Wonder Woman 3 reportedly a no-go because of creative differences with director Patty Jenkins
A new report says that DC Studios heads James Gunn and Peter Safran were not involved with pulling the plug and that Jenkins stepped away from the project
Aux News Patty Jenkins
DC fans were surprised earlier this week when The Hollywood Reporter dropped the news that a third Wonder Woman movie would not be happening. Following DC Studios co-CEO James Gunn tweeting about the “fractious environment” and “unavoidable transitional period as we moved into telling a cohesive story across film, TV, animation, and gaming,” more details are starting to emerge about the decision.
The Wrap has reported that director and co-writer Patty Jenkins stepped away from the project after clashing with studio brass over her treatment for Wonder Woman 3. Warner Bros. Film Group co-chairs and CEOs Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy turned down the proposed story and asked Jenkins to take things in a different direction. Gunn and his co-CEO Peter Safran were not involved with the decision, but agreed with it.
According to one of The Wrap’s sources, the Monster director declined to reconfigure her pitch and wanted De Luca and Abdy to “know that they were wrong, that they didn’t understand her, didn’t understand the character, didn’t understand character arcs and didn’t understand what Jenkins was trying to do.” She reportedly sent De Luca an email that included a link to the Wikipedia page for “character arc” and was also uninterested in having further conversations with Gunn and Safran.
The report also details that Jenkins’ Wonder Woman 3 was previously on the list of projects that “nobody was going to mess with” as DC Studios shifts gears into creating a shared universe. Other such titles are Matt Reeves’ sequel to The Batman, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ and J.J. Abrams’ Superman, and Joker: Folie À Deux.
Per The Wrap, Warner Bros. hopes that Gal Gadot will continue to play Wonder Woman, though the studio has yet to approach her about moving forward without Jenkins. Earlier this week, ahead of the Hollywood Reporter article, the actor took to Twitter to promise a “next chapter” for the character.
157 Comments
Same
I keep trying to convince Gal Gadot to get a pet gerbil. We thrive in arid regions like Israel!
I hear she’s more interested in a Conservative gerbil, so I’m afraid you’re out of luck.
I’m very conservative – at least when it comes to butt play. I’m not going down the human Habitrail.
I mean no offense to Patty here, but if WW84 was any indication of the direction you wanted to take things, well… I have to say that, for once, I’m siding with the WB brass on this one.
Yeah, I think Jenkins is generally great, and Wonder Woman was pretty awesome, 3rd-act CGI niggling aside. But. WW84 was just bad, and she really didn’t have the leverage required following that to take this stance.
Well, WW84 did overcome the first movie’s third-act issues, by being crappy from the first reel.(I’ll see myself out)
right?!
I’m not sure why people don’t think the WW84 fiasco wasn’t the result of studio meddling in the first place
“I’m siding with the WB brass on this one.”Don’t forget the mouthwash!
And I’m glad that Disney showed her the door by shelving X-Wing. Wonder Woman 2 was really atrocious.
Rogue Squadron
Where’s our cover?
The idea that the co-writer and director of WW84 is lecturing anyone on the fundamentals of storytelling is laughable.
The report also details that Jenkins’ Wonder Woman 3 was previously on the list of projects that “nobody was going to mess with” as DC Studios shifts gears into creating a shared universe.lol wut? I know the DCEU is a joke, but… it exists. It’s “shared.” It’s already spun off into TV with Peacemaker.Other such titles are Matt Reeves’ sequel to The Batman, Ta-Nehisi Coates’ and J.J. Abrams’ Superman, and Joker: Folie À Deux.I could’ve sworn this project was declared dead months ago because Zaslav was upset at how much money Abrams had pissed away with nothing to show for it.
“It’s “shared.” It’s already spun off into TV with Peacemaker.”
Yeah, a movie with a spin-off is the very definition of a shared universe.
Jesus, maybe next time you want to say something- astoundingly stupid, you can hit yourself in the temple with a ballpeen hammer instead.
I believe the DCEU is being soft-rebooted, which comes after the pre-Zaslav announcement they were canning it entirely.
I don’t remember any announcement, pre- or post-Zaslav, that it was being canned entirely; just rumors from the usual YouTube channels claiming to have “sources.”
So I guess ‘canned’ isn’t the right word, exactly. They were going to avoid fundamental contradictions between movies, and have no multi-movie arcs.
