Wonder Woman (2017)

[Gotham Knight]

More on that:

Apparently, Jenkins was expected to submit an entire screenplay, instead she submitted a half-assed treatment on a few slips of paper and was trying to pitch, which left Gunn and the rest of WB executives dumb struck. WW3 was and is being considered,  it's just that Jenkins had done no work at all on the project!

[thecolorsblend]

More on that:

Apparently, Jenkins was expected to submit an entire screenplay, instead she submitted a half-assed treatment on a few slips of paper and was trying to pitch, which left Gunn and the rest of WB executives dumb struck. WW3 was and is being considered,  it's just that Jenkins had done no work at all on the project!

Something here isn't adding up.

Typically, a writer will craft a general outline of the story and pitch the executives on it. They either approve or they don't.

If they do, the writer will usually (not always but usually) bang out a treatment. The length of it can vary. But it usually includes a more detailed story synopsis, descriptions of the primary characters, MAYBE fragments of dialogue, the basic theme(s) of the story, etc. Either it gets approved or it doesn't.

If it does, THEN the writer will begin drafting a full script.

So, like I say, something seems out of place. If Jenkins had gone through the above steps, why wouldn't she have a script ready to go? Otoh, if the above steps hadn't been followed, it's one hell of a big ask for the executives to expect a writer to invest the amount of time needed to complete a script when there's no real forward momentum going on with the project.

In other words, either Gunn is an unprofessional a-hole for expecting her to do the full script when the above steps haven't been followed or else Jenkins is an unprofessional a-hole for following the above steps but not delivering a full script. And I never got the impression that either of them is an unprofessional a-hole.

It could be that I'm missing something here or that there's a part of the story that we haven't heard yet. But IF this is all true, then it all sounds kind of strange to me.

Guess we'll see tho.

[Gotham Knight]

More on that:

Apparently, Jenkins was expected to submit an entire screenplay, instead she submitted a half-assed treatment on a few slips of paper and was trying to pitch, which left Gunn and the rest of WB executives dumb struck. WW3 was and is being considered,  it's just that Jenkins had done no work at all on the project!

Something here isn't adding up.

Typically, a writer will craft a general outline of the story and pitch the executives on it. They either approve or they don't.

If they do, the writer will usually (not always but usually) bang out a treatment. The length of it can vary. But it usually includes a more detailed story synopsis, descriptions of the primary characters, MAYBE fragments of dialogue, the basic theme(s) of the story, etc. Either it gets approved or it doesn't.

If it does, THEN the writer will begin drafting a full script.

So, like I say, something seems out of place. If Jenkins had gone through the above steps, why wouldn't she have a script ready to go? Otoh, if the above steps hadn't been followed, it's one hell of a big ask for the executives to expect a writer to invest the amount of time needed to complete a script when there's no real forward momentum going on with the project.

In other words, either Gunn is an unprofessional a-hole for expecting her to do the full script when the above steps haven't been followed or else Jenkins is an unprofessional a-hole for following the above steps but not delivering a full script. And I never got the impression that either of them is an unprofessional a-hole.

It could be that I'm missing something here or that there's a part of the story that we haven't heard yet. But IF this is all true, then it all sounds kind of strange to me.

Guess we'll see tho.

To be fair there are a lot of 'reactionary' takes being had. This might be one of them. Looking at this now, yes I think one might be inclined to include some serious salt gain seasonings.

[The Dark Knight]

Thinking aloud here, but I'm possibly leaning on Gunn's side on this. Wonder Woman 1984 was not well received. Gunn's job is to turn mediocrity around and craft a culture of excellence. If Jenkins did not put in the work and her ideas were not up to scratch, the early development process is absolutely vital. Because look at what happens once a film gets off the ground. The tinkering starts due to indecision and attempts to resolve poor decisions that should have been fixed early on. I don't like Jenkins based on what I've heard, so if she doesn't want to play ball I'm glad she's gone. Snyder's approach to Wonder Woman was vastly superior to hers. I suspect this is line in the sand statement to everyone across the board - get serious, because there are higher expectations. Being Patty Jenkins doesn't make you automatically immune to feedback.

