I've felt like James Gunn's plans for DC have been haphazard and poorly thought out from the beginning (cf and cf), and bringing back Gal Gadot (the Synderverse's Wonder Woman) fits that perfectly. The character is coming off an embarrassing second film where she rapes a man (an incident DC has ignored since, passively going with Patty Jenkins after-the-fact justification), with the sequel not matching her prior continuity (cf). Gadot is getting older (38) and can't act, so why bring her back? My assumption is Gadot is being set-up for a Indiana Jones/Hulk situation, preparing to hand things off to a younger, more diverse iteration. I believe Gadot was kept over the other two Snyder trilogy characters because Ben Affleck can't return as Batman (age being problematic (51), as well as the complications of the Matt Reeves iteration), while Henry Cavill won't come back after WB has systematically screwed him over and rejected him. We know Gadot doesn't have much audience pull because of The Flash box office, so I don't think the memberberry is going to perform the task Gunn has set out for her. It's just another boondoggle for DC which has been at sea since the third Nolan Batman movie in 2012.
I don't really care about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles one way or another (I enjoyed the original RPG, but that's it), but I have been amused that Paramount appears to have been caught doing a little pre-emptive damage control for the upcoming film. Apparently the film was originally going to feature an orientation swapping, with Splinter switched from straight to gay. This was caught out in an early screening and a poster that was up for a month. However, someone at the company has made all that disappear and the director has disavowed the whole thing. The speculation, which seems reasonable, is that they are terrified of a Bud Light-scenario where the film gets boycotted, so with some VO work and editing that element has been removed. I wouldn't be seeing this movie anyway, but as someone who wants adaptations to respect the source material, I'm glad they've backed off on the ESG nonsense.
There were a lot of people on the right komming over Top Gun: Maverick's success as it was seen as bucking the BlackRock trends to massive success. For whatever reason they put a lot of faith in Tom Cruise as someone who could succeed without leaning on that apparatus and assumed his next Mission Impossible would achieve success. My only thought about Cruise is his ridiculous Oprah appearance (2005) and South Park putting him in the closet for most of an episode (2005). That aside, Mission Impossible has bombed (just 451 on a budget of nearly 300 million). To reiterate what many people have been saying for years: movie stars don't matter. A popular actor appearing in something has no influence on box office. Memberberries (popular characters) can help, but by themselves aren't enough. The trick in modern cinema seems to be: 1) spectacle (Avatar 2) a sense of fun or action (Maverick/Barbie), 3) relatively inoffensive (simplistic messaging for the targeted market that doesn't overwhelm the story). This hasn't produce anything good (I haven't seen anything I really enjoyed in five years), but it works enough for the popular audience.
The fallout of Disney's legal battle with Florida continues, as the state has eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion programs (or DEI). These likely would have been struck down anyway via the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action decision, but could have taken years as lawsuits worked their way through the courts. This only impacts Disney's parks and associated business ventures in the state and does not preclude informal approaches along those lines. Effectively it eliminate a few positions and means Disney will have to be more creative if it wants to maintain the approach (as it must to continue receiving BlackRock funding).
This article was written by Peter Levi
No comments:
Post a Comment