WONDER WOMAN (2017, dir. by Patty Jenkins)

Δ

Largo's Shark wrote:

Publicity still of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman in BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (2016).

FAIL.

You'd think after 40 years they'd find someone who can top Lynda Carter (who remains the best).

c

zZzzZzZzzZzz

c

Jaimie Alexander was originally rumored for the role, which would have been substantially better than Gal Gadot. I do hope that MacLaren takes it as far away as possible from Snyder's crap visual style.

Erica Ambler wrote:

All the best women have tits built into their names. Monica BelluCCi, for example.

No wonder you get an all time high for Babs BroCColi.

Is Gal Gadot supposed to be some new, extraordinary star that we're all supposed to know?

Salomé wrote:

I do hope that MacLaren takes it as far away as possible from Snyder's crap visual style.

Zack Snyder's got more visual flair than any Hollywood director around, Chris Nolan included.

Snyder gives men a bad name.

SUCKER PUNCH does.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I do hope that MacLaren takes it as far away as possible from Snyder's crap visual style.

Zack Snyder's got more visual flair than any Hollywood director around, Chris Nolan included.

"Chris Nolan included".
Nolan has no visual flair to speak of, so that's not saying much.

Δ

Quote :

A study has found that the number of female directors in the list of the top 250 highest-grossing films in the US has declined by 2% over the last 17 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/13/number-of-female-film-directors-falls-over-last-two-decades

No overall figure given for films directed by women, but that's a counterintuitive result given the opportunities available these days. Then again, I had just two women directors on my One Year, One Film list. I note that's two more than everyone else's lists combined...

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I do hope that MacLaren takes it as far away as possible from Snyder's crap visual style.

Zack Snyder's got more visual flair than any Hollywood director around, Chris Nolan included.

"Chris Nolan included".

Nolan has no visual flair to speak of, so that's not saying much.

I'm glad you acknowledge that, Sabs, although the Empire Mag kiddies and NolanFans will disagree.

So if Nolan was short-listed to do Bond 25...would you and Salome object, or be unimpressed?

I liked his Batman movies

Erica Ambler wrote:

Quote :

A study has found that the number of female directors in the list of the top 250 highest-grossing films in the US has declined by 2% over the last 17 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/13/number-of-female-film-directors-falls-over-last-two-decades

No overall figure given for films directed by women, but that's a counterintuitive result given the opportunities available these days. Then again, I had just two women directors on my One Year, One Film list. I note that's two more than everyone else's lists combined...

Who were your two?

I think they were Sofia Coppola and Leni Riefenstahl.

Who gives a fuck about the "biggest hits", though? These comic book shitters aren't going to matter in 10 or 15 years. What type of self-respecting woman is striving to be the next Brett Ratner or Zak Snyder?

I'm more concerned about women directors creating thought-provoking films and not getting any recognition, regardless of how much money the films are making. Chantel Akerman has been struggling with that since 1972.

Yet, a hack like Lena Dunham has become the spokesperson for women in film and television. Keep in mind that Dunham's parents are two well-established artists who launched her career for her (despite Dunham continuously going on about how she's been oppressed). Allison Williams, her GIRLS co-star, is the daughter of NBC news anchor Brian Williams. These are not women who know the struggles of working in a male-dominated industry. They've not worked multiple jobs just to carry on and fund their art. These are frauds who have had things handed to them, but young women everywhere buy into their "feminist" messages. You could say the same for Sofia Coppola. If these are the people that will be representing women in film and television, then there's a serious problem.

Also, there are women cinematographers and editors who have been getting snubbed. Reed Morano (the youngest active member of the A.S.C.) has been working since she was 22 and has yet to receive appropriate recognition for her cinematography.

I see that the critical love that Dunham got for the first season of "Girls" has cooled considerably since then.
A lot of critics seem to have figured out what it only took me a couple of episodes to understand: that her privileged and sheltered background means she has nothing of real substance to say.

Returning to the topic: I don't believe MacLaren is the most original choice for this feature.
Ambler's suggestion that she was merely the easiest/cheapest option after the most high-profile female director (Bygelow) is probably accurate.
Would have been far more interesting to see what a woman like Cate Shortland would do with such material.

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Quote :

A study has found that the number of female directors in the list of the top 250 highest-grossing films in the US has declined by 2% over the last 17 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/13/number-of-female-film-directors-falls-over-last-two-decades

No overall figure given for films directed by women, but that's a counterintuitive result given the opportunities available these days. Then again, I had just two women directors on my One Year, One Film list. I note that's two more than everyone else's lists combined...

Who were your two?

Leni Riefenstahl and Amma Asante. Definitely not Sofia Coppola...

After 'A Way of Life' (2003), I thought Asante was going to become an important figure in filmmaking, but she didn't make another feature ('Belle') until nine years later. I've no idea what happened to her, possibly film-finance snafus or marriage and babies. I thought Lynne Ramsey's 'Ratcatcher' was terrific, too, in an old-fashioned Ken Loach sort of way, but her follow-ups have been disappointing.

Agree with Brown's point about moneymakers, but ultimately that's what Hollywood's for. One of the most fascinating things about Skyfall is how it managed to be both blockbuster and critical hit. Seems the only people who hated it were either feminists or Bond fans.

I saw "Belle". I wouldn't call it bad, but it was the kind of risk-free film-making that doesn't allow a filmmaker to stand out.

Erica Ambler wrote:

After 'A Way of Life' (2003), I thought Asante was going to become an important figure in filmmaking, but she didn't make another feature ('Belle') until nine years later. I've no idea what happened to her,

Well, now I know. very interesting speech by Asante on the problems many first-time directors have in getting a second gig. Extracts and full speech in Screen Daily here:

Quote :

“When filmmakers dabble with a single or even a couple of films and then disappear, what we will never know is whether or not we have lost our very best - we lose the opportunity to grow, strengthen and develop our industry.”

http://www.screendaily.com/news/asante-support-directors-beyond-first-film/5080522.article

Salomé wrote:

I see that the critical love that Dunham got for the first season of "Girls" has cooled considerably since then.
A lot of critics seem to have figured out what it only took me a couple of episodes to understand: that her privileged and sheltered background means she has nothing of real substance to say.

I got through two or three seasons of GIRLS (I can't remember how much I subjected to) and the key message seemed to be: give me a job even though I have no qualifications, no skills, shit on any opportunity to work my way up and have put no effort into finding ANY employment as a stop-gap or you are responsible for my self-imposed misery.

Honestly, you'd think someone with no job could at least devote some time to not being obese.

Vesper wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I see that the critical love that Dunham got for the first season of "Girls" has cooled considerably since then.
A lot of critics seem to have figured out what it only took me a couple of episodes to understand: that her privileged and sheltered background means she has nothing of real substance to say.

I got through two or three seasons of GIRLS (I can't remember how much I subjected to) and the key message seemed to be: give me a job even though I have no qualifications, no skills, shit on any opportunity to work my way up and have put no effort into finding ANY employment as a stop-gap or you are responsible for my self-imposed misery.

Do the girls in the show live off their parents' money and success, like Dunham and Williams have done in real life?