[The Joker]

To be fair there are a lot of 'reactionary' takes being had. This might be one of them. Looking at this now, yes I think one might be inclined to include some serious salt gain seasonings.

Solid take on where things stand right now I'd say.

Speaking as someone who's really not-at-all convinced Gunn's going to submit a 10 year plan for a complete reboot (which is absolutely adorable considering this is frigging WARNER BROS we're talking about!), the Wonder Woman 3 thing is coming across more like just a simple case of whatever Patty and Geoff Johns were going to run with with the old regime, is clearly clashing with what the current direction/plans are now. I can believe Patty Jenkins wanted to continue in her very own sandbox when it comes to Wonder Woman, since that's what was essentially encouraged under the Walter Hamada's DCEU regime (multiversial/confined films that don't necessarily have to connect to one another). It's just, as the saying goes, "Things Change", and supposedly Zaslav is much more of a fan of a MCU-like connected universe (for better or worse), than producing a slate of DC films that have little to no connectivity to one another.

[Silver Nemesis]

Speaking as someone who's really not-at-all convinced Gunn's going to submit a 10 year plan for a complete reboot (which is absolutely adorable considering this is frigging WARNER BROS we're talking about!)

My thoughts exactly. When has Warner Bros ever stuck to a long-term plan when it comes to their DC properties? We see this happen every few years. One of their projects is successful, so they issue a statement saying, "Oh, we get it now – we know what we're doing" and then proceed to announce about fifty different films and TV shows, most of which never see the light of day. As soon as one of their projects underperforms, they start altering 'the plan' and end up right back where they started.

They'll let Gunn and Safran call the shots for the next few years, but I doubt their decade-long plan will see fruition. More likely one of two things will happen:

1)   If Gunn and Safran's plans don't yield an immediate and consistent increase in box office returns, the studio will get cold feet and pass the reins to someone else. They might allow the new leadership a few flops, but they won't tolerate more than three or four before they shake things up. Considering the signs currently point to widespread superhero fatigue finally setting in (even Marvel is rumoured to be reducing its upcoming release schedule to focus on quality over quantity and avoid repeating the oversaturation that occurred during Phase 4), the studio needs to be realistic about its expectations. If they think Gunn and Safran are going to deliver a series of $1 billion+ hits, they've got another thing coming.

2)   Instead of getting fired, Gunn and Safran quit. The studio execs start interfering, as they inevitably do, and Gunn and Safran decide they've had enough. The most likely scenario leading to this outcome would be if Gunn tries to steer the DCU along a more comedic route, but then The Batman II or Joker II end up being far more successful than any of the DCU movies. The studio then issues one of its "Oh, now we get it" statements and decides to shift gear to make everything dark and serious, which conflicts with Gunn's vision and motivates him to quit.

I think option 1 is more likely. Either way, I doubt Gunn or his plan will last more than five or six years tops. 

[The Dark Knight]

If we fail to plan we plan to fail, and I do like Batman operating in a Justice League format. However my issue with an interconnected film universe is that it reduces movies to anticipating who will cameo and what the post credit scene will be, rather than enjoying the here and now. This factory mindset has without question cheapened the mystique of film. You can't get a bigger factory mindset than the phrase ten year plan.

The type of man I would trust to oversee my brand is Tom Cruise - someone who has years of experience, knows what he wants and takes his time to achieve his vision on his terms. In the space of 11 years Cruise put out three Mission Impossible films, and that's considered a franchise. The movies are first rate and the time between drinks kept the audience thirsty for more. There's still a sense of anticipation when one comes out, and the expectation is that it's going to be good. That's very much not the case with WB/DC.

The fact of the matter is that there's nothing special about comic book movies anymore. They're dime a dozen, and kids today wouldn't understand the cultural phenomenon they really used to be. Having more of something makes it less valuable. Waiting was part of the experience.

