CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Joss Whedon's BATGIRL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Joss Whedon's BATGIRL

post #1 of 146
Thread Starter 

The first three films in the DCEU were definitely not my jam. While I have some hope for Patty Jenkins' WONDER WOMAN and James Wan's AQUAMAN, all the the behind the scenes turmoil surrounding the other upcoming films was really bumming me out. Then they hired Matt Reeves for THE BATMAN, Chris McKay for NIGHTWING, David Sandberg for SHAZAM, are trying to court Mel Gibson for SUICIDE SQUAD REDUX, Matthew Vaughn for SUPERMAN REBIRTH, are meeting with Aaron Sorkin to try to entice him to a property and now this:

 

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/batgirl-movie-joss-whedon-warner-bros-1202018544/

 

I'll be in my Batcave.


Edited by Barry Woodward - 3/30/17 at 10:00pm
post #2 of 146
I see a new thread but there's no author!
post #3 of 146

What?  Is this real?  I mean...  He's been low key trying to make this movie with his own properties forever, so good!  Hopefully the first good DC movie isn't from the director of the Avengers.  

post #4 of 146
Sometimes you immediately know the author of a thread before you even click on it.
post #5 of 146
From the director who brought you Avengers 2: Black Widow Is Baby Crazy And That's Her Whole Plot Arc
post #6 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

From the director who brought you Avengers 2: Black Widow Is Baby Crazy And That's Her Whole Plot Arc

Awwwwwww.  Come on now.  That's...  That's just reductive.  

post #7 of 146
I do not understand the sterilization / monster bit as a point of contention. I've seen but a fraction of Ultron, but I know the scene and the context, and she's clearly saying, in this PG-13 Disney movie that can only go so far, that being sterilized so she could fuck her marks and not go through anything as physically / emotionally inconvenient to her employers as a pregnancy, was a *dehumanizing* experience along with being made to murder people.

That not only makes complete sense in why she would refer to herself as a monster, but is much closer to a commentary on female genital mutilation than this notion that Whedon was implying that "a woman who can't get pregnant isn't a real woman". I can see this and I'm not even a fan of the guy.

I'm not saying that the scene is shaky and opens itself up to some uncomfortable interpretations, I'm saying that the interpretation that casts Whedon as some throwback in feminist drag is false. I guess because he has labeled himself as this ultra-progressive male feminist, any chance people can find to catch him slipping, is jumped at like a pack of hyenas on a gazelle carcass.
post #8 of 146
Shut up, Barry.
post #9 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I do not understand the sterilization / monster bit as a point of contention. I've seen but a fraction of Ultron, but I know the scene and the context, and she's clearly saying, in this PG-13 Disney movie that can only go so far, that being sterilized so she could fuck her marks and not go through anything as physically / emotionally inconvenient to her employers as a pregnancy, was a *dehumanizing* experience along with being made to murder people.

That not only makes complete sense in why she would refer to herself as a monster, but is much closer to a commentary on female genital mutilation than this notion that Whedon was implying that "a woman who can't get pregnant isn't a real woman". I can see this and I'm not even a fan of the guy.

I'm not saying that the scene is shaky and opens itself up to some uncomfortable interpretations, I'm saying that the interpretation that casts Whedon as some throwback in feminist drag is false. I guess because he has labeled himself as this ultra-progressive male feminist, any chance people can find to catch him slipping, is jumped at like a pack of hyenas on a gazelle carcass.

I stand corrected. That's actually a great response.
post #10 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

 I'm saying that the interpretation that casts Whedon as some throwback in feminist drag is false. I guess because he has labeled himself as this ultra-progressive male feminist, any chance people can find to catch him slipping, is jumped at like a pack of hyenas on a gazelle carcass.

