Wonder Woman Director leaves project

Creative differences.
She probably wanted to make a good movie

www.comicbookresources.com/article/direc...creative-differences

lfan wrote: Hmm....trouble in Paradise (Island)?

Seriously, I was never keen on the "must get a woman director" strategy, but I was excited over Maccleran. Her work on Breaking Bad, House of Cards, and Better Call Saul is amazing IMO. Hopefully they'll get a great director -- male or female.....

ElF

I wasn't either.. but I took it as "let's make sure we widen the field and actually LOOK at female directors". It's too easy to limit the selection to a small list of men, casting a wider net is better.

I'd love to know the full story here -- but it's also sausage making, and creating something like a big budget movie is a big thing, and one prone to people being not in sync for a host of reasons. It's not like this hasn't happened before in general and to Super hero films in specific. (We'll see who good Antman is shortly.)

Still, this fills me with a bit of dread that a good director felt compelled to walk. (Felt the same about Wright and Ant-Man.)

I am going to guess and this is hypothesis:

Warner brothers has a very specific idea for the movie. Most likely a semi thoughtful take on feminism mixed with action and for lack of a better word Female tone- Soft Gentle, etc.

The Problem is....i don't really know of any female directors who really do that kind of movies

Quite well behaved women rarely make history, and rarly make movies. .

(okay Elizabeth Allen is kinda that way, but i can't imagine her getting. Though Aquamarine is a movie i like more then i should)

Sounds like studio micromanagement to me. Maybe Marvel will hire her to direct Captain Marvel.

I think Woodclaw said it best when they said that WB is playing catchup to Marvel with the handbrakes on.

I also tend to agree with the opinion stated that this is probably due to her not wanting to direct a bad movie, as someone said.

I am a huge Wonder Woman fan in general, and I just don't think they have a clue what to do with her. In fact, I don't think Warner Bros. and DC for that matter, really have a clue what they are doing with regards to their cinematic universe. Albeit this is based off one film they have released (which was not really Superman imo), and A LOT of speculation with regards to BvsS (which, imo, if this is an indication of the most creative title they could come up with, speaks volumes about their creativity and professionalism/respect for the property. At best, it sounds like a working title, which I assumed it was, then they announced it as the official one lol).

Marvel, on the other hand, has a VERY CLEAR vision of where they want to go, what they want to do. And they have respect for their property. They KNOW they are not creating some deep, meaningful, artistic works. But they also know that they want to create GOOD movies. Their movies are fun, adventure romps, with an epic story unfolding. Compare this to MoS, which is VERY stylistic, tries to be all brooding and all "art-y" (for point of a better word). As a quick example, check out the shot when Clark is talking to the priest, pretty early on in the film, and the image of Jesus is in the background stained-glass window. This is film school level symbolism.

As an aside, this is not the first thing that WB has screwed up with regards to franchises. Turbine had a very clear idea of what they were doing with Lord of the Rings Online. Yes it was not the huge success that World of Warcraft is, but it had a good following and community. And, for the most part, Turbine fed them what they wanted. Then WB took over Turbine and the game just went in a different direction.

Rather then build on what they had, they completely tore it up and shifted vision. And the community did not like that. As evidenced by the exodus of players and lack of cohesive direction or coherent vision for the game.

I guess what I'm saying, in a protracted/long-winded way, is that WB is to much "suit" to make comic books films. Yes, The Dark Knight trilogy was a success, but that was Batman. You can't really mess that up by grounding him in reality. It worked. But it does not really work for about 99% of all other comic characters (DC or Marvel). You need to embrace and celebrate the fantastical nature at their core. If you don't, you're doomed to fail.

I mean, how many thought a talking racoon and walking tree would be one of the highest grossing films (if not the highest) in the year it was released? And this was based on a marginal comic book, with no mainstream appeal. I didn't tbh. But it worked because they had fun with it, and had a team that took itself seriously when it had too.

The DC cinematic universe is looking like its gonna fail to launch imo. And imo you can blame WB for that.

Just my 2 cents ofc.

Peace.

/K

lfan wrote: While this is a setback for her own movie, there are some rumors swirling that WW's involvement in BvS is a 'highlight of the film'. Here is a set of tweets from Gail Simone from a trusted source:



ElF

I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. While Gail isn't exactly a sellout, she has become DC's corporate mouthpiece on women's issues and toes the company line for the most part.

And yes, this is more micro-managing from WB executives. The cycle of suck for DC movies has begun anew.

kikass2014 wrote: I think Woodclaw said it best when they said that WB is playing catchup to Marvel with the handbrakes on.

I also tend to agree with the opinion stated that this is probably due to her not wanting to direct a bad movie, as someone said.