[Edit: Now they’re back to multi-movie arcs, post-Zaslav, so they can have major cinematic events like Infinity War/Endgame.]Our intention, certainly, moving forward is using the continuity to help make sure nothing is diverging in a way that doesn’t make sense, but there’s no insistence upon an overall story line or interconnectivity in that universe.[…] Moving forward, you’ll see the DC movie universe being a universe, but one that comes from the heart of the filmmaker who’s creating them.— Diane Nelson (president of DC Entertainment from 2009 to 2018, and president and chief content officer of Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment from 2013 to 2018)Source:https://www.vulture.com/2020/12/dc-wonder-woman-movie-strategy-universe.html
This is the sole reason the Flash movie hasn’t been cancelled. Flashpoint will serve as their in-canon soft reboot.
That makes sense. For Marvel, that’s often Scarlet Witch, and for DC it’s the Flash. They seem to be the default universe-rebooting characters.
My dumb ass was just thinking “Man I hope they keep Peacemaker” but duh James Gunn.
Is she a good director? I honestly can’t tell. More hit-or-miss.
She’s only made three movies, with Wonder Woman her first in 14 years. Monster was pretty good, WW84 was pretty bad, so I guess what you think of Patty depends on how you feel about the first Wonder Woman movie.
Holy shit, you’re right. I had thought she made more.How the fuck did she land original WW?
WB brass was adamant that they find a woman director. And unfortunately there aren’t a lot of women directors in Hollywood. Michelle MacLaren, who has a lot of directing credits on prestige television like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones, was originally supposed to direct the first Wonder Woman movie, but she dropped out. Patty Jenkins had Monster on her resume, and some other TV credits. She did a pretty good job with that first movie, so she turned out to be a good hire, but that second movie was a mess. You’d think she’d be open to accepting some notes.
“You’d think she’d be open to accepting some notes.”
Unless you know what notes they gave her, how can you possibly say that?
wasnt she originally going to direct Thor 2? but she didnt like how Marvel was micromanaging things at the time so she quit. her leaving was also one of the reasons Natalie Portman didnt want to come back till Thor 4 also the money they dumped on her doorstep
It’s weird that MacLaren still hasn’t directed a film.
She’s got a ton of great TV credits working on all the most fun and interesting shows. And a lot of successful TV directors have struggled to make the transition to movies. Alan Taylor, who travels in the same circles as MacLaren, was the one who wound up directing Thor 2 and then followed it up with Terminator: Genesys. His TV work is awesome! He probably warned her off of it.
I know! Her work on two of the great tv series of this century has been phenomenal. She frankly should be standing right next to Vince Gilligan as co-creator, because I can’t imagine what those series would be without her involvement.
I posted about this elsewhere, but I’d have looked strongly at Karyn Kusama. Michelle MacLaren, I’ll absolutely agree, would’ve been phenomenal had she elected to stay around. Kathryn Bigelow would’ve been great too, but I recall reading somewhere that she’s not really interested in doing these types of films, so for all I know maybe she was approached, and declined. Needless to say, in hindsight Jenkins seems like she was not the first choice to direct by anyone.
I also seem to remember them trying to get Kathryn Bigelow and that also not working out.
you’re joking right?
I’m not. Monster was fantastic but it was a WHILE before WW. Guess they really liked her vision for the character.
She was also going to do Thor: The Dark World, until she read the script and realized all the hate it was going to get would be aimed unfairly at her, which would probably have a big effect on all female directors.
Well I mean have you seen the other DC movies made along side the first WW movie?
I didn’t realize just how little directing she’s actually done. I was like, “Maybe she’s done a bunch of TV?” But no, not really. Only a handful of episodes of a handful of shows. I’m only half joking when I say, looking at the fact she directed an episode of Arrested Development, that maybe WB was like, “Hey it worked for Marvel with the Russos, maybe it’ll work for us!”
WW also pretty bad. Better character arc for for the hero of the movie, Steve Trevor.
