Despite Warner Bros scrambling to get their superducks and directors in a row to make two films as fast as they can because the upcoming JLA movie, one movie has been put on hold because of the upcoming JLA movie.
Guess which one.
Way to show everyone how dedicated you are to "telling good stories regardless of gender", Warner Bros.
To be fair, if they were going to cut one of the three Wonder Woman is the obvious choice from a production standpoint. At the moment, Wonder Woman doesn't even have a script, let alone a director. It's more of a movie option than an actual project.
ReplyDeleteNow, there is lots of room for dark conclusions about what the conflicts were that saw Whedon get let go from the WW project. However, in it's current state, there is no sane way it would get picked over either of the other two.
Except that 'Flash' and 'Green Lantern' didn't have a director just a few days ago, and I don't necessarily know that they have a script, either. (And no, it is not necessarily guaranteed that they have a script just because they have a director. In "blockbuster" movies, the director usually takes a role in shaping the script, which is part of why 'Superman Lives' never got made. But I digress...)
ReplyDeleteThe point isn't "how far along 'Wonder Woman' was", it's "gee, it didn't look like it was any less far along than these other two movies, and you're rushing them into production while eating the losses on 'Wonder Woman'." (And yes, it did have losses already. Whedon didn't write his script for free.)
Coming just a few weeks after a heavily-denied rumor that they didn't want to make 'Wonder Woman' because Girls Are Icky, it's less convincing than it sounds.
Personally, I always thought Joss Whedon on WW was a mistake. I could care less about live-action as much as I care about telling a GOOD story.
ReplyDeleteShe's a mythological Princess Super Hero.
Wonder Woman should be done by Disney/Pixar.
CG Mythological Princess Super Hero? That's kind of cutting down the character a bit. I liked Joss for the project because he didn't see Wonder Woman as a cutesy little woman-thing to give seven year-old girls a role model so much as he saw Wonder Woman as a strong, willful person that fans of sci-fi and fantasy should be able to look up to, regardless of age or gender.
ReplyDeleteHey, they just want to take their time until they can really do it right.
ReplyDeleteYou know, like they did with Catwoman.
Come now. If you're choosing to see that as sexism, you're being willfully ignorant.
ReplyDeleteFlash and Green Lantern NEED the JLA movie to bootstrap them; Wonder Woman doesn't.
You want to help get WW on the screen? Stop tossing about pointless and baseless accusations of sexism and write them a script.
Scipio baby, they had a script. They had a Director. They chased him off, said they had a new script and a new Director.
ReplyDeleteThat fell through.
This is one of the oldest and more influential movie companies in Hollywood. They have the resources to get whatever the fuck they want. If they really wanted this fucking movie and thought it would succeed, they wouldn't be pushing the damned thing through.
Maybe you're right and maybe its got nothing to do with gender, but given the recent brouhaha with Robinov and the reports we've heard from female writers who've actually worked in Hollywood, this is hardly a "pointless and baseless" accusation.
I'd say instead that you are the one who is willfully ignorant, ignoring that this is WB's golden opportunity to get the angry women off their shoulders after the Robinov quote PR disaster and they should be working their asses off at it so that they can say "SEE That's not our policy!" even if the thing stinks. (And I trust even you're not naive enough to think quality is REALLY that high on their minds after some of the shitty movies we've seen masquerading as summer blockbusters) Instead, they are letting it drop. That to me is suspicious.
Trust me, I share your disappoint in the film's delay. I'm part of a Wonder Woman anthology book whose release is on hold precisely because the movie is on hold, so I'm likely more disappointed.
ReplyDeleteThe key is here: "even if the thing stinks."
DC isn't Marvel. That isn't how they do things. Sure, maybe they still put out things that stink, but that's not the point. Unlike Marvel, they are terrified of doing so, particularly on Big Properties like Wonder Woman.
And they certainly aren't going to change that approach just to get a few angry (women) readers off the shoulders. We are not the audience they need to target to, because we're going to see the film regardless. They have to make sure other people are going to want to see it. And that means taking their time to put all their ducks in a row.
I would much rather have NO WW movie for now than a bad WW movie, and if you don't feel that way, spend a weekend watching Catwoman, Steel, and Batman & Robin, and I'll wager you change your mind.
Scipio, go back and reread your last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteCatwoman. Steel. Batman & Robin. ALL shitty movies put out by DC and not Marvel.
Sure, we had a good movie or two. We had Batman Begins. You may think they learned their lesson -- But look at the state of movies today. Warner Brothers is one of the most prolific studios, they're still responsible for their fair share of stinkers. Even if you choose to remain blind to the idea that DC itself might push something shitty through production just to get it on the shelves, you can't deny the movie side of the house is in a sad state.
I'm actually with you, Scipio, that I would rather no WW than a bad one.
That doesn't change the fact that this is extremely suspicious timing.