I think the main reason why Joss Whedon is famous as a “feminist” and Zack Snyder is not is because the differences when it comes to how they’re promoting their ideals both in movies and in real life. in Joss Whedon’s movies women are the same troubled side characters with little distinction included in few minutes of badass fight scenes to make them noticeable & appealing to the general audience. In Zack Snyder films, women have real personalities; they can be vulnerable but fight ferociously to protect their loved ones, they can be feeble on the outside but strong on the inside, and most importantly they have proper character development. Lois Lane in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman is more than a great example.
In real life, too; Joss Whedon is really outspoken about how he thinks he empowers women in his films. On the other hand, Zack Snyder doesn’t lash out at critics even when they get the message he’s trying to send completely wrong, like about how women fight back against their abusers in Sucker Punch. He quietly but boldly and properly depicts women equally in his films and it’s understandable how sometimes people misinterpret his intentions.
Patty Jenkins has closed a deal to direct the sequel to the summer hit “Wonder Woman.”
Gal Gadot has already signed on to return in the title role. The film is slated for release on Dec. 13, 2019.
Variety was first to report that Jenkins was already working on a script for the sequel with Geoff Johns, who oversees the DC film universe along with Jon Berg for Warner Bros. “The goal is to make another great ‘Wonder Woman’ film,” Johns said at the time.
While an exact number could not be unveiled, sources say the number is in the $8 million dollar range to write, direct and produce making her the highest paid female director of all time. A substantial backend of box office grosses is also included in the contract.
“Wonder Woman” has been a megahit for the studio, grossing $409 million at the domestic box office and $813 million worldwide. The film is the fourth installment in the studio’s DC Extended Universe, which launched with 2013’s “Man of Steel” with an opening weekend of $116.6 million, followed by last year’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” with $166 million, and “Suicide Squad” with $133.6 million. “Wonder Woman” — made on a $150 million budget — is critically acclaimed, with a 92% “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Besides the “Wonder Woman” sequel, Jenkins is also developing a TNT TV series with her “Wonder Woman” star Chris Pine, inspired by the autobiography of Fauna Hodel. She is repped by CAA and Anonymous Content.
“In a child’s eyes, a mother is a goddess. She can be glorious or terrible, benevolent or filled with wrath, but she commands love either way. I am convinced that this is the greatest power in the universe.” ― N.K. Jemisin
Diana faces the real battles any mother has to face. Not only loving, protecting, nurturing, guiding and supporting her children but dealing
with the challenges of a child trying to find her identity and place in life. Motherhood involves dealing
with rebellious, angry and stubborn children. It is not only rainbows and picnics. As a Queen and superhero she has to protect her offspring, her people and the
world from darkness and tyrants. She does it
with true inner and outer strength, courage and
My All Female Justice League Line-Up. (Minus Mera obviously. And only because theres no footage of the Queen of Atlantis just yet.)
“Not even girls want to be girls so long as our feminine archetype lacks force, strength, and power. Not wanting to be girls, they don’t want to be tender, submissive, peace-loving as good women are. Women’s strong qualities have become despised because of their weakness. The obvious remedy is to create a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman.” -
William Moulton Marston
Why do you like them? But they are not supposed to be together. They have traditional love interests. Why are you supporting this relationship? It’s sexist. It’s boring and predictable. They are too alike. They too different.
Well look here, first of all I don’t need anyone’s approval to care for what I respond to in fiction. I like what I like because I am me. I am not you. You don’t even have to agree with me. That’s okay. We can all like what we like. What I don’t appreciate is people telling me what I should like. Or calling me sexist. I am a female fan and never in all my life have I ever been accused of that. I mean, what the hell? People don’t know my upbringing, my culture, my experience and therefore can’t dictate what should emotionally move me. So yes I flew in the face of tradition and went with this pairing. And that word tradition? It’s important but we never should be a slave to it. If we all stuck to tradition for the sake of it, we’d never have progressed and art and literature would never push boundaries and encourage us to grow and think. We’d blindly accept what we’re fed.