 

Scientists call this "the Boone Daniel Reflex".

post #11 of 146
it's just a terribly calibrated scene in terms of what intention it attempted to communicate to audiences

woof

what a thud that scene landed with

I'll admit that it takes some kind of BWOLLZ to try to handle that subject matter as an incidental detail in an shared universe team-up ensemble superhero action movie...

but WOOF

On one end, I'd suggest that regular audiences simply saw and forgot about the scene for the THUD it landed with and moved on.

Anyone else who actually cared about the scene (social media cacophony) was less invested in the actual scene and more invested in proving wrong those that were offended by those that were offended by the offense of the offended.

Because I certainly interpreted the line about "monster" to apply to her inability to have children. I wasn't out to get Whedon at the time. I was just really bored by the movie I was hoping would be good at the time.

And in discussing the scene, I came around to the interpretation that Whedon wasn't trying to communicate that at all.

But by then it didn't even matter.

Because it never really mattered.

Really, jawssweedin' shouldn't have gotten high and mighty about that bad Jurassic World scene. Hahahahah
post #12 of 146
Stop trying to justify yourself, nooj!

It is a bad scene, though. No way around that. I think the deleted stuff on the disc made it worse, even.
post #13 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Scientists call this "the Boone Daniel Reflex".

Let's not get into all that, again.

A bad scene is a bad scene, but once I saw what all of the hullabaloo was about, I was dumbstruck. I can only imagine Whedon's "what the fuck!?" response when the controversy popped up.
post #14 of 146
(continues editing original post with more addendum and flip-flopping)

I actually thought the complete version of the scene ended it more forcefully, with Black Widow shutting off her total vulnerability like a switch the second Banner rejects her offer and shutting the door on him.

I don't think it would've helped the actual movie overall, but I did think it made the scene itself feel like it wasn't leaving itself hanging.
post #15 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I do not understand the sterilization / monster bit as a point of contention. I've seen but a fraction of Ultron, but I know the scene and the context, and she's clearly saying, in this PG-13 Disney movie that can only go so far, that being sterilized so she could fuck her marks and not go through anything as physically / emotionally inconvenient to her employers as a pregnancy, was a *dehumanizing* experience along with being made to murder people.

That not only makes complete sense in why she would refer to herself as a monster, but is much closer to a commentary on female genital mutilation than this notion that Whedon was implying that "a woman who can't get pregnant isn't a real woman". I can see this and I'm not even a fan of the guy.

I'm not saying that the scene is shaky and opens itself up to some uncomfortable interpretations, I'm saying that the interpretation that casts Whedon as some throwback in feminist drag is false. I guess because he has labeled himself as this ultra-progressive male feminist, any chance people can find to catch him slipping, is jumped at like a pack of hyenas on a gazelle carcass.


Here's the dialogue in question.

 

http://io9.gizmodo.com/black-widow-this-is-why-we-can-t-have-nice-things-1702333037?IR=T

 

“You know what my final test was in the Red Room? They sterilized me, said it was one less thing to worry about. You think you’re the only monster on the team?”

 

I thought it was obvious that referring to herself as a monster was because she was made into an assassin. The resulting fracas is I presume because it's directly adjacent to her saying she'd been sterilised.

 

See also the resulting fallout "You didn't build that." by one Barack Obama.

post #16 of 146
a bad scene

but a good Rorschach test???

if only the scene ended with Banner hulking out due to the stress of being confused by what she meant!

social media symbolism!

I think I initially read the scene as her sterility making her a monster because I've seen other stories use the trope of women who consider themselves less of a woman/human because they couldn't bear children, or had to have some symbol of their womanhood removed.
post #17 of 146

It could also be interpreted as meaning "the people who thought sterilizing me was a good idea are monsters" AKA the world is filled with monsters. 

 

Any way you slice it, it's a bad scene. 

 

But Whedon also wrote the delightful Ultron dialogue.

post #18 of 146
I've never seen the extra material on disc, but it does bother me that the movie lets Banner off the hook in the big finale, when Natasha summons the Hulk by shoving Banner down a deep hole. His fear of committing, which otherwise would have been the real problem, looks reasonable in hindsight.