WW almost frustrated me more that 84, because 84 was just bad, but WW had the stuff to be really good, if they hadn’t been so focused on big setpieces and setting the stage. For me, the heart of the story, was WW and Doctor Poison, as opposite sides of the same going. They represent different experiences. WW had opportunity and support. Poison had to work twice as hard in a male dominated field, and at the expense of her features. Both believe they are fighting for the correct side, fighting to end the war. WW has her super powers. Poison has her super mind. One uses a litany of magical abilities, the other poison gas. The movie seemed to conflate WWI and 2, making the Germans seem like Nazi types when it was far more murky morally speaking, and people who made weapons of mass destruction thought they were making war impossible because the cost would be too great.I imagine a different film, where Poison really thinks she’s the hero, fighting to end the war on behalf of her nation of allegiance, and it devolves upon WW to try to dissuade her, and turn her to another cause and course of action. But instead we get a movie with not one, not two but three Big Bads, which results in Poison being the tertiary antagonist, and an utter waste of Elena Anaya’s talents. It could’ve been so much better, and should have been. WW84 was less of a let down, because the expectations were so dimmed, that when I watched it, I wasn’t surprised. It was clear no one really cared. They were all cashing a paycheck.
I don’t often say this of people’s “here’s how I would have made it” script outlines, but that does sound like a great movie.
I want to give this comment a standing ovation. The first WW was such a missed opportunity for exactly these reasons! Some really rich themes were sitting right in their lap, but instead Jenkins and co. went for something more shallow and basic. If I wouldn’t settle for that storytelling in a male-centric superhero movie, why would I in a female-centric one?
Also, the movie has WW kill General Lundendorff. What’s wrong with that? He was evil, right? Yes, and in real life too especially later when he became part of the group that got Hitler his start. But the whole point is that he survived WWI and had an important role in history. Killing him, as good an idea as that sounded, means the world of 1984 would unrecognizable as WWII (at least in Europe; Japan may have done stuff) and the Holocaust would have been prevented.
I think we’re just supposed to assume that his death wouldn’t change much. The movie spent most of the time with the premise that Ares was behind the war when Ares admitted he didn’t actually have to do anything for the war to happen.
WW24-forty years later
In the immortal words of Meatloaf “2 outta 3 ain’t bad”.
Indeed. And as I saw it, 2017’s Wonder Woman was enjoyable, but still just ‘ok’ as superhero movies go, and I wanted someone else at the helm for WW moving forward.
Patty hadn’t won me over. Monster was more about acting than directing, and it’s a good movie because of Charlize Theron. Happens all the time. So when Jenkins was given a multi-million dollar project, I thought her inexperience showed (her “style” is basically just copying Zack Snyder’s techniques), and I swear you can look up my comment history where I gauranteed if they gave her a second movie it would be shit, and people would finally see that because the novelty wore off.
She can be a good director, but not a good writer.
WW one was great because she had the actual writer of wonder woman comics on the writing team.
WW1984 did not because she thought she could write better than him.
So at least we see how horrible she can be in one field.
Exactly! Somewhere along the way it just became a given that every director writes, and it’s really a hard thing to do well in both areas. Even Orson Welles, the quintessential writer-director, was really far stronger as director than writer, and did his best when he was collaborating with another writer, or at least, had a solid story editor like Amalia Kent.
It’s part of the shrinking of the industry, where everyone has to be multi-hyphenate now. It’s annoying as hell.
WW 1 also basically took the basic plot from Captain America: The First Avenger. Complete with a soldier named Steve (played by an actor named Chris) sacrificing himself to stop a German-made superweapon in the form of a plane filled with city-destroying explosives. They basically had a plot that worked, switched the World War, and tossed in some bare-bones mythology and cultural differences. The guy she thought was basically a Red Skull stand-in that used inhaled steroids.
WW84 though… would’ve fit with the 80’s Superman films. It is just as campy as those films and that portrayal of Lord fits with a setting that has Gene Hackman’s Luthor. It could even fit in with something like CW’s Legends of Tommorrow given how nutty that show was. What WW84 doesn’t fit with is the rest of the DCEU.
Yeah, but Captain America stole that from the animated Justice League episode “Savage Time.”
Or, you know… thebpmot of the original Caotaib America comics from many decades before that.I sincerely hope you’re joking, and arent actually this clueless.
I knew all those criticisms for the first part, but to me it doesn’t matter how similar the plot is when the execution is done in a unique way.
(hence why No Way Home didn’t get any shade for being exactly like Spiderverse)
But that first film was done well where it counted, I just didn’t think Jenkins would be dumb enough to get rid of the talent that she clearly relied on.
No Way Home should definitely get shade for having the main character be extremely stupid. All the MCU Spider-Man movies run on him making kid mistakes and FFH pushed it but NWH just made Peter a complete idiot outside of academic things. As for similarities to Spider-Verse, both Spider-verse and NWH are extremely loose adaptations of different comic arcs. Spider-man dealing with his own multiverse issues has been something that has occurred in multiple media formats, including Xbox 360 era game Shattered Dimensions and at least one of his 90’s/00’s animated series. They all kinda wind up with a similar plot, though the threat varies.
