![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccatoriaSo! The next Superman film is going to feature Wonder Woman. She will be played by Gal Gadot, who's best known for her role in the recent Fast & Furious movies.
Obviously everyone on every side (including myself) then proceeded to have a meltdown.
I'm not shocked by the bullshit dismissive judgemental fanboy reactions proclaiming her a terrible actress because she was in a car movie, or because she has an accent, or because how dare they put Wonder Woman in this film anyway, they ought to be focusing on Superman vs Batman, or because her boobs aren't big enough (and yes, I saw all these, if not after this announcement, then certainly when Gadot was leaked as one of the front-runners for the then-unnamed female lead role).
I'm also not shocked by the instant reactions on the other side - Snyder will destroy her because he wrote Sucker Punch, it's probably a cynical reaction to the success of Frozen and the Hunger Games, how dare they put her in a supporting role about the two dudes, not her own film. I most certainly don't mean to imply by putting these claims in opposition that the latter equivalent to the former. I have a great deal of sympathy for fears that this will get fucked up, and there are reasons to believe it will. The idea that it might be good is almost as terrifying to me as the idea that it could be bad because it requires investment and hope and trust that I don't really have. I understand the desire to voice these concerns, to reflexively inoculate oneself against raised expectations. And let's face it, Sucker Punch was fucking offensive.
But I also think that there are some solid reasons why introducing her this way, and this casting choice, may bode well for the movie, or at least not as badly as some fear. So as an exercise in not panicking before I have to, I'm going to list them. Ten Points of It Might Not Be Awful!
Fair warning; some of this is cynical and pragmatic. This is engineering not philosophy.
1) By taking the focus off her, we may dodge Hollywood's bizarre obsession with gender war. I'm reminded of Gail Simone's comments that she's been contacted on a number of occasions by scriptwriters, and read some of the unproduced scripts and the advice she always gives, and that is always ignored, is not to make it about gender war. She did a pass on the Wonder Woman animated movie too, and after she left, what did they do? Yeah. Made it all about Diana learning ~not all men are bad~.
If we meet her as an established character, if we meet her in the context of setting up a take on the DC Trinity, then I think there's a much better chance that we can avoid that excruciatingly embarrassing set up, and we can just get on with having her be.
2) It test drives the character without financial pressure. If Man of Steel 2 fails, Wonder Woman won't get the blame. If people don't respond to her well, there's a chance to work out why that is, and reassess and tweak things for Justice League or a solo film, without Hollywood turning around and going, "Well, hey, you had your chance, but female leads don't sell." In effect, it may give her the breathing space to survive a mediocre opening appearance in a way that women are often denied.
3) It introduces the character to a wider audience than a solo film. I'm sure there are people who would go see a Black Widow movie now who wouldn't have bothered before The Avengers. As much as we talk about the Hunger Games and Gravity and Frozen proving that you can have financially successful female leads (and I sincerely hope that people do notice this), Wonder Woman has a reputation that cuts both ways. Everyone reading this knows how much I love her. But let's be honest: there's toxicity and gross hostility in the way guys react to her sometimes. It's fucking awful, but it's true. What's also depressingly true is that there are a large number of women who don't know anything about her except her campy reputation from the old TV show, and that faintly embarrassing "dude's view of what women must be talking about in those feminist witch clubs!" gender war crap, who view her as "girl Superman" and something of an embarrassment to modern women. They are, of course, completely and entirely wrong. And fuck it, considering it is 2013 and the last major live-action Wonder Woman production was thirty-five years ago, how the hell are they to know differently? This is not a problem without an identifiable cause. But that doesn't make it any less of a problem.
Putting her in a high profile film like this - IF it's a good take on her - is a way to address that.
4) I agree that the current landscape for women in superhero movies sucks monkey fuck. It sucks that when Warner Brothers were pissing around trying to work out what they were doing with their DC cinematic universe, it was Green Lantern that got a film, not Diana. It sucks that now that they have decided what they're doing, and what they're doing is hanging that universe on the Superman franchise and spinning things out of that, that they're making a Trinity film that's going to focus on the two dudes. But guys, they're doing this, and they're doing it now. I don't think anyone should be grateful for scraps - scraps that might turn out to be awful. I'm not here to dictate how people should feel or whether they should support the film.