I didn't mean to make this an Avengers 2 thread. We have lots of those already. I apologize, guys. Larger point being, surely there is someone else in the English speaking world who could be helming this. He's not going to be better at telling young women's stories at 52 then he was 20 years ago. And surely there's a real life woman in Hollywood who can compose a vision for this character.
post #19 of 146
Re-railing: I think Whedon's an excellent fit for Batgirl. To the point where it's nearly a been-there-done-that proposition. Really like to know if he has some super unusual angle on it or something.
post #20 of 146
If Diablo Cody hadn't tapped out, they'd have probably went to her. As is, going to Whedon makes sense. He knows this nerd shit and has one iconic "subject adjacent" television show and two billion dollar earners under his belt.

The choice isn't adventurous, but it's smart and safe.
post #21 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
 

It could also be interpreted as meaning "the people who thought sterilizing me was a good idea are monsters" AKA the world is filled with monsters. 

 

Any way you slice it, it's a bad scene. 

 

But Whedon also wrote the delightful Ultron dialogue.


​Well, it just drives home the importance of sometimes making absolutely sure you leave no room or doubt. This was just a fiction movie but looking at real life:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Him_Have_It

 

It was literally life or death in saying "Let him have it!" instead of "Let him have the gun!"

 

Given the high political stakes also having far reaching effects (I actually saw one news show get an English Professor on to explain how grammar works), even though you'd think it was even more self-evident what Barack Obama meant from the directly preceding sentences, given what he was up against, you really have to give those people no avenues at all and replace 'that' with at least 'that infrastructure' or something like that so there's no chance of cynical manipulation and distraction, never mind genuine misunderstandings (which I doubt it was in this particular case).

 

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

post #22 of 146
They did some cool stuff in the Timmverse with Batgirl facing off against distaff Batman villains... It's amusing to consider the remote possibility of a Whedon project crossing over with Ayers' "Gotham City Sirens". Should get on like a house on fire.
post #23 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I've never seen the extra material on disc, but it does bother me that the movie lets Banner off the hook in the big finale, when Natasha summons the Hulk by shoving Banner down a deep hole. His fear of committing, which otherwise would have been the real problem, looks reasonable in hindsight.

I didn't mean to make this an Avengers 2 thread. We have lots of those already. I apologize, guys. Larger point being, surely there is someone else in the English speaking world who could be helming this. He's not going to be better at telling young women's stories at 52 then he was 20 years ago. And surely there's a real life woman in Hollywood who can compose a vision for this character.


​I can only speak for myself but I personally would say don't worry about it. This is more a Whedon thread than a Batgirl thread because at this point, this all seems very provisional at best. After all, we were supposed to be having at least a Whedon scripted Wonder Woman film for the longest time, though I guess it all worked out for the best for all of us in the end.

 

I am of course talking about Much Ado About Nothing finally reuniting Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof, of course.

post #24 of 146

Yes.  Excellent.  More Ultron talk.  Yes.

 

I was once on strings, but now I'm free...  

post #25 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post



I didn't mean to make this an Avengers 2 thread. We have lots of those already. I apologize, guys. Larger point being, surely there is someone else in the English speaking world who could be helming this. He's not going to be better at telling young women's stories at 52 then he was 20 years ago. And surely there's a real life woman in Hollywood who can compose a vision for this character.

 

Don't apologize! We cannot have enough Ultron Threads!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

Yes.  Excellent.  More Ultron talk.  Yes.

 

I was once on strings, but now I'm free...  

 

Such brilliant dialogue!

post #26 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

it's just a terribly calibrated scene in terms of what intention it attempted to communicate to audiences

woof

what a thud that scene landed with

I'll admit that it takes some kind of BWOLLZ to try to handle that subject matter as an incidental detail in an shared universe team-up ensemble superhero action movie...

but WOOF

On one end, I'd suggest that regular audiences simply saw and forgot about the scene for the THUD it landed with and moved on.