But his stupidity was at play and vital to the story.
Miles Morales was inexperienced and underpowered, hence why his Uncle died because he was not strong enough to help him.
Peter Parker was powerful but dumb because he didn’t realize that he couldn’t have the best of both worlds, thus introducing his Aunt to his life at the cost of hers.
My problem was that the stupidity was made vital.
We had two films of him being stupid already though. No Way Home just made it seem like he never thinks anything through. I get that he’s supposed to be making youthful mistakes but he just kept making stupid decisions. MJ and Ned even pointed out some of them. The whole film was basically because he never bothered to learn the college admissions process or even take the time to plan the specifics of spell once he found out it was possible.
The only thing I really wouldn’t blame him for is May because she influenced him to keep the Goblin from being contained like the others.
Also the film kinda forces us to ignore that both the Lizard and Sandman were perfectly fine in their own settings and not ‘fated’ to die like the others. They also had no reason to even attack at the end like they did.
The saddest thing is that the film also wasted a perfect opportunity to have Tom Hardy’s Venom consume Topher Grace’s Venom.
So she went full Lucas after one movie instead of three? Bold.
And what about her writing skills? I thought WW 1 had a garbage script, but she didn’t write that one, and that was the one people liked.
I think it’s clear she’s a bad writer. It’s her directing abilities that are up in the air.
I’ve been on record saying Patty Jenkins was a bad fit for Wonder Woman, she should in no way be given ‘ownership’ of this franchise, and I think the sequels should have given some other directors a crack at it.
It sounds like she thought she had more clout than she did. I lol’d at the petty passive aggressive move of sending her boss a Wikipedia link for character arcs. That’s some god tier narcissism.
I’m sure that behavior worked great for her for a decent amount of time. But a new team always wants to clean house and make their own mistakes. Why go to bat for someone else’s fuckup?
“But a new team always wants to clean house and make their own mistakes.”
Was it too difficult to actually read the article?
I’d have just sent back the review aggregates for WW84. “Any notes would be appreciated.”
That level of swagger seems like it was probably justified after the first Wonder Woman (“As the only one here to make an entry in this franchise with a favorable Metacritic score, you’ll forgive me if I’m not looking for suggestions from the people who greenlit the Marthaverse.”)After Wonder Woman 2, it seems like you might want to at least appear to care what the boss has to say.
Unless you don’t give a shit, would rather do something else at this point, and think it’s a good time to scratch the “burning a bridge” itch.As long as she’s ok not living super opulently the rest of her life, she probably has “fuck you” money.
“That’s some god tier narcissism.”
Is it more or less narcissistic than thinking you know what happened behind closed doors to prompt the response?
Regarding the sending of a link being passive-aggressive, it really depends on how she phrased her email. I’ve been in situations where there’s a basic misunderstanding or disagreement, and sending evidence over email can come across as a ‘dunk,’ unless you soften it up a bit.
Ex (I’ve had this exact exchange):
This new thing in project is causing fatal problemsNot sure I understand, thing was there yesterdayI 100% guarantee you that thing wasn’t there yesterday[sends screenshot of thing, dated yesterday] Ah, I see what happened, thing was different, so you didn’t notice it. Other department modified thing overnight, and it’s now very noticeable. No big deal. We can get them to change it to fix said fatal problemsFor Jenkins it could be something along the lines of:
DC: We want to have multi-movie character arcs that don’t interfere with the movie-specific ones
Jenkins: That’s fundamentally incompatible with WW’s character arc in my pitch. Here’s the definition, and which part I feel the multi-movie arc would undermine. I don’t think we can do both.
Sending a wikipedia link is a different level than what you’re describing entirely.
If it’s just the link, sure. If it’s a paragraph from the link with stuff bolded for emphasis, along with the link itself to show the source, not quite as bad as it sounds.
It’s a wikipedia page. It’s condescending as hell. She thought she had way the hell more clout than she did. She didn’t realize how high she was climbing on the chart there.
Maybe. We’d have to see the actual exchange to know for sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_arcThere is no world where sending this link is not disrespectful.
Yeah, “I want to take her from A to B to C, but your movie takes her from B to Y to Z, and there’s no coherent or interesting way to go back” is fine, and a legit story debate. Sending a definition is fundamentally saying “I know you run a studio, but I don’t think you understand character arcs in concept, so here’s some help.” At best, you’re implying that the person you’re talking to is incompetent, at worst you think they’re an idiot and you’re deliberately being shitty.