I never shipped before. Never. I liked romance. But never got too caught up in the details to wonder about the characters and what drove them and how they might evolve and the untold stories. But this one hooked me. Hooked me maybe when I was not even shipping. As a young girl I saw Lynda Carter’s Diana and fell in love with her and what she could do. Steve Trevor? All I recall was finding him as a kid kinda yucky. Hey, I was 7. Those things did not really matter to me back then. I fell for Wonder Woman when she was without a love interest and the same happened when I picked up her in comics. She had no official love interest. Steve having been aged to an older type brother with Etta as his love interest and funnily enough he was really likable. Superman…well I liked the movie. Margot’s Lois, well, she was there. I can’t recall feeling anything strongly for her but again I was a kid. Reeve made the impression. Handsome and heroic.
Anyway I think Superman and Wonder Woman sort of got into my subconscious starting with the Super Friends. A more innocent time and simple story telling but I really liked when they teamed up and helped each other out. Was cool when I went onto the playground…I was saving people with the boys when we all played heroes. I wasn’t waiting for them to pretend save me.
I had liked Lois and Clark the TV series but it did not make me ship. Dean and Teri were probably the only Lois and Clark I rooted for because they were Dean and Teri, two very charming actors in a show that was a fun rom com and one that did not really explore the concept of Superman. You can’t have a good Superman story without exploring Superman I believe. If one just wants Clark don’t give him powers or a mission to better the world. You can’t ignore one for the other and I won’t get into the ethics of journalism and what real truth and accountability should entail. That will take me off on a tangent.But it matters. You can’t say you’re for truth or good journalism when you conveniently skip over the very things that defines them. Anyway Kingdom Come pretty much made me reevaluate the way I saw superheroes. Really question the motivations and the actions of heroes and finally see that they could be flawed and yet still heroic. And see things we never saw, like them facing their mortality and falling down and picking themselves up. Just like us. Really asking genuine questions instead of glossing over themes of morality, truth, sacrifice, heroism, aging, mortality, leadership, responsibility etc to preserve the status quo .
I went and picked up comics because of this graphic novel. I learned more about the heroes as individuals. I grew to love and respect them both. And I started to fall in love with them as a couple even when they were not a couple. Kingdom Come was about the potential but their canon relationship of close friends with some unresolved tension was the foundation.
A relationship could never be seen as predictable if you have no clue what will happen. Even the SM/WW detractors do not know what will happen but we all sort of know the endgame and been on a lot of journeys with the traditional love interests. So those are predictable. Does not make the fact we had many journeys better as well. Another journey and story could very well be just as interesting and if new, even riper for a creative mind to explore. So no, they are not predictable.
There is nothing sexist about two strong, capable and intelligent individuals working together. If they are in a relationship…it simply brings in a new dynamic of intimacy that you would not get if, say Batman teamed up with Superman. But nonetheless it is a team up of equals. And for those who want to keep Diana out of the book because, according to them, it harms her? Seems to me that is saying there is little faith in her to be able to stand as Clark’s equal. If you want to prove a woman is as capable as a man, then you give her the equal treatment. You don’t avoid the situation. You don’t keep her out of the book. That’s an admission of failure or trying to shield her from being challenged. And a good writer has to step up to the challenge. No longer does Superman get to be the man. The alpha male who saves the day. The writer has to dig deep and actually write a relationship of equals now between a man and woman, who can hold her own, as there is no major discrepancy in their power sets where one has to logically stand by while the other saves. If they were both street level it really makes no difference. They are equals in terms of what they could do, ie their training and experience. Strength is a factor when it comes to the foes created so they can have credible threats or the power set they display. But, again, it does not define their morality. So as a superwonder fan I did not match them up because they are just strong. That’s a misconception spread by detractors who don’t understand the characters. You give them powerful foes because they were created as powerful heroes. No writer has to jump through hoops to make Diana his equal ie giving her convenient powers or making her a plot device to drive the plot to give him a motivation. She was actually created to be his equal because Marston knew there was a genuine need for a strong example of female empowerment. She is an equal in the solving of a problem and dealing with a menace.
