FOr a studio that prides itself on letting filmmakers keep going, Warner Bros. is certainly vulnerable to the odd point of heavy executive interference. Or so it might appear at the beginning of recent comments made by Patty Jenkins of Wonder Woman 1984 On the WTF podcast by Marc MarronThat was picked up by the worldwide media later.
Discussing Gal Gadot’s first role as the critically acclaimed 2017 Amazonian superhero Wonderful womanJenkins revealed that she initially fought the studio to get her vision of the warm-hearted and lovable Diana of Themyscira, and ultimately won over an approach that would have seen the character engage in extreme violence.
“I felt like they wanted to hire me like a beard; Jenkins said of her first experiences with the studio, they wanted me to roam the set as a director – but it was their story and vision.
Even when I first joined Wonder Woman, it was like, ‘Uh, yeah, okay, but let’s do it the other way. “But I was like, ‘Women don’t want to see that. Being cruel, cruel and beheading people … I like Wonder Woman, that’s not what we’re looking for. However, I could sense the vibrating tension from my point of view. “
Jenkins has since taken to Twitter to point out that she has rarely been “at war” with Warner Bros and has been discussing conversations that have been going on for more than a decade (probably) with very different executives from those who eventually lit Wonder Woman. The Monster filmmaker first started talking about Wonder Woman in 2007, but wasn’t invited until the best part of a decade after that to produce the film with complete creative freedom. That makes sense when you watch the 2017 movie, which looks like a very different monster from other episodes in the early “extended universe” of DC such as Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Even the Post Justice League, an apparent lighter relationship affected by Wonder Woman’s success, didn’t portray Gadot’s fight with Amazon the way the Jenkins could have been. The filmmaker recently told Yahoo She was “uncomfortable with who she was and how she was seen,” after director Joss Wadden supervised scenes in which sex with the superhero was compared to her appearance in other films.
This all brings us to Wonder Woman 1984, which is a very emotional affair that, while entertaining enough for hardcore fans, seems to have fallen into the typical superhero trap that previously affected Marvel’s Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World. Here’s a movie where Jenkins clearly had complete creative control after taking in the impressive box office of his predecessor and nearly world fame. Why did he leave this feeling “meh”?
The set-piece sequence is amazing – in particular, Jenkins’ brave opening vision of an athletics marathon via Themyscira makes the modern Olympics look like a toddler’s egg and spoon race. Mandalorian’s Pedro Pascal brings an extraordinary blend of humanity and the bad guy chewing through furniture to the role of villain Maxwell Lord, Gadot is as gorgeous statue as she has always been in the lead role, and the fish hurt out of the water with Chris Pine miraculously revived Steve Trevor is a bit of joy.
The sequel is also closely intertwined with Wonder Woman’s base spells, her strong and independent femininity, and kindness and grace. He doesn’t pull the punches when depicting masculinity at its most toxic, but it totally avoids any regression to myopia. These are the nuances of the treasure.
So what don’t you like? Perhaps the only criticism that could be directed at Jenkins is that there are few things new other than the ’80s setting The Terrible New MacGuffin To the basic make-up of Wonder Woman 1984. One can’t help but feel that if it were Marvel, there would be room to introduce other superheroes to ease the burden on the other Princess Diana.
However, Jenkins always preferred the independent approach. Ultimately, the director managed to make the Wonder Woman she wanted to make, without any studio interference – again, a rare feat in Hollywood. It’s a pity that she couldn’t quite do the same trick twice.
“Fanatik TV. Pembaca. Pemecah masalah yang ramah hipster. Pembuat masalah. Penyelenggara yang sangat rendah hati.”