This, precisely. She’s not just burning the bridge, she’s taking off and nuking it from orbit. Thing is, I just don’t get what is to be gained by going about it this way. Her reps’ heads have got to be spinning right now.
I feel I’ve provided one, so end of thread, I guess.
If you think so. I’d still highly recommend never sending a wikipedia defintion of anything to someone above you in your professional life.
Roger that!
Then quote the source, not wiki. Kids in school aren’t even allowed to use wiki as a source.
It’s just the first source that pops-up most of the time, and I doubt that anyone in that discussion thought it provided the wrong definition, honestly.
You know if I was going to die on a hill, I’d pick a better one to die on.
Issue close to my heart — have been on the wrong side of media coverage during pre-production, have dealt with (wrongly reported) leaks, etc…
Doesn’t mean you’re right about this instance.
True.
I hear what you’re saying, but her overall attitude about this is painting her in a bad light. the Monster director declined to reconfigure her pitch and wanted De Luca and Abdy to “know that they were wrong, that they didn’t understand her, didn’t understand the character, didn’t understand character arcs and didn’t understand what Jenkins was trying to do.”While I’m not saying I agree with this approach, this type of attitude is generally reserved for legacy directors studios need, like Cameron, Spielberg, Raimi, Scorsese etc. Directors with proven track records. In 20 years, Jenkins has only directed a handful of TV episodes and four movies if you count a made-for-TV film.I have to agree with Doctor Professor, too. Sending a wikipedia link is always going t0 be considered disrespectful, double-so when the recipient is your boss, who runs a movie studio, and who knows full well what a character arc is. Implying your boss is incompetent is never going to turn out well.
Patty Jenkins ran into the Colin Trevorrow problem of thinking that you had it made after a single billion-dollar movie.
Recall that after Jurassic World came out and made more money than the Catholic Church, Colin got tapped by Disney to direct the sequel to The Last Jedi. He’s on top of the world, and because of that, he decides to do his long-gestating passion project to truly show his directorial chops…The Book of Henry.
Disney summarily pulled the Star Wars movie and Colin has stuck with the Jurassic World franchise since.
Patty really overplayed her hand, and while Wonder Woman made a whole bunch of money, I don’t think there was much, if anything, about that movie that was so distinctly “Patty Jenkins” that not having her in the rest of the series (or the DCEU as a whole) would be seen as a significant loss.
I bet Chloe Zhao is punching the air right now since I’m sure she’d have rather directed a Wonder Woman movie than The Eternals.
That’s all hinging on The Wrap’s source, and maybe they got it right. They could’ve also been totally out of the discussion, and repeating gossip.I’ve worked on projects whose pre-production got a ton of media coverage, and I can honestly tell you it was mostly wrong. That’s why I’m trying to at least bring up the possibility that Jenkins wasn’t as bad as she’s being portrayed.I have no insider information.
Fair enough
I once was in the middle of a disagreement with a colleague at a big company who was in charge of drafting “thought leadership” articles for an executive. Me and my boss had been pointing out that these articles simply bragged about the existing products and services of the company, and there was not really anything thought-leadership-y about them. My colleague replied by sending me a PowerPoint deck that defined thought leadership.The kicker: her PPT deck supported every single point I had made in that conversation, and yet somehow she thought that it was on her side.
Classic!
Send your boss a wikipedia link explaining what they do for a living and see how it’s received.
Producers aren’t (all) writers.
That’s some god tier narcissism.I am really impressed. If I were coming off directing WW84, I would be more amenable.
No kidding while I likes the first WW, and Gal Gadot as WW, the second one, ooff, it was a mess. Like if you just knocked it out of the park 2 movies in a row you earned some swagger, but then you got hit and then a trip and fall on the follow up maybe slow your roll a bit. I mean sure she did Monster, which was a hit, but nothing of note until WW, just a few episodes of some Tv series’, so it’s not like she is a know hit maker, like say a James Cameron.
