Were Gadot's comments supposed to be some magic bullet?

Yes, that would not be good. There seem to be enough stories of him being a jerk that I feel like there's probably at least a little fire to go with the smoke. I'm guessing he gets stressed out while working (perfectionism?) and has an inflated ego from decades of nerd worship and those two things combine to make him do nasty things.

1. Writers create the story, directors come up with a vision for it, and cast actors they think can fill those roles. Sometimes actors bring great things to parts, and they need to be allowed to develop within those frameworks. Filmmaking is building stories together and, ideally, all the artists are allowed to contribute to the art. Mostly, though, I think we're agreeing with each other. The final call would/should rest with the director, because that's the person who "coordinates" all of the elements. But I'm cautious to strip artists of their say because doing their job isn't exactly the same as just "implement what the boss wants" because their job is to create a character. They've been hired to be creative.

Things are compounded with complication when considering these new franchises where they plan them out over vast swathes of cinema and multiple directors are involved. If Joss Whedon doesn't like Gal Gadot, he doesn't have to hire her, but in this case, the studio hired her for multiple films and she already developed this character with two other directors, Zack Snyder and Patty Jenkins, not to mention the studio's development plans. So this might not apply to a traditional rubric of director-as-king.

Still: bottom line, director is god, although ideally is respecting his/her fellow artists and fostering creativity over dictatorships.

2. Yes, she is aggressive in comics, but somewhat dependant on writer - which is true of all heroes, of course; they vary wildly from comic to comic. Still, I know what you mean: the prevailing, most-often portrayed character of Wonder Woman has her as one of the angrier and more violent heroes of the DC pantheon.

I bow to your knowledge of the films, as I have not seen them. All I know is that she seems to feel that WW was less aggressive in the standalone film and that the acceleration into a much more violent version under Whedon's direction was distasteful to her. As to the Snyder cut, maybe she'd object to that, too, I haven't read if she likes it at all, or more or less than Whedon's. Snyder also might have been hampered depending on how much material was pre-shot. Did he do re-shoots? If he was stuck with the hours of footage Whedon shot, and if Whedon forced an angrier WW, Snyder might have had a choice between her aggression and leaving scenes he wanted on the floor.

Of course, that's all pure speculation since I haven't seen it, so again, I defer to you.

Hear, hear. Truth, free expression and speech, standing against cancel culture - all of these are great values.

Newsflash. If an actor refuses to take direction and wont do the lines then it could be harmful to their career. People are reluctant to hire actors if word gets around that they are uncooperative on set.

You still think there's a lot of "goodwill" towards and around him? The guy was accused, that is all that matters in today's society. Most people eat that shit right up. Accused? You are GUILTY! Do you think most comments on these stories are in support of him? Because I do not.