I'm just saying...it could have been a lot worse, you know? When they announced fucking Superman vs Batman at SDCC, I just felt a lead stone of disinterest and disappointment sink into my stomach. I've lived for years with the rumours that they were working on a Flash movie, on an Aquaman movie, but no, Wonder Woman was tricky, Wonder Woman would have to wait. And I sat there convinced (and I still kind of am, to be honest), that if they ever made the film, it'd be doomed. Because either it would be a sell-out version of her or it wouldn't sell. Because I refuse to underestimate the drastic defensive discomfort that seems to affect a weird number of dudes when it comes to things that overtly identify as feminist. And that is a thing neither Gravity nor the Hunger Games had to deal with.
So now that, finally, that's not what happened, that yes, they ARE going to establish Wonder Woman in the same movie they establish Batman... I don't know.
It would have been worse if they weren't doing this, I guess, is what I mean. So considering we already knew that they weren't doing a Wonder Woman solo movie in 2015...I think this is more and better than we had yesterday.
5) Gal Gadot. I don't have a strong opinion of her as an actress. I do like the Fast & Furious franchise, and my recollection of her is that she was neither spectacular nor awful. I recall her being pretty commanding in Fast 4. Honestly, she's a little less muscular than I'd ideally prefer, but I don't want to enter the world of body-type shaming, and ultimately, either she's the sort of person who can bulk up in the gym, or she isn't and screen presence will matter more anyway. But here are two things that I think may bode well: she's Israeli and speaks with an accent which means that this isn't an Americanised Diana. Which I think means it's more likely we'll get an authentic comic-book Diana. Also because she's Israeli, she served two years in the army and I know loves doing as many of her own stunts in FF as she can.
6) Zack Snyder's not the devil. I hate Sucker Punch with a fiery vengeance, so I don't blame people for bringing this up. But I think it's worth noting that Snyder is not the writer. Which he was in Sucker Punch. I think he did a really good job with Watchmen. The misogynistic issues in that story are, if anything, less than in the original novel. 300 is also a beautifully directed film. In Man of Steel, I think his commitment to a certain visual style really helped sell the movie and communicate the message and feel of Superman. Even people who hated that film because of the plot seem to agree that it looks amazing. He did a great job with the Lois Lane in Goyer's script. I don't see any particular reason to assume he won't do a great job with Diana in Goyer's script, provided Goyer scripts a great Diana.
7) David Goyer's...all right. The man's script-writing career is uneven, but I find it hard to hold Blade II against him when it was directed by Guillermo del Toro who has flat out gone on record as saying he just capitulated to every studio demand no matter how awful in order to get carte blanche on Hellboy. So let's note instead that David Goyer wrote Dark City. I think there's evidence to suggest he's a talented storyteller when he is on form. I wouldn't cite women as something he is in any way known for writing well, sure, but I think he did a reasonable job with Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises and with Lois in Man of Steel.
8) The title. "Superman vs Batman," is not the official title, and never was. I will be honest, given all the various potential titles Warner Brothers apparently copyrighted had references to Superman and Batman but not Wonder Woman, I'm not really hopeful on this point, but YOU NEVER KNOW MAYBE IT'LL BE CALLED MAN OF STEEL: TRINITY. Okay, like I said, probably not, but this is my I'm Not Panicking post. Let's live the dream.
9) The role. The role Gadot auditioned for (according to leaks) was for "Bruce Wayne's love interest." Now who knows whether that's an accurate reflection of the film or a casting cover (they've done that before), but it was also listed as a "lead" role. Of course, not all leads are created equal; I'm sure it's a supporting lead, not an actual equal-to-Batman lead and that's irksome. But I think this does indicate we're not talking a cameo appearance, and that it's not an ill-thought out, last-minute response to the success of the Hunger Games, either. They've been testing actresses for this role for a month now.
10) OMFG WONDER WOMAN. No, wait, shit, I panicked... Okay, so I will use this number to relay random trivia that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it'll be shit. Unlike Marvel, DC don't get to decide what films get made. Disney basically set up Marvel with its own movie studio. DC's movies are made by Warner Brothers with DC in an advisory capacity, but they don't get final say on anything. I think the major difference this makes is potentially with regards to the perspective of the executives making those final decisions, though I don't think I'm qualified to say what that difference is. I mainly mention it because I think it's an interesting distinction and a lot of people aren't aware of it as assume the set up is the same on both sides of the divide.
Okay.