I still can’t figure out why Jenkins of all directors was tapped for this one considering her resume. No experience with VFX, nor with that type of scope and scale. She’s an authorial director, doing character driven, smaller scale projects, so it’s almost a given that 1) she’s going to butt heads over the story and 2) she’s going to struggle with the large scale, VFX elements of this project. The way some of the fight scenes were choreographed, lit and blocked, were abysmal, and Cheetah was a terribly executed villain, with so much effort expended on practical makeup only to bury it under with VFX mods and dark lighting to render the whole thing incoherent. You know who would’ve been perfect for these films? Karyn Kusama. A phenomenal all around director, and her pilot for Yellowjackets shows how ably she can juggle tense action and subtle character moments.
But she made a movie, about non-attractive women and it was highly successful. (award-wise). To someone in the DC movie business this equated success with a similarly woman-focused character movie. This is where DC shits all over their projects and Marvel shines (usually). They know which creatives to pick.
James Gunn is the first DC choice that makes sense.
Yeah I agree she had like 1 big project before WW but that’s it. I think they got her, because she was a woman and that’s it. Like it’s a female led tent pole comib book movie so they wanted a woman to direct.
Creators are often blind to the flaws in their own work. It’s possible she thinks WW84 is flawless and critics and audiences will eventually flip on it. I’m not sure that is ever going to happen
For real. I mean, the Monkey’s Paw is a great story for a general moral tale, but it just doesn’t translate well to Wonder Woman or comic book movies. Jenkins should have been a lot more careful with how she handled this one.
I love the fact that she doesn’t recognize the irony in that wikipedia link.
She literally had one of the best writers of wonder woman comics on her team for the first movie, and then decided to let him go because she believed she knew more about her than the credited writers of that wiki page.
Apparently this was the issue.
She was going to introduce the bike shorts costume in the next movie? Was that in order to set it in the 90s or something? Didn’t realize people hated that outfit that much.
“She was going to introduce the bike shorts costume in the next movie? Was that in order to set it in the 90s or something?”
For some unfathomably bizarre reason, in her teaser/announcement trailer for Star Wars – Rogue Squadron she was filmed putting on a pair of rollerblades.
I’m beginning to sense a theme here…
I do have to say when this news came out today, it made me wonder what really happened over at LFL that got the Rogue Squadron movie dumped. I’m mean Disney’s recovered very nicely with Andor.
Personally, I don’t think Wonder Woman should ever be dressed primarily in black. She’s a bright, bold character, she needs some colour.
Is this your first day on the internet, or are you just humorless and incredibly bad at recognizing an obvious joke?
Im giving you a star. It was mostly a joke. One of her worst costumes ever. This was also around the time DC wanted to refresh the characters…with new characters.
Mine was mostly a joke as well, because I didn’t know what you were referring to other than the outfit; maybe something in the right hand panels that have their text cut off and can’t be read? So I just did the old “pretend to assume it’s what the errantly pasted image looks like” gag.
She definitely over-pokered her hand on that one, because WW84’s story and structure were a mess. She squandered a lot of her authorial clout with that mess.
I’m all for director’s having passion for their work and standing up to the brass when the situation warrants it but we’re talking about a Wonder Woman movie here and after the critical beating the last one took-and given the big shakeup at Warner Bros.-a little humility would be in order.If John Ford and John Huston could suck it up and make movies that their hearts weren’t into to keep their respective studios happy then Patty Jenkins should be able to do so as well. I know there was already some bad blood lingering over a number of issues but that’s life. Again, we’re talking about a comic book movie.
I loved that first Wonder Woman movie and was so excited for 84. What a huge bummer. Fitting that it was the perfect cherry on top of the shit sundae that was 2020.
Samesies.
Turns out maybe playing off enslavement and rape as a joke in ‘84 didn’t endear her to audiences and execs. Who’da ever thunk it?
Considering how the first Wonder Woman flick was a plot-point-for-plot-point EXACTLY the same movie as the first Captain America movie and how the second WW flick blew; it’s no loss.
didn’t understand the character, didn’t understand character arcsIs that you, Wonder Woman 1984?
ikr?! What an odd accusation to come from her 2 years AFTER we all saw WW84.
Has it only been two years? Covid years are so time warping.
This whole thing sounds like a version of “You can’t fire me! I quit!”And I find the pretentious talk of character arc to be galling here. So the arc in this case was supposed to be?: 1) WW grows up as a demigod on an Amazon island, meets some guy over a couple of weeks, has some admittedly cool fight scenes, learns to not like WWI Germans, and then has a really bad 3rd act CGI fight with Ares, and is devastated over the loss of her brief fling, to…2) WW has been laying mostly low for a few decades, but is still really pining for that guy, has to fight some dude with a magic rock, wishes for her former fling’s soul to come back into some other dude so she can use his body AND put said body in harm’s way, turn forever-fueled(tm) museum planes invisible with a touch, and finally get that boyfriends permission to save the world instead of keeping him in that body. Finally to have a really bad 3rd act CGI fight with a cheetah lady, to…3) Whatever amazing arc conclusion she had in mind?I think we have bracelet deflected a huge bullet here. I am good with this decision.