There are some writers who are comfortable with having one hero being the savior and then they compensate for his/her doing the saving by making the love interest somehow indispensable to the character’s maturity, morality and even heroism. I don’t subscribe to that. No love interest should define any hero’s motivation and morality. To say that one person alone is why they care is totally against the reason why these two characters were created. It’s simply pandering. If anyone came and told me Diana needs Steve and Steve alone to value humanity, or he alone somehow is the best of humanity, I will say NO. Just No. Similarly Clark’s goodness and empathy for his adopted planet is not reliant on one person. Both Clark and Diana have met and interacted with many good people, human and non human. All of these people, along with their upbringing, should help contribute to them becoming the people they are. And with that is the choices they make. One reason I love them is because it has been made clear in previous canon and the new 52 these two would put the world first. It is not about themselves. To make it about one’s self/ love interest makes the hero a weak character. With or without each other they should be able to be heroes and appreciate life. Life is not defined by the life span of one person. They are both characters with longevity. They were created/evolved over the decades that way. To ignore this is to ignore what they are. Maybe this is why in so many Elseworlds Superman runs away, hides, quits or goes evil when life tosses him a curve ball because one love interest is not around. Writers do a disservice to any character when they make it about one person. We wouldn’t expect Lois or Steve’s goodness to be defined whether Clark or Diana lives or dies, would we? I would hope not. They supposed to be individuals in their own right who are brave and good at what they do. Love interests can provide love and companionship etc but certainly all characters, be they heroes or supporting cast, should never be crippled because they can’t romance x or y.
Diana also challenges Clark. It maybe that it brings a difference of opinion as in Kingdom Come or Sacrifice or The New Frontier or even my favorite JL A League of One…but behind it all is the goal to help save the world. In Doomed she was having none of his let me save you. She would stand with him. Even race him to it. She also takes away that guilt and burden he normally would feel when he has to leave. When they part, it’s to have trust and faith in the other to do the job they know they have to do. She does what needs to be done too. In Doomed Diana was in tears but she had the guts to slay the man she loved to save the world if he turned into a monster. Now that takes so much damn courage and he knew she would do it too. He trusted her to put the world first on so many occasions. When they blew up the nuclear plant to stop Zod and Mongul, they sacrificed themselves, their budding love for the greater good. Clark and Diana cares for the world. Anyone saying they would betray it or their principles I believe does not get who they are and clearly not reading the books. Their love strengthens their resolve and they learning they are better together.
And challenging is what characters need to grow. To look at things from a different point of view. Be it Clark’s grounded upbringing to Diana’s royal one. They have the same goals in life but different up-bringing. And these contrasts are rich for story telling. Diana, adapting to our world, is always learning too and Clark can provide an insight into the humdrum of everyday life. Does not mean he is teaching her how to act, any more than if he came to live on her island and learn about her culture and her ways. Every character needs to learn and grow. If any writer has a character so mary sued he/she needs to learn nothing…well there is not point in telling a story about their journey. And if you are a couple, you learn compromise and learning to be together, and at times it can be scary or intimidating. Giving and taking in a relationship is not an affront to feminism. A relationship of equals is about reciprocation. Soule did this to great effect in Power Couple Vol 1.
They both can truly empathize with what the other has to deal with. They both on some level feel a loneliness due to the fact that they are different. He is an alien , who hides the truth about himself. The whole world is not enamored with him. That’s got more pathos than everyone suddenly accepting this guy to police them over night. He has to work for their trust. She is a demi goddess whose birth was a shameful secret and now is part of a dysfunctional family. Some fans accuse us of pairing up two people only because they are good looking and wear matching colors. Well, first of all I never knew any of their traditional love interests to be plain or even set up as underdogs. If anything the underdogs were always Clark Kent and Diana Prince. They struggled to get the attention of the object of their desire over the years, who were often seen a beautiful and glamorous and handsome and heroic and the best at what they could do. So let us debunk that notion Clark and Diana have it easy as individuals or as a couple and their traditional love interests had it hard.
We can all have a ton of friends but it doesn’t mean we will find that one person to love, who will understand what drives us or makes us fearful or understands what it means to feel different. Their friendship in old canon showed how often they turned to each other to find intellectual and emotional comfort by venting and sharing. It must feel different to have someone you come home to and you tell them about a battle or the people you lost in a battle…they know. They know how that feels. The burdens and the weight of being an inspiration and leadership. They can understand because they walked in those shoes. And there was never any conditions to their friendship and even now their love. She did not care for him because of what she could get or vice versa. For me, it is so refreshing to read a relationship that is not reliant on the cliched will they/won’t they troupe and one that is not dysfunctional. Sure they learning and sure they’ll make mistakes…no one is perfect…but I love that both are fairly open and optimistic characters and we seeing them humanized via this relationship.
