CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › DC Cinematic Universe Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DC Cinematic Universe Discussion - Page 55

post #2701 of 3585
Some great stuff has been done with the GL concept over the years. When it's emphasized that using the ring is a creative act involving imagination it can be a lot of fun. It also can be used to explore character. I'm thinking after Kyle Rayner's girlfriend Alex died, he manifested a construct of her while sleeping, to his horror when he woke up.

The emotional spectrum stuff this last decade or so had a lot of potential, but has been taken too far. Yellow as fear as a counter to green's willpower, there's a lot of thematic potential there.

But only a sure hand could really pull it off in film form. GL of all things needs a real Pixar, space age attitude, someone like Brad Bird. It should basically be The Last Starfighter or Flight of the Navigator, space opera butts up against modern earth Joe Schmoe. Not whatever the hell the 2011 movie was doing.
post #2702 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

 

I still don't get GL. He has a ring that can literally do anything. Not only does he essentially make Superman superfluous, GL's basically a god. With a really, really lame weakness.

 

The ring can only create constructs of thoughts which is a cool power but not godlike in a way that it can do anything.  It can't warp reality or anything like that. I guess if you had a dumb GL they would be unable to create anything cool with it.  

post #2703 of 3585

And that weakness has been mostly removed in the comics.

post #2704 of 3585
Besides, in Superman: Red Son, he just snatches the ring off Hal's finger. Flash could do the same thing. Deathstroke once grabbed Kyle's hand and willed the ring to not work.

A good writer can get clever with this stuff.
post #2705 of 3585
Speaking of Whedon, has anyone else read this? Are we discussing it in a thread that I didn't see?

Quote:
Over the last few years, Joss Whedon has faced more and more criticism from women who loved his earlier work. Buffy is still considered groundbreaking and feminist for its time, but as Whedon’s career progressed, fans noticed some troubling themes. Namely, he’s obsessed with writing waif-like white women who combine physical strength with emotional fragility, and his pop-culture quips often overtake the need for solid characterization.

Quote:
But for all that criticism, Whedon isn’t generally considered to be a sexist filmmaker in the same way as, say, Michael Bay. The consensus is that while Buffy remains iconic, he just didn’t move with the times. Written in 2006, this screenplay suggests something worse.

Quote:
We really dodged a bullet when this screenplay was rejected. The bad news is, he’s now on track to write, direct, and produce the Batgirl movie.


Gavia Baker-Whitelaw, writing for The Daily Dot: Joss Whedon’s leaked ‘Wonder Woman’ screenplay is mindblowingly sexist
post #2706 of 3585

We started talking about it in the "Western Society/Pop Culture/Social Media" thread, but the thread got sidetracked by Trevorrow talk (admittedly, I started the sidetracking). But yeah, that script is aggressively not good for a whole number of reasons.

post #2707 of 3585
Great Hera, that script sounds shitty!

And not just because Whedon uses "waterfalls" as a verb.
post #2708 of 3585

I can't get too worked up over this. The screenplay was most likely never meant to be seen by the general public and an early draft that would have changed. Whedon may have been under constraints by the studio to make it more male-centric, especially considering it took so long to get a WW movie in the first place (and that a Mulan movie almost got made from the POV of a Western, male trader).

 

And although Steve being the real star that has to teach Diana lessons is a misunderstanding of their relationship, I'm not bothered by the villains calling her "bitch" and "whore" because they're the villains. I've never understood when people don't get that a character's behavior is usually not an endorsement by the author, especially when it's from bad guys.

post #2709 of 3585

I like Whedon and there's a few things I'd contest in that article (criticising a script - something designed for a visual medium - for describing Diana's appearance before her thoughts or personality seems silly to me) but there's quite a few things in that article that made me shake me head. I'm sure he was trying to be clever but having one Amazon tell another to "be man enough" to do something is utterly ridiculous. 

post #2710 of 3585

NEVER!

 

DESTROY HIM!

 

"it's like christmas..."

post #2711 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

 I'm not bothered by the villains calling her "bitch" and "whore" because they're the villains.