Anyone else who actually cared about the scene (social media cacophony) was less invested in the actual scene and more invested in proving wrong those that were offended by those that were offended by the offense of the offended.

Because I certainly interpreted the line about "monster" to apply to her inability to have children. I wasn't out to get Whedon at the time. I was just really bored by the movie I was hoping would be good at the time.

And in discussing the scene, I came around to the interpretation that Whedon wasn't trying to communicate that at all.

But by then it didn't even matter.

Because it never really mattered.

Really, jawssweedin' shouldn't have gotten high and mighty about that bad Jurassic World scene. Hahahahah

I don't remember what scene in particular Whedon complained about (and don't care), but I found Bryce Dallas Howard's character arc and the gleefully brutal death of the assistant to be really fucking strange. I also think that film is an abysmal piece of shit, but that's besides the point.


Re-railing: Am I interested in a Batgirl film? No, not especially. Like Batwoman, War Machine, Kid Flash and so on, I think you dilute the uniqueness of your primary character by hitching them to characters who are just like them but "different". When you have two or more characters running around dressed like a bat, it just muddies the waters.
post #27 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

 

Such brilliant dialogue!

Dialogue that was not written by Whedon, so the jokes on you!

 

I do adore Ultrons Pinocchio obsession.  

post #28 of 146
oh it's true, JK!

Jurassic World is waaaaaaaay shoddier than dulltron

The scene Whedon criticized on twitter was a clip released prior to the movie coming out. It was a scene where we first see Bryce Dallas Howard onscreen with Pratt in the movie.

He's working on his bike and making fun of how uptight she is. Meanwhile, Bryce Dallas Howard is upright. Also, they went on a date once or something.

Again, just a bad scene that was an odd one to try to sell the movie on. And Whedon's criticism of it being a very antiquated "men are like this, women are like that!" dinosaur wasn't wrong.

But at that point, the movie hadn't come out yet and I'm sure he got some pushback for sniping at a movie people were excited for 'without provocation'.


oh! I somewhat recently listened to a Jurassic Fandom podcast on YouTube that DESPERATELY tried to defend the movie for its odd handling of BDH's character.

oh man it was so funny

DEFEND AT ALL COST!!!
post #29 of 146

I think part of the problem with Age of Ultron was unavoidable. Ultron in the comics has a detailed and long story, the nature of film generally and especially with the MCU probably meant it all had to be wrapped up in about two hours, so there was no escaping it turning into at most, the Week of Ultron.

 

Agents of SHIELD by mere virtue of being a TV series is doing quite well with Aida as an evolving AI in my opinion because they're able to unfold the story across an entire season. From a storytelling point of view if nothing else, I think Ultron would have been better off with that approach.

post #30 of 146
Whedon comes across like he's really conscious of tropes and responds to them. I hate that I'm going back to Avengers 2 for the first example that comes to mind, but killing off a male character (Quicksilver) in order to provide a female character (Scarlet Witch) with her motivation was a deliberate inversion of the trope of fridging female characters, in action films as well as in the comics. It was clever, to people who had that trope on their radar (myself included).
post #31 of 146
The more I think about it, I realize that Howard's arc is basically the same as Sam Neil's in the original, but the optics are worse because she's a young, successful woman who's being made to feel like shit for having no time for kids. If it isn't dumb from a social perspective, it would still be dumb from a creative one because they couldn't be bothered to give her an arc of her own.

The death of the assistant is still bothersome because it's executed as if we were all supposed to be annoyed with her for some reason.
post #32 of 146

 I do think Whedon over reacted to that clip. I don't think its sexist. I do think its what Moonlighting would have been like if it was written by hacks.

post #33 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post



The death of the assistant is still bothersome because it's executed as if we were all supposed to be annoyed with her for some reason.

