadot was all Snyder's move and so was the WWI setting of the movie. Basically, Snyder all but giftwrapped a lead and a basic story for Jenkins to play with.

Her move was to eject him and everyone who helped her succeed when the time came for the sequel. The results are spelled out in that movie's critical and box office reception.

Snyder isn't the only one who worked on it. He doesn't have a script credit, but a story one. Other people were involved. Why should I see him casting Gadot as the end all be all of the movie? Why shouldn't I, or others, see it as a nice casting choice, that some may think, me included, happen to pay off with a different director, along with the story element?

Is that really what spells out the movie's box office reception? Why think that, with the situations, now? Wasn't there criticism of Snyder's movies as well? Why is it that a spell out for this?

Snyder and Jenkins appear to be very supportive and complimentary towards each other in public. But I find it hard to believe that Snyder showing off that picture was a coincidence, going by what Jenkins has been saying about her vision of Wonder Woman.

If what you're suggesting is what I think, I don't understand why you'd suggest it. To me, that doesn't sound like a positive light being shed on him by the suggestion, if it's what I think.

Yep. The fan reaction means way more, given the climate the film was released in. She had her vision and it sucked.

No swords in WW84, just the lasso. And swinging around stupidly all the time, encroaching on Spider-Man's turf. That's all I think of when I see it. Along with the Donner worship, get the funk out of here Patty. I'm done with you.

Wonder Woman as a warrior was the right direction, but she obviously wanted Lynda Carter fluff. I believe without doubt WB wanted a token woman helming WW no matter what. Wrong move. They should've hired someone else. I'd clash with her too.

"Women don't want to see that", as if she speaks for all women, and as if women are the only audience for the character. The real WonderGal will be seen in ZSJL, thank you very much, particularly in Steppenwolf's last moments.

If I were the studio and she spoke that way about me, I'd cut her loose yesterday. They're all meant to get together for a third movie after that? Let DisneyWars have her. Another 'the Force is female' blowhard who can denigrate another once loved franchise.

Who decides what's the real version and what's not, or what's wrong or not or who should've been hired or not? Who decides it's bad or not? I don't think it's bad, like that, anymore than what's been done before, writing construction wise. Why is Donner fanism worse than Snyder fanism?

What irks me is that the DCEU had an established creative direction and it got derailed because Geoff Johns (and others) didn't get their way. Snyder's films were profitable by any reasonable standard and the future was wide open.

Why is Snyder's creative vision the only one that should be adhered to? Why should only he get his way? Why can't Johns and Jenkins tell stories the way they want? Why should Snyder get carte blanche if those involved don't like his way of doing things or want to do things their way?

[thecolorsblend]

What irks me is that the DCEU had an established creative direction and it got derailed because Geoff Johns (and others) didn't get their way. Snyder's films were profitable by any reasonable standard and the future was wide open.

Why is Snyder's creative vision the only one that should be adhered to? Why should only he get his way? Why can't Johns and Jenkins tell stories the way they want? Why should Snyder get carte blanche if those involved don't like his way of doing things or want to do things their way?

Because Snyder was originally the creative pointman for the DCEU. Johns went out of his way to torpedo Snyder's vision and story because of course he did. The DCEU got dismantled for no obvious reason. I don't care about other filmmakers having their own vision. What I wanted was for Snyder's vision to be left tf alone.

[The Laughing Fish]

Because Snyder was originally the creative pointman for the DCEU. Johns went out of his way to torpedo Snyder's vision and story because of course he did. The DCEU got dismantled for no obvious reason. I don't care about other filmmakers having their own vision. What I wanted was for Snyder's vision to be left tf alone.

Snyder, to his credit, was never selfish. He was very collaborative, open-minded, and encouraged the likes of Allan Heinberg to adopt their own vision of WW, as you can see in the video link I shared in my last post. It's a shame that Johns didn't return the favour.

[The Dark Knight]

What irks me is that the DCEU had an established creative direction and it got derailed because Geoff Johns (and others) didn't get their way. Snyder's films were profitable by any reasonable standard and the future was wide open.

Why is Snyder's creative vision the only one that should be adhered to? Why should only he get his way? Why can't Johns and Jenkins tell stories the way they want? Why should Snyder get carte blanche if those involved don't like his way of doing things or want to do things their way?

Because Snyder was originally the creative pointman for the DCEU. Johns went out of his way to torpedo Snyder's vision and story because of course he did. The DCEU got dismantled for no obvious reason. I don't care about other filmmakers having their own vision. What I wanted was for Snyder's vision to be left tf alone.

This is it, right here.

The DCEU had a specific tone and continuity that has been diluted due to appeasement. I say Jenkins is a retrograde elitist and I would rather she be kicked to the curb, as hard as possible. Whedon style films go against my sensibilities, and I choose to ignore WW84. It's been slammed into a timeline where it doesn't fit. The studio ultimately decides about projects, but I know where I stand.

If you change horses midstream, just abandon the series completely. If you hire Zack Snyder you get a Zack Snyder film. The studio kept him on for JL and then got cold feet. He kept his end of the bargain, and they didn't. That's on them. The enthusiasm for ZSJL speaks for itself, and in that regard the fans have decided.

In respect to global protection, Superman is more important to normal humans and I fail to see why somebody would even pose the question. He has a much longer lifespan and can do what others cannot. Deciding to sacrifice that is a big deal as it greatly reduces the tenure of his heroic acts on Earth. A policeman isn't going to be able to push back an invading alien force.

Wonder Woman becomes the next in line to replace Superman in a world protector sense given her power levels. Superman's death solidifies her commitment to re-emerge. 

[Dagenspear]

Because Snyder was originally the creative pointman for the DCEU. Johns went out of his way to torpedo Snyder's vision and story because of course he did. The DCEU got dismantled for no obvious reason. I don't care about other filmmakers having their own vision. What I wanted was for Snyder's vision to be left tf alone.

This is it, right here.

The DCEU had a specific tone and continuity that has been diluted due to appeasement. I say Jenkins is a retrograde elitist and I would rather she be kicked to the curb, as hard as possible. Whedon style films go against my sensibilities, and I choose to ignore WW84. It's been slammed into a timeline where it doesn't fit. The studio ultimately decides about projects, but I know where I stand.

That's not how creativity works. Snyder, all by himself, doesn't have ownership over these characters or these stories. He isn't owed, all by himself, adhering to his vision anymore than Nolan or Burton are, and they aren't owed that. Each has their own desires, their own perceptions, their own goals. If Snyder gets to do what he wants, why should no one else? I think that's a double standard. What you want, all by itself, isn't owed to you.

If you change horses midstream, just abandon the series completely. If you hire Zack Snyder you get a Zack Snyder film. The studio kept him on for JL and then got cold feet. He kept his end of the bargain, and they didn't. That's on them. The enthusiasm for ZSJL speaks for itself, and in that regard the fans have decided.

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 respect to global protection, Superman is more important to normal humans and I fail to see why somebody would even pose the question. He has a much longer lifespan and can do what others cannot. Deciding to sacrifice that is a big deal as it greatly reduces the tenure of his heroic acts on Earth. A policeman isn't going to be able to push back an invading alien force.

Wonder Woman becomes the next in line to replace Superman in a world protector sense given her power levels. Superman's death solidifies her commitment to re-emerge.

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.