 

Dean from Supernatural, on the other hand...

post #2712 of 3585

From David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman for the unaired pilot from 2011. Dated December 16, 2010:

 

AND WE ZOOM DOWN TO GROUND LEVEL WHERE A MAN, mid-twenties, built like an Adonis, SPRINTS FOR ALL HE'S WORTH -- RIGHT INTO CAMERA.

CLOSE ON HIS FACE, WE CAN SEE HE'S BEGINNING TO GET WINDED, but only slight. HE RUNS like a cheetah. AS THE CAMERA PULLS BACK SLIGHTLY,

WE INCLUDE HIS PURSUER; AS "SINGLE LADIES" SWELLS, WE SEE A WOMAN,  she wears a colorful spandex suit. Meet WONDER WOMAN,  early thirties,

long flowing black hair, blue eyes. At the moment, there's fire in those blue eyes.

 

So yeah, it's pretty common to describe women (and men) on first impressions.

post #2713 of 3585

It's still amazing to me that someone who wrote something as nuanced and subtle in its portrayal of women and female relationships as BIG LITTLE LIES came up with that. 

post #2714 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Dean from Supernatural, on the other hand...

Haven't watched that show since the 5th season about seven years ago. 

 

And really, I have to say, times are changing fast. There was some sort of paradigm shift (for the better!) in the last five years or so where everyone became more aware of and engaged with how women (and minorities, and sexualities) are portrayed in movies. Someone was always aware, but now everyone is aware, possibly because of the speed and ubiquity of Twitter.

 

So judging something from the past by modern standards is certainly valid, but feels a little wrongheaded to judge Whedon today. The 40 Year Old Virgin, for instance, was on that A.O. Scott best of the 21st century movie list, and that "you know how I know you're gay?" scene would NOT get made today. So how long until the Internet remembers that scene and destroys Apatow?

post #2715 of 3585

Yeah, but that scene still holds up/is funny, unlike a lot of Whedon humor. 

post #2716 of 3585

That's...not the point...

post #2717 of 3585

Shut it, bitch!

post #2718 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

That's...not the point...

 

I understood your point, but I chose not to acknowledge it. 

 

Because you know how I know you love me? I know what drives you crazy. 

post #2719 of 3585

post #2720 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

I understood your point, but I chose not to acknowledge it. 

 

Because you know how I know you love me? I know what drives you crazy. 

Let us get to fuck.

post #2721 of 3585

Verily, I say to thee, let thee and thou proceed with the act of sexual relations, perhaps in the manner of one jesse pinkman referring to the general populace and his close colleagues in the pharmecutical industry by alluding to the aformentioned colleagues as female dogs. 

post #2722 of 3585

Forsooth, let us make the beast with two backs.

post #2723 of 3585

OK, dumb question (also asked on FB): do we have any kind of confirmation that the script is real? That it's actually Whedon's? I haven't read the actual script (I don't read scripts because I'm a horrible Chewer) but the page I read about the script didn't exactly ooze certainty or credible sources.

post #2724 of 3585

I believe it leaked a few years ago and had been confirmed at the time. This is just "Film Twitter" picking up on it and doing their thing.

 

Because like I said above, there was a recent paradigm shift. This wouldn't have gotten this kind of attention five years ago, and didn't when it was initially leaked.

post #2725 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Forsooth, let us make the beast with two backs.

 

Exit, pursued by a Bort. 

post #2726 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

It's still amazing to me that someone who wrote something as nuanced and subtle in its portrayal of women and female relationships as BIG LITTLE LIES came up with that. 

 
It's almost as though people are complicated and judging them by their best work produces just as skewed a perspective as judging them by their worst.  Or something.
post #2727 of 3585

Ally McBeal?

 

Pretty good.

post #2728 of 3585

Maybe because I'm such a fan of Whedon's work, but I just see this script as one as his mistakes. The finale of the Buffy season 8 comic proves the man can produce something terrible.

post #2729 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Ally McBeal?

 

Pretty good.

 

Its not.

post #2730 of 3585

Cat Grant > Ally McBeal because successful journalist is cooler than being neurotic.

post #2731 of 3585

 

Ugh.

post #2732 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil spurn View Post

Its not.

The first two seasons?
post #2733 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
It's almost as though people are complicated and judging them by their best work produces just as skewed a perspective as judging them by their worst.  Or something.