I have reacted, even if I'm still not sure how I feel. *facepalm*
Obviously everyone on every side (including myself) then proceeded to have a meltdown.
I'm not shocked by the bullshit dismissive judgemental fanboy reactions proclaiming her a terrible actress because she was in a car movie, or because she has an accent, or because how dare they put Wonder Woman in this film anyway, they ought to be focusing on Superman vs Batman, or because her boobs aren't big enough (and yes, I saw all these, if not after this announcement, then certainly when Gadot was leaked as one of the front-runners for the then-unnamed female lead role).
I'm also not shocked by the instant reactions on the other side - Snyder will destroy her because he wrote Sucker Punch, it's probably a cynical reaction to the success of Frozen and the Hunger Games, how dare they put her in a supporting role about the two dudes, not her own film. I most certainly don't mean to imply by putting these claims in opposition that the latter equivalent to the former. I have a great deal of sympathy for fears that this will get fucked up, and there are reasons to believe it will. The idea that it might be good is almost as terrifying to me as the idea that it could be bad because it requires investment and hope and trust that I don't really have. I understand the desire to voice these concerns, to reflexively inoculate oneself against raised expectations. And let's face it, Sucker Punch was fucking offensive.
But I also think that there are some solid reasons why introducing her this way, and this casting choice, may bode well for the movie, or at least not as badly as some fear. So as an exercise in not panicking before I have to, I'm going to list them. Ten Points of It Might Not Be Awful!
Fair warning; some of this is cynical and pragmatic. This is engineering not philosophy.
1) By taking the focus off her, we may dodge Hollywood's bizarre obsession with gender war. I'm reminded of Gail Simone's comments that she's been contacted on a number of occasions by scriptwriters, and read some of the unproduced scripts and the advice she always gives, and that is always ignored, is not to make it about gender war. She did a pass on the Wonder Woman animated movie too, and after she left, what did they do? Yeah. Made it all about Diana learning ~not all men are bad~.
If we meet her as an established character, if we meet her in the context of setting up a take on the DC Trinity, then I think there's a much better chance that we can avoid that excruciatingly embarrassing set up, and we can just get on with having her be.
2) It test drives the character without financial pressure. If Man of Steel 2 fails, Wonder Woman won't get the blame. If people don't respond to her well, there's a chance to work out why that is, and reassess and tweak things for Justice League or a solo film, without Hollywood turning around and going, "Well, hey, you had your chance, but female leads don't sell." In effect, it may give her the breathing space to survive a mediocre opening appearance in a way that women are often denied.
3) It introduces the character to a wider audience than a solo film. I'm sure there are people who would go see a Black Widow movie now who wouldn't have bothered before The Avengers. As much as we talk about the Hunger Games and Gravity and Frozen proving that you can have financially successful female leads (and I sincerely hope that people do notice this), Wonder Woman has a reputation that cuts both ways. Everyone reading this knows how much I love her. But let's be honest: there's toxicity and gross hostility in the way guys react to her sometimes. It's fucking awful, but it's true. What's also depressingly true is that there are a large number of women who don't know anything about her except her campy reputation from the old TV show, and that faintly embarrassing "dude's view of what women must be talking about in those feminist witch clubs!" gender war crap, who view her as "girl Superman" and something of an embarrassment to modern women. They are, of course, completely and entirely wrong. And fuck it, considering it is 2013 and the last major live-action Wonder Woman production was thirty-five years ago, how the hell are they to know differently? This is not a problem without an identifiable cause. But that doesn't make it any less of a problem.
Putting her in a high profile film like this - IF it's a good take on her - is a way to address that.
4) I agree that the current landscape for women in superhero movies sucks monkey fuck. It sucks that when Warner Brothers were pissing around trying to work out what they were doing with their DC cinematic universe, it was Green Lantern that got a film, not Diana. It sucks that now that they have decided what they're doing, and what they're doing is hanging that universe on the Superman franchise and spinning things out of that, that they're making a Trinity film that's going to focus on the two dudes. But guys, they're doing this, and they're doing it now. I don't think anyone should be grateful for scraps - scraps that might turn out to be awful. I'm not here to dictate how people should feel or whether they should support the film.