For far too often we have been inundated with bad boy/good girl dynamics in media, be it the cad or the moody, damaged soul. The noble, good man with no psychological hangups is considered by some as boring. And it is commonly the woman who has to fix the damage. Put up with what is essentially BS. And her reward?She gets to sleep with him, he wins her. Oh yay. I eye roll here. I am tired of that. It is a lazy troupe. It is a poor message to send to girls and boys. It goes both ways too. I don’t subscribe to a female character treating a male like crap and then the male gets her as some prize when she finally opens her eyes to see what was always before her. You should be with someone who treats you right. Someone who respects you. Someone who does not abuse you emotionally. Someone who wants to be with you. I could go on and on and if you’re really against sexism, then no way should anyone charge or label Superman and Wonder Woman as that. He treats her with respect. Loves her. Admires her strength. Diana values him for who he is. She always saw past the glasses. Now and even back then. He always trusted her with his secret. Real love is based on truth, trust and faith. Not dysfunctional and unhealthy dynamics no person would want for themselves or someone they care about. As a confident Amazon, raised to know her worth, who is compassionate, Diana being attracted to Clark makes so much sense. She would be drawn to this man than any other. This noble, grounded, humble man who uses his gifts for good. He is such a contrast to the power hungry Gods of Olympus. She fights for peace, well here is a man who understands the value of that and opts for justice, not vengeance . And sure she could reach out to damage souls but she does not have to sleep with them to do it. (So this is why I never shipped her with moody mission obsessed Batman. No to Orion as well. Friends for sure who she can help but not as lovers.) Clark would be drawn to her courage, compassion and her truthfulness and the fresh, honest eyes she would have as a newcomer looking at our world. That she could easily keep up with him and even kick his ass would more than well be a source of fascination. Diana has so many burdens as well. Princess, at times Ambassador and now God of War; how nice to have a companion who is not a jerk or needy. One who is proud to be with you. He learned from her self acceptance and that he does not need anyone’s approval to be with her. That being open can be uplifting. And she loves the beard!
I could go on and on, but for me, these two characters hold so much fascination. I hope DC do not end them any time soon. Give them their time this canon. Some of of us who shipped before have waited years. We saw the potential. Those who came on board now came on board because THIS did the job with them,despite what comics and live media presented. So it’s not as if we did not have a choice. We did. We just prefer this. There is great potential to go beyond the stories we are accustomed to seeing because one couldn’t have Superman or Wonder Woman’s world change too much if something as simple as time was allowed to play out. It was sort of stuck in amber yet it was making these broad statements about the characters morality/ heroism without any real, deep examination of what challenges they would face over time. Now I think we can push the envelope to explore other themes. And since the new 52 Clark and Diana have constantly been tested.
It doesn’t hurt Clark/Diana represent the zeitgeist and they inspire so many people in the real world. They’ve opened up channels among fans. So many diverse fans too. Different ages, gender, orientation, races…all mainly very open minded people. We are grateful to DC for being brave and exploring it.. End if the day it’s fiction and it may not last forever. But it won’t stop me from loving it. I was into it before and most likely be into it after it’s gone. It’s nice to have it and say it is official. Nice to open up the books and read this superwonderful relationship unfolding and not have other disgruntled fans tell you you’re being stupid to ship something that will never be. And you know I have seen so many positive things as a result of the coupling being a joint admin for the hellyeahsupermanandwonderwoman blog. Fans feel encouraged to be true to themselves; to reach and fulfill their own potential and be good to others. To be a Superman, to be a Wonder Woman. It’s basically empowering yourself, whether you find your Superman or Wonder Woman is a bonus. You live up to your vast potential. That is a good message I think for anyone.
Patty Jenkins knew expectations would be stratospheric for “Wonder Woman,” starring Gal Gadot, a former Miss Israel who served as a combat trainer in the Israeli Army. The film (in theaters Friday, June 2) is the summer’s most anticipated release and also the first time the halter-top-and-hot-pants-wearing superhero, who was introduced in 1941, has had a movie all her own. But Ms. Jenkins, whose only previous feature, “Monster,” won Charlize Theron an Oscar in 2004, said she felt pressure most intensely from herself.
“I have a high bar for myself already; I always want to do something beautiful and meaningful,” Ms. Jenkins said by phone from her Los Angeles home. “I was aware that I was the first person of all time getting to direct a Wonder Woman film, and that was taken very seriously.”