Companies hire people to work for them, but they should have some inherent idea of what they want themselves. By hiring Gunn, the studio are admitting they really don't know what they're doing and never did. They need to be told, and will probably do as they're told. For now, as Snyder found out after BvS. For better or worse, we're going to see what Gunn pitched, and if it excites the fanbase in any way.

[thecolorsblend]

If we fail to plan we plan to fail, and I do like Batman operating in a Justice League format. However my issue with an interconnected film universe is that it reduces movies to anticipating who will cameo and what the post credit scene will be, rather than enjoying the here and now. This factory mindset has without question cheapened the mystique of film. You can't get a bigger factory mindset than the phrase ten year plan.

The type of man I would trust to oversee my brand is Tom Cruise - someone who has years of experience, knows what he wants and takes his time to achieve his vision on his terms. In the space of 11 years Cruise put out three Mission Impossible films, and that's considered a franchise. The movies are first rate and the time between drinks kept the audience thirsty for more. There's still a sense of anticipation when one comes out, and the expectation is that it's going to be good. That's very much not the case with WB/DC.

The fact of the matter is that there's nothing special about comic book movies anymore. They're dime a dozen, and kids today wouldn't understand the cultural phenomenon they really used to be. Having more of something makes it less valuable. Waiting was part of the experience.

Companies hire people to work for them, but they should have some inherent idea of what they want themselves. By hiring Gunn, the studio are admitting they really don't know what they're doing and never did. They need to be told, and will probably do as they're told. For now, as Snyder found out after BvS. For better or worse, we're going to see what Gunn pitched, and if it excites the fanbase in any way.

The example I always point back to is Star Wars. Say whatever you want about the quality of the prequels, but Lucas worked a 9-5 schedule when completing those movies. His limited workday is what necessitated a three year gap between installments.

As Disney has proven (for better or for worse), it is possible to finish a Star Wars film in just two years.

But I think Lucas handled things perfectly. During the lag time between prequel films, the licensing department was in charge. They released prequel-era novels, comic books, video games, action figures, urinal cakes, you name it. Those things kept the Star Wars core audience engaged. Meanwhile the wide audience had three whole years to get over being sick of hearing about Star Wars.

When a new movie came out, both audiences were READY to see what was coming.

All of that is a long way of setting the table. Does anybody still feel that way about Star Wars anymore? Maybe. But I doubt it.

[Travesty]

Companies hire people to work for them, but they should have some inherent idea of what they want themselves. By hiring Gunn, the studio are admitting they really don't know what they're doing and never did. They need to be told, and will probably do as they're told. For now, as Snyder found out after BvS. For better or worse, we're going to see what Gunn pitched, and if it excites the fanbase in any way.

See, that's where I'm still incredibly confused how the whole Gunn and Safran thing came about. You claim you want to see their pitch, but at the same time, they keep telling everyone that nobody knows their plan(even WB), and that they're still working on it. Why did WB hire these guys, without any knowledge of what they're planning on doing? You wanna see their pitch, but pitches are basically an outline of a plan, but they claim they have no outline, and that they're working on their overall plan/outline for the next 10 years. That's why I'm still in a "wait and see" approach, because I'm still confused how this all came about, when they themselves claim that they're essentially winging it right now, and that nobody knows anything about anything.

That doesn't give me confidence. I would have way more confidence if I knew WB were scouting out different people who came up with the best outline and solution for a cohesive universe for DC. But again, Gunn and Safran have outright told us that they have no plan right now. Why is anyone excited about this? Again, I don't have confidence right now. WB literally just went:

WB: "Oh hey, Gunn and Safran. You want to control the DC universe? Convince me. What's your plan?"

Gunn and Safran: "we have no plan....but we'll make one, I guess?".

WB: "Brilliant! Here's the keys to DC cinematic universe"


I mean, this sounds worse than Snyder being forced to make his movies into a cinematic universe. I dunno?....

[thecolorsblend]

Long story short, ME believes this was a hit on Zaslav using Gunn as a proxy.