I think the Geoff Johns involvement in the third treatment also raises a lot of questions, not just because he was involved in writing WW84, but also because of how he changed Diana’s character focus in the Justice League movie.Before elaborating, I want to stress that this isn’t a defense of the Snyder Cut, but in that Diana’s primary longing is established to be able to return to be among her Amazon sisters and see her mother again. That seems to be a pretty easily understandable conclusion for Diana’s arc. Yet in the Whedon version where Johns was a huge influence, the focus is once again Diana’s romantic interests and Steve Trevor is brought up as a huge figure in her life. Which by the way in retrospect should have been a massive warning sign for what was about to happen in WW84, but at that point we didn’t know how Johns had changed the film.However, with that in mind, it is really difficult to have faith that whatever Johns was involved with regarding Diana would have pursued that straightforward element that should have actually been the conclusion of Diana’s storyarc established in the first WW film as he took it out of the Justice League film .
pining
Sounds like she took her ball & went home. Just reboot it, the mess 84 left can’t be cleaned up.
It’s not like she owns the IP. This will get made, probably with a better director.
Look, Patty Jenkins really just wants to bang a dead guy from 4 decades ago, even if it means raping an innocent man trapped in the sunken place.That’s her character arc.
That’s her bread and butter.
That’s her nightly wet dream.There’s no shame in that… But there is some shame when putting it to film.Shame on you Patty Jenkins. World War 84, I mean… Wonder Woman 84 was not good.
After WW84, I think she’s the one that needs to read the Wikipedia page about character arcs.
I get that it’s fun to paint disagreements like these as dramatic clashes of gigantic egos, but honestly, at the pre-production stage, things are often much more congenial than you’d think:“Alright, I don’t think that we can reconcile our visions for this project, so I’ll bow out and move on to a different one. If you’re looking for a replacement, I think X would be well-suited to the task. I’m available on a consulting basis if you need my input on anything. All the best.”It’s when you hear about creative differences during production that you know there was probably some tabloid-worthy drama behind the scenes, even if no one will talk about it.
there’s nothing congenial when huge amounts of money are involved
Depends. If it’s someone’s very first chance at a major project, and they have no other options, it stings a lot more than in Jenkins’ case. I’m not saying she was happy about it, but she also could have remained civil.Pre-production exists to sort out this type of disagreement before you start spending the big bucks on production. Walking away at this point is much better timing than later. Jenkins will make a lot of money elsewhere.I guess it could be her one and only passion project though? In which case, yeah, she’s probably pretty angry, and may have shown it.
I’m not sure how someone gets to the point of sending a wikipedia link to the term “character arc” to the head of a studio and not have some major ego be involved. Claiming that they didn’t understand Jenkins’ idea of Wonder Woman’s character arc is one thing. Claiming they don’t understand character arcs at all, full stop, is some serious flamethrowing.
I’ve written this elsewhere, but if she quoted the definition in the email body while bolding the parts she thought were relevant to her argument, and provided the link as a source, that’s not all that unusual.If the entire reply body was the link and nothing else — or worse, the link is the title and there’s no body — then that would come across as passive-aggressive, yeah.
There is no world where sending a wikipedia link defining “character arc” to a studio exec will not be taken as passive aggressive. It’d be like sending a GM VP the link to “internal combustion engine”.
Really wish I could read that thread though.
Oh boy I was really looking forward to the conclusion of the Wonder Woman is hopelessly in love with (dead) Steve Trevor character arc.
Maybe he could inhabit the corpse of a recently deceased person and he and Diana could blithely parade it in front of the person’s loved ones. But it’s okay! Let’s have another fashion show, tee hee!
We touched on this on the other thread, but WW84 is just a gift that keeps on giving. Like every time I start thinking how messed up an aspect of it was, I’m reminded of something that was also bafflingly questionable about it.
It’s like one of those meme pictures where the longer you look at it the weirder it gets.