 

Gee, it's almost as if that wasn't my point at all, and more remarking that creators are capable of both highs and lows. But I suppose it's easier to be a prick to me, and to me alone. I don't know what I did to piss you off, man, but please, can't we get over it? 

post #2734 of 3585

Eh?  Have we been fighting?

post #2735 of 3585
Some fragile people up in here.
post #2736 of 3585

I've been triggered. 

post #2737 of 3585

Well sorry.  In my head that was more a generalized comment on the social media landscape that can be so quick to tear down someone when its found that they said one "wrong" thing at some point, rather than a personal jab.

post #2738 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
 

Well sorry.  In my head that was more a generalized comment on the social media landscape that can be so quick to tear down someone when its found that they said one "wrong" thing at some point, rather than a personal jab.

 

I've stayed out of those discussions lately, but I'm not someone who leaps on someone for "one wrong thing at one point." It was just more a remark that I thought it was fascinating and a little bizarre that Kelley - who also wasn't the best at writing women on Ally MacBeal - could write a Wonder Woman script that was so tone-deaf and ridiculous, but then later come up with Big Little Lies. It wasn't an indictment of his character, more an observation on the arc of his career. 

 

No need to be sorry. Sorry if I was quick to accuse.

post #2739 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

I've stayed out of those discussions lately, but I'm not someone who leaps on someone for "one wrong thing at one point." It was just more a remark that I thought it was fascinating and a little bizarre that Kelley - who also wasn't the best at writing women on Ally MacBeal - could write a Wonder Woman script that was so tone-deaf and ridiculous, but then later come up with Big Little Lies. It wasn't an indictment of his character, more an observation on the arc of his career. 

 

No need to be sorry. Sorry if I was quick to accuse.

 

We good.  

 

I think part of the thing is that it's easy to forget just how much every script naturally wants to suck, and what a minor miracle it is when even a good writer manages to complete something good. 

post #2740 of 3585
Truth. Even the best scripts get meddled with by the suits (or difficult actors!) or get hamstrung by budget rug-pulls.
post #2741 of 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Ally McBeal?

 

Pretty good.

 

I always called it Ling Woo, personally, because she was the main character for me.

post #2742 of 3585
post #2743 of 3585

post #2744 of 3585
There are rumblings that some actor whose name I can't remember is either being considered or who has been cast as Tim Drake/Robin.

Tim Drake is my Robin. He was coming in just as I was getting pretty heavy into my comic book fandom. However, if I'm a suit at Warners or Geoff Johns or Snyder or Whedon or whoever the fuck is running this machine now, I'm not using Tim Drake.

At this point, a live action adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns would be completely redundant. Between The Dark Knight Rises and BvS, virtually every major element of that story has been snatched up and recontextualized. The only three major bits left are The Mutants, Batman's final battle with the Joker, and Carrie Kelly.

Fucking. Use. Carrie. Kelly. As. Robin.

They're already developing Nightwing, so cut out Drake entirely and have it go: Dick Grayson 👉 Jason Todd 👉 Carrie Kelly.

Do that.
post #2745 of 3585
Kinda makes Batgirl redundant. Make Raphael Robin instead.
post #2746 of 3585
Definitely Carrie for me. It just makes sense. I remember way before BvS came out there were rumors Jenna Malone was a young-adult Carrie (recently in the comics an older Carrie took on the mantle of being the Batman. Not woman, not girl, she earned the cowl and kept the legend alive when Old Man Bruce supposedly died.)

And I fucking want Batwoman and Midnighter ASAP.
post #2747 of 3585
I have to part with you on Batwoman and even Batgirl. I've had this conversation before, just like War Machine, those characters take away from the uniqueness of the character they've been designed to emulate (in look, if not personality). That's not to say that those characters haven't had good stories, but my preference would be to put them aside.

Midnighter, Apollo, and The Authority would have to be a separate thing in order for me to be interested. As is, I think the popularity of The Authority burned off pretty quickly because they're not great characters for an ongoing series. It should have been a maxiseries with a beginning, middle and end.
post #2748 of 3585
I enjoy Batwoman far more than Batgirl or anyone else in the Bat-family. Hell, she's not really part of the family since she uses a handgun and pisses off Batman frequently. Her reasons for using the Bat image is far more reasonable than Barbara or anyone else. I want her because they're hardly superhero comics. They're more supernatural-horror/detective comics. I've been wanting both Marvel and DC to stretch out and explore their other genres.