I am a huge Wonder Woman fan in general, and I just don't think they have a clue what to do with her. In fact, I don't think Warner Bros. and DC for that matter, really have a clue what they are doing with regards to their cinematic universe. Albeit this is based off one film they have released (which was not really Superman imo), and A LOT of speculation with regards to BvsS (which, imo, if this is an indication of the most creative title they could come up with, speaks volumes about their creativity and professionalism/respect for the property. At best, it sounds like a working title, which I assumed it was, then they announced it as the official one lol).

Marvel, on the other hand, has a VERY CLEAR vision of where they want to go, what they want to do. And they have respect for their property. They KNOW they are not creating some deep, meaningful, artistic works. But they also know that they want to create GOOD movies. Their movies are fun, adventure romps, with an epic story unfolding. Compare this to MoS, which is VERY stylistic, tries to be all brooding and all "art-y" (for point of a better word). As a quick example, check out the shot when Clark is talking to the priest, pretty early on in the film, and the image of Jesus is in the background stained-glass window. This is film school level symbolism.

As an aside, this is not the first thing that WB has screwed up with regards to franchises. Turbine had a very clear idea of what they were doing with Lord of the Rings Online. Yes it was not the huge success that World of Warcraft is, but it had a good following and community. And, for the most part, Turbine fed them what they wanted. Then WB took over Turbine and the game just went in a different direction.

Rather then build on what they had, they completely tore it up and shifted vision. And the community did not like that. As evidenced by the exodus of players and lack of cohesive direction or coherent vision for the game.

I guess what I'm saying, in a protracted/long-winded way, is that WB is to much "suit" to make comic books films. Yes, The Dark Knight trilogy was a success, but that was Batman. You can't really mess that up by grounding him in reality. It worked. But it does not really work for about 99% of all other comic characters (DC or Marvel). You need to embrace and celebrate the fantastical nature at their core. If you don't, you're doomed to fail.

I mean, how many thought a talking racoon and walking tree would be one of the highest grossing films (if not the highest) in the year it was released? And this was based on a marginal comic book, with no mainstream appeal. I didn't tbh. But it worked because they had fun with it, and had a team that took itself seriously when it had too.

The DC cinematic universe is looking like its gonna fail to launch imo. And imo you can blame WB for that.

Just my 2 cents ofc.

Peace.

/K

I sure hope you are wrong, but I see no evidence that you are. Quite the contrary. The weird thing is that nearly everyone, inside and outside the industry, sees the Marvel recipe, yet Warner wants to do it differently.

While there are many ways to make good movies, there aren't a lot of ways to make good superhero movies. If Warner insists on doing thing differently from a well-functioning artistic model for superhero movies, then they put themselves and their fans at considerable risk of suckdom.

With DC, the core of their best characters is wild and crazy alien or alternate dimension kind of fantabulism. But DC wants to make it all feel real. To have believable characters in the real world.

Which is where they start to go wrong. IMHO.

She would be a Yes- Woman

These tweets have an odd timing about them.
WB gets a punch to the gut one day with a director quitting then all of a sudden their NUMBER ONE female employee rattles off three tweets.

Hmmmmmm

What is with all the Debbie Downers in here? Directors leave projects all the time over "creative differences". This is nothing new. It is not even restricted to WB/DC as Marvel has had a couple of directors bow out from projects and those movies stayed on track.

True, I have ripped on WB in the past for taking so long to get a WW film made. But I think this time is different. I thoroughly enjoyed MOS and can't wait to see what the upcoming DCCU comes up with,including WW.

Those arguments that WB is "rushing it" are totally off base. I mean, how can they be "rushing it" when they are going to have close to three years between movies? How is that rushing?

The other argument I read all the time is "WB should just make movies like Marvel does". Well guess what? They tried that with Green Lantern and failed miserably. After all, what is so wrong with diversity? I don't want to see the same movie over and over again. I'm perfectly happy with Marvel movies before more "fun" and "wise-cracking" while DC movies are more epic and serious.

Back to the original point: Is this a setback for finally getting WW on the big screen? Yes. But is it a huge, production stopping setback? I don't think so. I think they will have a new director shortly who will take WW to new heights.

Heres the thing. Dark Knight as a film like all of Nolan's Films is far from perfect, but i would argue its better then any of the Marve Studio Movies. All three of the movies are good. Man of Steel is ambitious movie, that yeah is a faiilure but its not from "lets copy marvel". Green Lantern...Yes is kinda of a copy, but its also more ambioutous in special effectsany of the marvel movies-its also a direction they have all but disavowed.

Yes they aren't batting a 100% but neither is Marvel, and they are as a default going for something more serious and at least trying for ideas. So good.

I do have some kinda hope for Batman Vs Superman. It does sound interest. All of the Movies they announced-From Sucide Squad, To Wonder Woman to Cyborg sound neat/. They can do this.