I wonder if WB set up some conditions or demands for the 3 film that were intended to be impossible for Jenkins to accept, so they could have a plausible reason to move in another direction. Another piece reported that Gadot was set to be paid 20 million for the third film, and Jenkins 12 million, and that’s not including a cut of the backend. Given the state of things with WB, and how 84 performed, they may well have wanted a way to cut their losses, knowing that the third film was going to be expensive, and with two people whose brand was damaged by their last effort – Jenkins for being perceived as responsible for the dreadful story, and Gadot for being a wooden actor. This is a perfect pretext for them. They can say, “Well we tried to work with Jenkins, but she wouldn’t meet us halfway,” and then they can see if Gadot will walk as well out of support, or take a pay cut, or they can just reboot the whole thing (something I personally favor).
I actually like WW84, but Jenkins would need to scale things back a touch.
As someone who saw the trailer for WW84 months in advance and was excited to see it, all I could think when I was watching it on HBO Max was that I’m glad I didn’t pay to see this in the theater. A convoluted trainwreck where basically nothing went right. WW was good, I enjoyed it, but I had no real intention of seeing the next one if it was the same mishmash as the last one. Stay in your lane. You too Taika.
Good. That sequel…I just can’t believe how contrived it was. I expect some forced feeling stuff from superhero flicks but holy shit did they really need to bring back Kirk?
Hubris: it’s not just for old white men.
If that anecdote is true, feels like she’s being childish and is also a bit deluded on how good her past movies were. The person primarily responsible for WW84 should feel lucky to be getting another sequel, not indignant that anyone would dare question their ideas.
This is embarrassing for Patty Jenkins
So… replacement director.
Zoe Bell?
Olivia Wilde?
Brie Larson? Greta Gerwig?
Olivia Munn?
Gemma Nguyen?Sandra Bullock?Sigourney Weaver?I’m just throwing out names here and including well known stuntwomen since it seems like stunt performers are nailing action direction these days.
After seeing Diana pine away for 40 years over a guy she knew for a couple days, I’d say it’s YOU that doesn’t understand the character Patty. It’s pretty obvious the so called “character arc” she’s alluding to is Diana learning in the third movie that she doesn’t need Steve around to act like a normal person and do the right thing. In other words, she don’t need no man to be a strong independent woman. Which let’s be honest, is a pretty shitty lesson to finally learn after 3 movies considering her origins.
Patty Jenkins to the DC studio heads: “Don’t worry guys, I got this!”Ther head honchos, while rewatching WW84 : “Um, well..”
After 1984 I’m not going to cry about it, she and Gadot did a terrible job after a decent WW1
Also: magic plays a big part of the DC Universe, it’s one of the only things Superman is vulnerable to…but in the DCEU magic has been Pedro Pascal’s superstone and superbrows Cara Delevingne, and they haven’t gone over so well (I guess Shazaam is magic too but that’s more of a kid’s movie). We don’t want “midichlorian” level explanations for why people fly, but zipzapzop magic hasn’t flown that well…even Dr. Strange’s and Scarlet Witch etc. magic is like “it’s the dark power of a parallel universe blahblahblah”
So we can’t go with the simple explanation…that Wonder Woman 2 absolutely sucked, and they didn’t want her back to direct.
She reportedly sent De Luca an email that included a link to the Wikipedia page for “character arc” and was also uninterested in having further conversations with Gunn and Safran.This from the director who thought that what WW needed in the second movie was to hook up with her dead ex-boyfriend.
(remembering Wonder Woman film) I am 100% of Patty Jenkins’ side! They should have trusted her ideas for WW3.(remembering WW 1984) Um, can I retract my previous statement?
Sometimes I call my enormous cat Fatty Jenkins.
Lesson here: if you want to be creative don’t make capeshit
“Oh No! WoWo No Go, As Last One Blows”
Ive rarely seen a steeper drop in quality between a movie and its sequel than Wonder Woman.
The closest I might be able to come up with is Jaws 2, but while it never comes close to touching the original, 2 still manages to be a dumb, fun Giant Monster Eats Kids slasher movie with splashes of quality (Scheider, Hamilton and Gary, plus Williams’ score mostly). I cant imagine anyone watching WW2 and thinking the same.
They don’t need to cancel it. They just need to replace Jenkins. She proves female directors can be hacks too, and when you deliver something as bad as WW84, you shouldn’t be gifted a 3rd movie. We need to stop being married to the idea that one person can hold a franchise hostage and call it “seeing their vision through.” There are many other directors out there (male or female) who could inject some new life into WW.