 

There was a similar scene in Jurassic World where a character who seemed into Dinosaurs got torn apart like a Wishbone by two T-Rex's. 

post #34 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post


The scene Whedon criticized on twitter was a clip released prior to the movie coming out. It was a scene where we first see Bryce Dallas Howard onscreen with Pratt in the movie.

He's working on his bike and making fun of how uptight she is. Meanwhile, Bryce Dallas Howard is upright. Also, they went on a date once or something.

 

 

Well it IS a movie about Dinosaurs! 

 

 

........thank you. 

post #35 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

There was a similar scene in Jurassic World where a character who seemed into Dinosaurs got torn apart like a Wishbone by two T-Rex's. 

I think you mean The Lost World. I remember the wishboning, but I remember practically nothing else about that movie. Even the lawyer in the original is part of the theme of hubris blowing up in the faces of the park's creators. The assistant's biggest crime (as far as the film's themes are concerned) is being on her cellphone and not being immediately maternal.

Someone re-rail this thing.
post #36 of 146
My favorite Jurassic Park moment was in the third picture, when Sam Neill condemns Alessandro Nivola for unproffessionalism, then moments later Nivola gets carried away by pterodactyls, then Neill forgives Alissandro, then Alessandro turns out to be okay.

By "favorite," I mean fuck that movie forever. Sam Neill's character turns into a Bronze Age Mediterranean agricultural deity, cursing people with locusts when he thinks they've blasphemed and establishing new covenants with them when he repents his own wrath. He literally played a less magical character in The Omen III.
post #37 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Whedon comes across like he's really conscious of tropes and responds to them. I hate that I'm going back to Avengers 2 for the first example that comes to mind, but killing off a male character (Quicksilver) in order to provide a female character (Scarlet Witch) with her motivation was a deliberate inversion of the trope of fridging female characters, in action films as well as in the comics. It was clever, to people who had that trope on their radar (myself included).


​Quicksilver (Singer) >>>>>>>> (etc) Quicksilver (Whedon)

 

It was quite funny how the actors were playing brother and sister in Ultron after playing husband and wife in Godzilla, though so I guess that at least makes it partly worth it for the comedy value ... ?

post #38 of 146

So they couldn't have gotten a great female director and writer for this? No offense to Whedon but come on now.

post #39 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post
 

So they couldn't have gotten a great female director and writer for this? No offense to Whedon but come on now.

Here we go.  

post #40 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post
 

So they couldn't have gotten a great female director and writer for this? No offense to Whedon but come on now.

 

I'm sure they could have. Now put yourself in the position of a suit with a billion dollars on the line and name one female director with Whedon's brand and as close to surefire as anything CV. You can't. 

 

Systemic sexism is real and if it weren't, maybe there would be more than a few female equivalents of Joss Whedon, but there aren't, and so this is the choice. 

post #41 of 146
Systemic in that Whedon had doors opened for him that his female contemporaries didn't. It's a vicious circle.
post #42 of 146

It is. We also have no idea what Patty Jenkins did or didn't do on Wonder Woman, and there are like two people on Earth who are going to see that movie because she directed it and maybe ten because a woman directed it. 

 

I don't have much sympathy for suits, but I see the logic and don't begrudge it. Money doesn't wait around for you while you're out being a nice, socially conscious guy.

post #43 of 146
Thread Starter 

Was a standalone BATGIRL film a part of DC's original cinematic plan? I doubt it. I think it's likely they asked him which character he wanted to make a film about and he specifically chose her.


Edited by Barry Woodward - 3/30/17 at 9:55pm
post #44 of 146

I'm sure Whedon will do his usual fun magic with this and his name on the marquee will put asses in seats and that's all that matters to WB. If they cared about quality they wouldn't keep giving these films to Snyder.

