Seems hes doing reshoots to give ww more screen time. Fucking shocker. The irony being that hes one of the reasons women action stars dont come in any other flavour than over sexualized fembots.
shareShe's a highly popular character after her movie. And why wouldn't you want more of her? Scared of women?
share[deleted]
If Warners is so devoted to SJW-ism, then why didn't they go down on their knees and beg Jenkins to fix "Justice League"? She's the one director they've got who can make their DC ideas into a movie that audiences and critics genuinely like!
Seriously, why didn't they beg her to fix "Justice League"?
I never said anything about wb. In fact I asked the very same question. Why was jenkins not brought in?
My original point is about whedon, and his obsession with being seen as a feminist. Synders daughter wasnt even cold and whedon was already drafting revisions for more ww. Why? The characters hadnt been known at that point. So why the extensive reshoots bringing the character more screen time? The only reason that would be reasonable was that zack had given her no screen time.
Heavy handed feminism isnt going to sell that movie, and if thats what whedon is up to then it will just be another mess that gets slammed by fansboys and critics alike.
Haven't seen WW yet but she was one of the few bright spots in BvS, so hopefully the changes are for the better. But you're right to be skeptical of Whedon's motives.
share"Heavy handed feminism isnt going to sell that movie,"
Well neither is Cavill's whiny Superman or Affleck's homemade-looking Batman costume, or the audience goodwill gained from all the fun they had at "Suicide Squad". If they're using WW to sell this mess then it's because that's the only real selling point they've got right now!
But don't be so hard on Wheedon, he's a competent director and can't POSSIBLY do worse than Snyder, who's made an incoherent hash out of everything he touched. Of course I'd rather it be Jenkins, as she seems to be a better director and a more authentic feminist, but I'll take what I can get at this point.
Again, Im talking about BEFORE WW was released. Not based on whats been decided after it. But again, I ask the question why was jenkins not asked to take over? Shes the only one so far thats got a good reaction to a dcmu movie. Why run the risk of getting someone new in when theres a director sitting there thats already got a tick in the win column? I can see that you agree on that, but it does puzzle me.
As for whedon, I dont like his direction. Its uninspired. Its smacks of cheese, and tween fanboyish images of what he thinks are "cool". His action shots can be akin to that of anytime someone does a superhero landing. When deadpool finally made fun of that I had hoped we'd seen the end of it, but alas no. People like whedon still think it "looks cool". Hes a cw director that got luck with some cool ideas, and that somehow got him a seat in the big chair. Id take snyders disjointed messes over whedons fangirling lipservice any day of the week. But thats just me.
"Id take snyders disjointed messes over whedons fangirling lipservice any day of the week. But thats just me. "
Uh, you may be alone in that...
And I think you're also putting too much weight in what was written when, because on a lot of films rewriting goes on all through the filming or reshooting. I've heard actors say that on some productions they didn't even bother to learn their lines the night before, because the dialogue would all have changed when they showed up in the morning. So I am going to assume that rewriting is still going on and that WW is getting more screen time that ever because she's a hit, and if Wheedon likes WW then so do a lot of straight men.
I also assume that Patty Jenkins isn't sufficiently appreciated by the studio, but she may be dodging a bullet with "Justice Lealgue".
So at the start of age of ultron when they do that slow mo capture of all the avengers didnt make you want to blow a big rubbery one?
Why is sex coming up? You think guys having hard ons is what WW is about? Or should I say what shes supposed to be about? Its been banded about as win for feminism, and youve just reduced it to "she gets dicks hard". Sorry, but I dont go to see action movies to have a wank. Maybe its just me, but I wont more from my female stars than a nice ass and perky tits. Snyder made Faora ul a bad ass without her being all about getting dicks hard. He then did the same with WW. When has whedon ever presented a female character without resorting to sex to sell her? And thats what we are going to get with him in charge. Shitty super hero landings, WW killing guys between her legs and piss poor one liners.
Synder also presents a great image onto the screen. Does action VERY well. Its just his getting the pieces together that suck donkey dick. Why has no one ever sat him down with a good editor?
One of the reasons that the WW movie worked was because Diana was presented as someone you could love in many ways: As a kick-ass hero in battle, as a true friend, as someone you'd trust to rescue you from a burning building or to babysit your kid, and yes, someone who could bring on a stiffie. It's okay of straight men see her as a sexual being first, as long as they appreciate her other qualities, although I must say that Jenkins did a SUPERB job of making her appealing in multiple ways (and without a great actress) that other directors probably won't be able to match.
As for Wheedon vs. Snyder... as far as I'm concerned, Wheedon is competent and Snyder is not, and that is the end of the comparison. I do hope Wheedon can rise above competence as he sometimes does, but considering the level of mess Snyder probably left behind him, the odds would be against it. If "Justice League" is good I'll be pleasantly surprised, with emphasis on the surprise.
"fuck face"? Grow up. You're fucking paranoid about one of DC's main three characters, the one who happens to be a woman, getting screen time in a Justice League movie. You should know how that makes you look.
share[deleted]