Ps. And for the Record: Iron Man 2 has a middle thats way to soggy for its own good, Captian America 1 just doesn't have much of a story, I sometimes think i am the only one who kinda has pacing issues with GOTG, and Winter Solder doesn't have any real sence of Danger which makes it as a political Thriller Kinda limp. I would probably Put Man of Steel above Iron Man 2 and Captain America 1

Wal Mart is a great mirror of society.
They sell things people want for as cheaply as possible and still turn a huge profit.

www.walmart.com/ip/The-Dark-Knight-Widescreen/10719507

www.walmart.com/ip/28773452

People who want Captain America are willing to pay FOUR times the price for a movie that has been out for years now.

It is hard to find a Marvel movie for anything less than $15

Markiehoe wrote: Wal Mart is a great mirror of society.
They sell things people want for as cheaply as possible and still turn a huge profit.

www.walmart.com/ip/The-Dark-Knight-Widescreen/10719507

www.walmart.com/ip/28773452

People who want Captain America are willing to pay FOUR times the price for a movie that has been out for years now.

It is hard to find a Marvel movie for anything less than $15

You are actually using prices found on the internet to reinforce your argument that "everything DC has ever done (or ever will do) sucks and everything Marvel has ever done is awesome"?

This doesn't prove anything. I was just at my local WalMart in January and saw Iron Man 1, CA:TFA, and MOS all in the same discount bin for $10.00 or less. In fact, if this works, here is a link from Amazon that found new Iron Man DVD's for less than $10.00:

Iron Man dvd

That really didn't seem that "hard to find a Marvel movie for less than $15". Even if I couldn't, all that just boils down to the company's pricing strategy, not any relevance to the quality of the movie.

Don't take this the wrong way, I am not some DC cheerleader that thinks everything they did has been great (Don't get me started on Superman Returns), but I also don't believe that everything Marvel has done has been the greatest thing since sliced bread (Iron Man 3 anyone...).

What really grates on me is the Marvel fanatics who seem to have this insatiable need to tear down everything DC/WB tries to do in some bizarre attempt to prop up "their" company. Marvel is doing just fine on their own, they do not need your help.

In the end, I just want good movies from both companies.

lfan wrote: comicbook.com/2015/04/14/former-director...e-a-tiger-sidekick-/

Dunno if this is true, but if so, it only reinforces my point of finding the Best PERSON to direct, not just a woman. Having non-comics fans trying to "reimagine" iconic characters like WW (e.g. David Kelly) leads to disaster while comics fans like Joss and James Gunn often nets better results. That doesn't mean they cannot exude creativity but at least respect the overall canon of the character.

That being said, the article seems a little fishy, as I have a hard time that points like this never arose in their due diligence and vetting of her. One would think the question of "how do you see WW?" would have to come up sometime. Such a radical concept and deviation from the comics should have been mentioned. Then again, because it wasn't, maybe that's why WB decided to cut bait....

ElF

Yeah, I don't know if this story is true about the "talking tiger sidekick" for WW. However, if it is, that would have alienated a huge portion of the fan base. Perhaps WB was right to cut ties with her...

I just hope they get a great director, male or female, who can do WW justice. I'm still going to think positive and believe that they will.

jdrock24 wrote:

lfan wrote: comicbook.com/2015/04/14/former-director...e-a-tiger-sidekick-/

Dunno if this is true, but if so, it only reinforces my point of finding the Best PERSON to direct, not just a woman. Having non-comics fans trying to "reimagine" iconic characters like WW (e.g. David Kelly) leads to disaster while comics fans like Joss and James Gunn often nets better results. That doesn't mean they cannot exude creativity but at least respect the overall canon of the character.

That being said, the article seems a little fishy, as I have a hard time that points like this never arose in their due diligence and vetting of her. One would think the question of "how do you see WW?" would have to come up sometime. Such a radical concept and deviation from the comics should have been mentioned. Then again, because it wasn't, maybe that's why WB decided to cut bait....

ElF

Yeah, I don't know if this story is true about the "talking tiger sidekick" for WW. However, if it is, that would have alienated a huge portion of the fan base. Perhaps WB was right to cut ties with her...

I just hope they get a great director, male or female, who can do WW justice. I'm still going to think positive and believe that they will.

Well, it would have been the first time WB taking an active hand in a DC movie turned out right, if it is the case.

I agree that it should be the best directer available that gets the source material, but I think if they could get a good female director (say, Katheryn Bigelow), it would be better than an equally talented male director.

ADDENDUM: And now I'm completely depressed after the sudden realization that a talking tiger sidekick was going to be the lead-in to the director's next DC film project: Mary Marvel

castor wrote: Heres the thing. Dark Knight as a film like all of Nolan's Films is far from perfect, but i would argue its better then any of the Marve Studio Movies. All three of the movies are good. Man of Steel is ambitious movie, that yeah is a faiilure but its not from "lets copy marvel". Green Lantern...Yes is kinda of a copy, but its also more ambioutous in special effectsany of the marvel movies-its also a direction they have all but disavowed.