 

Can only imagine what Lexi Alexander/Gail Simone could have done with this movie.

post #45 of 146

Lexi Alexander (who I generally like as a personality) hasn't made any especially good/successful films and Gail Simone has primarily written okay to good comics and I guess a couple of episodes of cartoons. I wouldn't bet $10 multiplex bucks on that combo, let alone $150-$200 million + in studio money.

post #46 of 146

Movies are a terrible investment as it is.  

post #47 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

Movies are a terrible investment as it is.  

 

Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm would like a word with you.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

Lexi Alexander (who I generally like as a personality) hasn't made any especially good/successful films and Gail Simone has primarily written okay to good comics and I guess a couple of episodes of cartoons. I wouldn't bet $10 multiplex bucks on that combo, let alone $150-$200 million + in studio money.

 

I realize that Average Joe Shithead wouldn't (not you Johnny obviously) but Hollywood doesn't take a lot of chances when it comes to big tentpole releases and when they do and they're successful they crow about being "diverse". It's depressing.

post #48 of 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post
 

 

Disney/Marvel/Lucasfilm would like a word with you.

First of all, pointing to the success stories in film is like pointing out a lottery winner and saying that lotto tickets are a great investment.  Second, they're the massive success they are because they're very smart with their choices, like hiring Joss Whedon who has decades of experience learning how to handle ensembles, just like how WB knows he has decades of experience telling stories about female super heroes.  They're trying to minimize the risk of an insanely risky gamble that is investing in film.  

 

I said "here we go" earlier because we've done this a lot.  "This should be directed by a woman/played by an asian/etc."  "Yes, it should be, but picture yourself as the money man.  You're not in the business of being fair and giving people chances, you're in the business of getting a huge return on investment."  "Well how are people expected to BECOME anything if they're not even allowed the chance?" "Yeah, it's bullshit and unfortunate...."  "Yeah!"  I'm so tired of this conversation just being an echo chamber where nothing ever happens, so I go out of my way to champion female directors like Karyn Kusama who did the EXCELLENT The Invitation.  By buying the movie on Bluray and trying to support her work maybe I can actively do something towards women being normalized as directors instead of griping that women aren't at the very top of the industry doing these big insane gamble movies that the studio would make with a robot if it was the safest investment choice.  

post #49 of 146

 If we're fan casting what woman director should have gotten the gig, I'd go with Kathryn Bigelow. She has an Oscar and has made  entertaining action movies with good characters.

post #50 of 146

I heard my name! 

 

Whole lot of questionable (and some good) defenses for questionable artistic decisions being made that we're talking about elsewhere, so let's get into the female director issue:

 

How much money did Safety Not Guaranteed make before they gave Trebberow Jurassic World? How was he a safe choice?

 

Skull Island cost 185 times more what Kings of Summer made at the box office, but nobody had a problem handing that to Vogt-Roberts. What about him wasn't a gamble?

 

What about Scott Derickson's directorial history suggested he'd be a good fit for Doctor Strange?

 

James Gunn was directing short films with porn stars before they gave him Guardians. His biggest project before Guardians was Slither, which was a flop (12 million against a 15 million budget). But yeah, he was a real smart choice. 

 

And that's not getting into the most brilliant choice of them all, Z-Snyd himself, who barely made money for the studios on Sucker Punch. Not a risk at all there.

 

And yet...and yet...we insist women make successful movies in order to be given shots at these big projects. "Lexi Alexander hasn't made good movies! Lake Bell's untested! Michelle MacLaren is only good on tv!" 

 

If you look at this list, there are countless examples of people with similar backgrounds to Trebberow, Vogt-Roberts, and Derrickson who haven't been given the shots those guys have, and when you have that, it's real hard not to think there's something going on. 

 

Gimme a break. Cannot wait for Wrinkle in Time to eat everyone's lunch and prove this bullshit, reductive, sexist trope wrong. 

 

Shannon Purser for Batgirl, says I. 


Edited by Boone Daniels - 3/31/17 at 8:45am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Joss Whedon's BATGIRL