I don't want her or MIDNIGHTER to just pop up in other movies. I want them to have their own stories.
post #2749 of 3585

More Phil Sandifer. Here's a review, basically no spoilers, of Wonder Woman where he talks abut why he doesn't like it. And this is the guy that wrote the unofficial history of Wonder Woman with the book The Golden Thread in 2013.

 

This article is a sequel of sorts to his 2013 review of Man of Steel: http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/man-of-steel-a-redemptive-reading/

 

In his review of Man of Steel he defends the movie and Zack Snyder talking about it as a response to the idea of Superman and specifically Grant Morrison's take on the character with All Star Superman. Basically it's a variation of what we've all said before that Snyder doesn't really like Superman and purposefully portrays indifferent gods with the movie and especially the battle in Metropolis.

 

With Wonder Woman he talks a bit about BvS too, and how if MoS's Superman is an answer to Christopher Nolan's take on Batman ("What if Batman was a bad idea?") and Batman in BvS is an escalation of if Superman is problematic then we need an even more extreme Batman, then how does Wonder Woman fit in there? Batman and Superman are two sides of the same coin, but the requirements of the WB machine is to have the DCEU's lynchpin be the Trinity of Bats, Supes and Wondie. 

 

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/an-unraveling-thread/

 

Sandifer argues the three usual takes on Wonder Woman are she's a, "the girl one", which really doesn't give her much to do; b, the warrior, which he specifically points out with Gail Simone, perhaps because she had a positive take on that angle, but has been around at least since Mark Waid portrayed her that way, with armor and a sword, in Kingdom Come, but there (and later during Greg Rucka's run) he capacity for violence is seen as a negative; and c, as the radical political one that her original creator Marston intended. 

 

Sandifer argues that BvS does a little bit of b and c, but b becomes irrelevant because Batman and Superman have been elevated to Spartan warrior status and framed as such by Snyder, and c is fascinating in how it pits Wonder Woman against the toxic masculinity of the title characters:


 

Quote:

More broadly, Sucker Punch makes clear that Snyder views femininity as a potentially viable alternative to the bleakness he identifies in masculine heroism, a viewpoint that comes tantalizingly close to what Wonder Woman was originally created for. She’s even positioned as the chronological beginning of superheroes, with a century of experience under her belt before Batman ever hit the scene, a move that seems primed to take the third option and allow her to be the actual moral foundation of the DCEU. But, of course, this is just an illusion.

 

The actual franchise history - which is of course where Wonder Woman’s narrative claim to intrude on the Batman/Superman dyad comes from - remains firmly centered on Snyder’s more nihilistic vision. Wonder Woman may be the first hero, but she’s explicitly positioned as having hidden herself for the hundred years between the mysterious photograph of her standing around with Captain Kirk and the present day such that Superman’s “revelation” (as the film’s opening chyron puts it) remains the narrative anchor point. And there’s a fundamental way in which this decision sets Wonder Woman up for failure. It has to be a story of Diana not becoming a hero - an explanation for how “A hundred years ago I walked away from mankind.” And indeed, its opening monologue promises to explain just that by having her declare “I used to want to save the world,” pointedly suggesting that she doesn’t anymore.

 

Yes, the film eventually finesses this in the final monologue by having her say that “only love can truly save the world. So now I stay, I fight, and I give - for the world I know can be,” which is semantically indistinguishable from wanting to save the world. But the overall frame is still essentially just how Wonder Woman came to occupy her Batman v. Superman role of haunting the film with the possibility of the larger DCU. It’s an origin story for a ghost.

Bear in mind he contrasts Snyder's take against Sucker Punch in perhaps the best defense of Sucker Punch I've ever seen. 

 

It's still a horrible movie.

 

So anyways, required reading! 

post #2750 of 3585
I still think the whole "Snyder hates Superman" is dumb. He just hates your Superman!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › DC Cinematic Universe Discussion