I'm just saying...it could have been a lot worse, you know? When they announced fucking Superman vs Batman at SDCC, I just felt a lead stone of disinterest and disappointment sink into my stomach. I've lived for years with the rumours that they were working on a Flash movie, on an Aquaman movie, but no, Wonder Woman was tricky, Wonder Woman would have to wait. And I sat there convinced (and I still kind of am, to be honest), that if they ever made the film, it'd be doomed. Because either it would be a sell-out version of her or it wouldn't sell. Because I refuse to underestimate the drastic defensive discomfort that seems to affect a weird number of dudes when it comes to things that overtly identify as feminist. And that is a thing neither Gravity nor the Hunger Games had to deal with.
So now that, finally, that's not what happened, that yes, they ARE going to establish Wonder Woman in the same movie they establish Batman... I don't know.
It would have been worse if they weren't doing this, I guess, is what I mean. So considering we already knew that they weren't doing a Wonder Woman solo movie in 2015...I think this is more and better than we had yesterday.
5) Gal Gadot. I don't have a strong opinion of her as an actress. I do like the Fast & Furious franchise, and my recollection of her is that she was neither spectacular nor awful. I recall her being pretty commanding in Fast 4. Honestly, she's a little less muscular than I'd ideally prefer, but I don't want to enter the world of body-type shaming, and ultimately, either she's the sort of person who can bulk up in the gym, or she isn't and screen presence will matter more anyway. But here are two things that I think may bode well: she's Israeli and speaks with an accent which means that this isn't an Americanised Diana. Which I think means it's more likely we'll get an authentic comic-book Diana. Also because she's Israeli, she served two years in the army and I know loves doing as many of her own stunts in FF as she can.
6) Zack Snyder's not the devil. I hate Sucker Punch with a fiery vengeance, so I don't blame people for bringing this up. But I think it's worth noting that Snyder is not the writer. Which he was in Sucker Punch. I think he did a really good job with Watchmen. The misogynistic issues in that story are, if anything, less than in the original novel. 300 is also a beautifully directed film. In Man of Steel, I think his commitment to a certain visual style really helped sell the movie and communicate the message and feel of Superman. Even people who hated that film because of the plot seem to agree that it looks amazing. He did a great job with the Lois Lane in Goyer's script. I don't see any particular reason to assume he won't do a great job with Diana in Goyer's script, provided Goyer scripts a great Diana.
7) David Goyer's...all right. The man's script-writing career is uneven, but I find it hard to hold Blade II against him when it was directed by Guillermo del Toro who has flat out gone on record as saying he just capitulated to every studio demand no matter how awful in order to get carte blanche on Hellboy. So let's note instead that David Goyer wrote Dark City. I think there's evidence to suggest he's a talented storyteller when he is on form. I wouldn't cite women as something he is in any way known for writing well, sure, but I think he did a reasonable job with Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises and with Lois in Man of Steel.
8) The title. "Superman vs Batman," is not the official title, and never was. I will be honest, given all the various potential titles Warner Brothers apparently copyrighted had references to Superman and Batman but not Wonder Woman, I'm not really hopeful on this point, but YOU NEVER KNOW MAYBE IT'LL BE CALLED MAN OF STEEL: TRINITY. Okay, like I said, probably not, but this is my I'm Not Panicking post. Let's live the dream.
9) The role. The role Gadot auditioned for (according to leaks) was for "Bruce Wayne's love interest." Now who knows whether that's an accurate reflection of the film or a casting cover (they've done that before), but it was also listed as a "lead" role. Of course, not all leads are created equal; I'm sure it's a supporting lead, not an actual equal-to-Batman lead and that's irksome. But I think this does indicate we're not talking a cameo appearance, and that it's not an ill-thought out, last-minute response to the success of the Hunger Games, either. They've been testing actresses for this role for a month now.
10) OMFG WONDER WOMAN. No, wait, shit, I panicked... Okay, so I will use this number to relay random trivia that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it'll be shit. Unlike Marvel, DC don't get to decide what films get made. Disney basically set up Marvel with its own movie studio. DC's movies are made by Warner Brothers with DC in an advisory capacity, but they don't get final say on anything. I think the major difference this makes is potentially with regards to the perspective of the executives making those final decisions, though I don't think I'm qualified to say what that difference is. I mainly mention it because I think it's an interesting distinction and a lot of people aren't aware of it as assume the set up is the same on both sides of the divide.
Okay.
I have reacted, even if I'm still not sure how I feel. *facepalm*
no subject
Date: 2013-12-05 11:28 pm (UTC)HOPE IS A FOUR-LETTER WORD.