Yes they aren't batting a 100% but neither is Marvel, and they are as a default going for something more serious and at least trying for ideas. So good.

I do have some kinda hope for Batman Vs Superman. It does sound interest. All of the Movies they announced-From Sucide Squad, To Wonder Woman to Cyborg sound neat/. They can do this.

Ps. And for the Record: Iron Man 2 has a middle thats way to soggy for its own good, Captian America 1 just doesn't have much of a story, I sometimes think i am the only one who kinda has pacing issues with GOTG, and Winter Solder doesn't have any real sence of Danger which makes it as a political Thriller Kinda limp. I would probably Put Man of Steel above Iron Man 2 and Captain America 1

I don't see all super hero movies multiple times in the Theatre (but I do a pretty good job of seeing the main ones, esp DC and Marvel). It often comes down to people who want to see it again and how well I enjoyed the first time/feel like I might have missed something.

I saw Avengers three times in the theatre (which is probably the most of any movie this century). The third time was still pretty damn fun, and I didn't notice the first two dimming any, the third was a bit down. (My first showing was with a pumped up crowd though and was hella fun. I also walked through Walhalla, up through to cut off at Midgard to get to the theater to watch Loki battle Thor and the Avengers, and it's hard to beat that setup. Walhalla and Midgard are the actual streets I walked to the theater.) I say this to say the FIRST time I saw GoG I had a rip-roaring fun time. The second time I saw it, I still enjoyed it, but it was slower. When I watching it at home on Blu-Ray months later it pretty slow in parts. I often get divorced from time, so it's easy for a movie to suspend my sense of time, and I let it play out. If I think you're movie is slow in the theater, you've got really problems.

Man of Steel had pacing problems for me, probably more so than any movie i've seen in the theatre is a LONG time, but I think it's because it broke my sense of belief to many times, and thus I NOTICED time as I was no longer under the spell of the movie. I really need to watch it again. (I have real problems with MoS.)

I think I need to re-watch IM 1-3 and CA1 too, but from my memory, CA1 is probably the worst Marvel movie so far, and seeing CA2: Winter Soldier, I go "Oh so that's the movie they wanted to make, why didn't they just make this one first then?" CA1 really felt like filler to introduce Hydra and Captain America. Those pre-CA Steve Rodgers effects were pretty awesome, but it can't carry a movie. Honestly, I think Marvel knew it too, CA worked awesomely in Avengers. I noticed in CA2, he has Falcon and Black Widow with him, and CA3 is almost looking like an Avengers movie... They honestly don't think that CA/Chris Evans can carry a movie.

(OTH, Daredevil can sure carry 12+ hours of TV.)

I think the only part of Winter Solider with any menace is some of the Bucky/Black Widow fight. Sebastican Stan and Scarlett Johansson did an awesome job there. At least when I think about the movie, that's the part that comes to mind. (And isn't that an odd thing to think about a _Captain America_ movie?) I also had no real desire to see it again (ditto for CA1).

I think the craftmanship of MoS is better than CA1, I have a hard time remembering IM2 out of the three, but I really don't like MoS overall, and that colors how I think. Despite it having great actors, who all did their jobs well, awesome special effects (probably some of the best super-human fight scenes on film), etc. I just don't like the movie, but they probably knew there would be people like me, and made the movie anyway, I can't really fault them for that, make the movie you feel you need to make, I just get to call them how I see them.

But I don't hate on DC for making MoS (Nolan/Batman-iszing Superman) or not mimicking the Marvel template (I just don't like MoS). It takes guts to tell YOUR stories YOUR way, instead of just copying "what works!". I'm glad they have their own tone, and they've split into different Universes. They SHOULD do their own thing. OTH, I'm wondering what I'll think of BvsS and the Wonder Woman movie. I certainly hope it's because the director wanted something stupid (this makes no real sense to me though).

Well that was quick!

Patty Jenkins it is then. Not more than a day after McClaren walked away. They must have had this planned out for at least a couple of weeks for this to happen so quickly.

See? I told you this was only a minor speed bump WE ARE STILL GETTING A WW MOVIE!!

.Let's hope she can deliver the goods

Jenkins is most known for Monster-and looking at her imdb its pretty much the only thing shes directed since 2003. Huh.

Monster is a movie that i didn't particuarly like-it seemed designed specifically could be nominated and win a best actress award-everything else felt kind of secondary to it-and her performance was about 30% or more makeup. Really it was Christina Ricci as her enabling girlfriend that was the best part of her movie.

But well she can direct actors, and do in circumstance so thats something.