She wasn’t the first choice: Michelle MacLaren left, with Warner Bros. citing “creative differences”; and Ms. Jenkins said she and Ms. MacLaren ran into each other as the switch was happening, and hugged. “We’re cool,” Ms. Jenkins said.
Her vision of “Wonder Woman” — someone strong, loving and vulnerable, who exudes sincerity, which Ms. Jenkins says is sorely lacking in films — has most critics in a swoon. Here are edited excerpts from the conversation.
I wish this movie had been around when I was a little kid.
I just got a little teary hearing that, because it hits me every once in a while, when I go to mommy-daughter events. I knew it was going to be PG-13, and there’s so much there for adults, but also that little girls were going to want to see it, so I tried to make it as safe as possible. If we succeeded in bringing something to people while they’re growing up, that would be something.
How does the director and writer of a film Roger Ebert deemed the third best of the decade not immediately get hired to make another feature?
There was a movie I was trying to make right after “Monster,” a bigger behemoth, the Chuck Yeager story. It was a life dream, but it just didn’t line up. We just had issues with the life rights ultimately. Also, I got pregnant, and making a feature is not compatible with the first years of a child’s life. Then the bottom fell out of the indie film world, and nobody was interested in what I brought, but instead in what I could do for them. I had my own scripts, but people didn’t want to read them. They only wanted to do tent poles. So I began doing pilots.
Do you think gender hurt you in terms of trying to make feature films?
I don’t know. Ironically, tent poles were what I was asked to do, though they weren’t ones I was into. I think [being a woman] might have had something to do with why people were not interested in my screenplays. It was, “Ah, we don’t want that point of view, we want our point of view.” If you want more diversity in the industry, you need diverse people writing scripts and developing them.
When you started the project, was the casting nailed down?
The only casting in place was Gal. I’m so picky about casting, and when I heard that they’d cast Wonder Woman, my heart sank. But oh my God, it was one of the luckiest things that ever happened to me, because Gal Gadot is so magical and wonderful. They found the best person in the universe.
Do you think “Wonder Woman” needed a woman to direct it?
I don’t think any movie has to have any specific kind of person. I wasn’t directing a woman, I was just directing a hero, and that freed me up to go broader with her personality than someone might be able to do if they were afraid to make her vulnerable and loving and warm, and not always right, which is absolutely imperative to a leading character. That’s been one of the hardest things about leading characters: Other people might not have felt safe, or worried [that] if there’s any vulnerability, what that’s saying? But main characters have to have flaws, and have a journey and be rich. I felt the same way about “Monster.” A woman didn’t have to direct it, and I wasn’t directing a woman’s story. I was directing a person.
Did you get studio pushback on making Wonder Woman vulnerable?
There were a lot of conversations, definitely, and it was a constant surprise to some people that I was doing it. But you look back at the history of characters, and oftentimes any notion that the lead person doesn’t get to be anything but impeccably right, that becomes D.O.A. That’s been a problem with some of the female characters they’ve tried to put forth. They’re too hard or too strong. I think “Hunger Games” was one of the great things changing that. She’s just a girl.
“Monster” was an indie, and this was a huge movie in terms of its production budget. Was that ever daunting?
Surprisingly, no. The TV projects I was doing were getting to $11 million or $12 million, shooting over an eight-to-10-day period, shutting down the Chicago River with helicopters and 1,000 people. In TV, you can end up working with a very high budget. Then, my vision was so clear for “Wonder Woman.” It’s the exact same math applied to more.
Will there be another Wonder Woman film?
Yeah, I sure hope so. It seems that way.
You’re doing it?
I’d love to, and that’s definitely a conversation, but nothing we are announcing yet.
This may be a cheesy question, but what do you want people to take away from this movie?
Did you say cheesy? Cheesy is one of the words banned in my world. I’m tired of sincerity being something we have to be afraid of doing. It’s been like that for 20 years, that the entertainment and art world has shied away from sincerity, real sincerity, because they feel they have to wink at the audience because that’s what the kids like. We have to do the real stories now. The world is in crisis.
I wanted to tell a story about a hero who believes in love, who is filled with love, who believes in change and the betterment of mankind. I believe in it. It’s terrible when it makes so many artists afraid to be sincere and truthful and emotional, and relegates them to the too-cool-for-school department. Art is supposed to bring beauty to the world.