Tag: geoff-johns

  • Patty Jenkins Comments on the Stalled ‘Wonder Woman 3’

    'Wonder Woman' director Patty Jenkins at Comic Con International in San Diego, California.
    ‘Wonder Woman’ director Patty Jenkins at Comic Con International in San Diego, California.

    There has been a lot of talk recently about the big changes underway at Warner Bros. Discovery’s DC Comics arm––which, under new bosses James Gunn and Peter Safran is now called DC Studios––is going through yet another creative overhaul.

    And part of that was a report last week that a third ‘Wonder Woman’ movie from co-writer/director Patty Jenkins is not going to go forward, with the filmmaker walking away after her most recent treatment (co-written with Geoff Johns) was rejected by Warners film bosses.

    Now, Jenkins, who has so far made 2017’s ‘Wonder Woman’ (which was a big success) and 2020’s ‘Wonder Woman 1984’, (which suffered from less positive reviews and same-day streaming/pandemic box office problems), is setting the record straight on twitter.

    “When there started being backlash about ‘WW3’ not happening, the attractive clickbait false story that it was me that killed it or walked away started to spread. I never walked away,” Jenkins wrote. “I was open to considering anything asked of me. It was my understanding there was nothing I could do to move anything forward at this time. DC is obviously buried in changes they are having to make, so I understand these decisions are difficult right now. I do not want what has been a beautiful journey with WW to land on [a] negative note. I have loved and been so honored to be the person who got to make these last two ‘Wonder Woman’ films. She is an incredible character.”

    Jenkins goes on to praise “legend” Lynda Carter, who became famous for portraying the character on TV and had a role set up in ‘1984’ that pointed to more participation down the road that is now unlikely, and Gal Gadot, who has played the title character across several films.

    It all certainly appears to put an end to speculation that Jenkins might be back to continue her work (though never say never).

    Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman in 'Wonder Woman 1984.'
    Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman in ‘Wonder Woman 1984.’

    Still, she does also offer hope to those who were disappointed that her planned ‘Star Wars’ movie entry, ‘Rogue Squadron’ had been long delayed because of the director’s focus on ‘Wonder Woman’.

    “I originally left ‘Rogue Squadron’ after a long and productive development process when it became clear it couldn’t happen soon enough and I did not want to delay ‘WW3’ any further. When I did, Lucasfilm asked me to consider coming back to ‘RS’ after ‘WW3’, which I was honored to do, so I agreed. They made a new deal with me. In fact, I am still on it and that project has been in active development ever since. I don’t know if it will happen or not. We never do until the development process is complete, but I look forward to its potential ahead.”

    What this means for Gal Gadot in the title role of the potential ‘Wonder Woman’ franchise going forward is anyone’s guess. We’ll have to wait and see what James Gunn and Peter Safran have in mind.

    You can read Jenkins full statement here:

    RK0ma9E8
  • ‘Wonder Woman 3’ Reportedly On Hold At DC Studios

    Gal Gadot as Diana Prince / Wonder Woman in 'Wonder Woman 1984.'
    Gal Gadot as Diana Prince / Wonder Woman in ‘Wonder Woman 1984.’

    It’s perhaps not a surprise that new DC Studios bosses James Gunn and Peter Safran, who recently started work re-shaping the comic book universe owned by Warner Bros. Discovery are ready to make big changes as they unveil their plans to studio bosses.

    But from the sounds of a new story in The Hollywood Reporter, ‘Wonder Woman’ and ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ director Patty Jenkins won’t be moving forward with a third film featuring the character––at least in its current incarnation.

    According to the Reporter’s sources, Jenkins had handed in her latest treatment for ‘Wonder Woman 3,’ co-written with Geoff Johns, only to be told by the new duo that her vision for the future of the character doesn’t fit with their grand scheme for DC on film. There’s no word yet on what the next step might be.

    Someone who probably won’t be best pleased about the new development either? Wonder Woman herself, Gal Gadot, who enthusiastically tweeted on Tuesday about her own hopes about showing fans what she and Jenkins have been working on.

    Gunn and Safran had apparently recently been on a retreat hashing out their plans and have now returned to Los Angeles to fill in the Warner Bros. Discovery executives and, as this development shows, talk to affected filmmakers.

    They have yet to reveal anything concrete for what will happen, but it may very well mean the end of the road for the “Snyderverse” of characters overseen by Zack Snyder. Despite apparently recent positive signs for Henry Cavill as Superman (including––spoiler alert––a cameo in the end credits of ‘Black Adam’), his tenure as the last son of Krypton may also be curtailed. Ditto Jason Momoa as Aquaman after the next movie (though he’s already apparently eyeing intergalactic bounty hunter Lobo as a potential new character to play).

    Of course, all of this is speculation right now, with Gunn and Safran unlikely to publicly confirm everything they’re considering, especially since they’ve yet to talk to everyone whose work might be impacted.

    But the pair, speaking recently to Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav have said that they foresee an eight-to-10-year plan for DC Studios.

    And there was always going to be a tricky transition period for the new regime, with the hopes of Warner Bros. resting on them after years of different regimes finding success with some movies and not with others, but never seemingly locking on to a plan that works consistently.

    Right now, we still have ‘The Flash’ (which has faced its own issues) arriving in June next year, ‘Blue Beetle’ in August and ‘Aquaman And The Lost Kingdom’ further away in December, but after that, we’ll get to see what Gunn and Safran have to offer.

    Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman in 'Wonder Woman 1984.'
    Gal Gadot as Diana Prince/Wonder Woman in ‘Wonder Woman 1984.’
    yi7C6O2vLIzaku4EWd4T35 RK0ma9E8
  • Bryan Cranston Loves His ‘SuperMansion’ Superhero — and Would Play Walter White Again

    The 23rd Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards - Red CarpetSure, you’re following all of the Marvel- and DC-related comic book superhero shows, but if you’re not watching “SuperMansion’s” League of Freedom, you might be missing the funniest — and maybe even the most poignant — take on the cape and costume crowd.

    As the stop-motion-animated series returns to Crackle for a second season of misadventures from the over-the-hill, dysfunctional crimefighting team, co-creators Robot Chicken”) joined leading voice actor and executive producer Bryan Cranston for a press roundtable tackling an array of predictably silly surprisingly deep subjects.

    What do you bring of yourself to this character?

    Bryan Cranston: I don’t need boner pills! Let’s get that out there! You know, it’s similar to doing live-action, in the sense that when an actor takes on a character, it’s a marriage of words and ideas to what the actor’s sensibility is, and you find where that is. There are times when I’m directed to punch certain things, and I go, “Oh, yeah, I see! He’s more upset at this point.”

    And then, there are times when I bring in my own personality and they go, “Oh, that’s good! Let’s go on that track!” I’ll do certain things or make certain sounds that the guys will respond to and go, “Oh, that’s good!” Early on, as we were feeling through the character, I think it was Zeb that said, “I don’t know, it just feels better when he’s really angry. He’s just really upset.” And then I have to figure out why.

    It’s because he’s losing his sense of relevance. He feels it slipping away, so he’s desperately clutching onto these things. That made it easier for me.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s animated or live-action, you’re still developing a character, you want to be consistent with that character and you’re contributing to the storylines. It’s as engaging as live-action development.

    Did you have to learn a lot about the superhero culture, tropes and references for this?

    Cranston: I’ve never been a comic book guy, so I look at it just from the justification of the character’s emotional sense. What does he want? What does he feel? Who does he want to be around? What is he losing? Who is he afraid of? That always mixes in fine. The more you humanize superhero characters, the more they’re relatable. The more they have a vulnerable point, whether it’s emotionally or their superpower, or whatever, we relate the superpower or the loss of a superpower to their emotions. It’s just fun to walk through that.

    Zeb Wells: And it was important to us that you didn’t have to know a bunch of comic book superhero references to find the jokes funny. We wanted the characters to be funny in their interactions and have very human conflicts, and have that be the basis of the comedy.

    Matt Senreich: You have these insane superpowers, but that’s irrelevant. It’s about humanizing them and grounding them in a way that we can all relate to.

    Matt and Zeb, what made you think of Bryan for this role?

    Senreich: We were afraid to ask him. We wrote the part, and in the script, it says, “A Bryan Cranston type.” We had our buddy, Seth Green, play the part for the temp animatic, and we realized that voice wasn’t good. He just turned to us and lectured us on how we’re very chicken and we should just reach out to Bryan.

    To Bryan’s credit, we sent him the role and within 24 or 48 hours, we got a call back. It was beyond flattering. He was like, “I don’t want to just play this part. I want to make this show with you.” It just took off from there.

    Cranston: For me, if it didn’t have an interesting story to it, I wouldn’t be sitting here. But the idea of a household full of superheroes who are perhaps past their prime and trying to hold on to what’s left of their dignity and abilities appeals to me. And having sequences where the superheroes go shopping and do household chores was a really good idea.

    What did the success of the first season give you permission to do with Season 2?

    Wells: It was seeing how well exploring the humanity of the characters ended up working. With the second season, we could push the drama a little bit and trust that the characters we’d created and that the actors helped us create would make those situations funny.

    So if you look at Season 2 on paper, some of the episodes would sound more dramatic and that the stakes are a lot higher, but they’re all just as funny because we still have this band of idiots. We were really able to take the brakes off and do high-stakes superhero adventures. It’s really fun.

    Senreich: We saw how pairing certain characters together worked or didn’t work, in certain ways, and what conflict built from their politics and their boyfriend-girlfriend relationships.

    Does animation give you an advantage in discussing controversial topics that live-action does not?

    Senreich: Yeah, I think you can get away with a lot more animation than you can in live-action. I come from the comic book and action figure world, where violence is funny in animation. When you go back to Tom and Jerry, it plays a lot better. If you see those things in real life, you’re going to be taken aback. It allows you to over-dramatize certain relationships to get to that point you want to make.

    It just allows for you to push the envelope a little bit more, but it’s dangerous to go too far. It’s about always knowing where that limit is. There are certain topics that are too far, so it’s about where is it too far and how do you make it funny while at the same time not, and also teaching a lesson while going through a situation like that. It’s a tightrope that you walk, and as long as you’re aware of it, you’re allowed to do a little more with it.

    Matt and Zeb, how long have you guys worked together?

    Wells: Off and on, for 10 years now. We’ve known each other longer.

    Senreich: I found Zeb when I was working at a magazine called Wizard, back in the day. He entered a VHS video competition. I was probably 25, at the time, and Zeb was 20. He won that competition, and I just stayed in touch with him ’cause I thought he was a talented fella. And then, when Robot Chicken started up, I brought him on to write with us, and that was since Season 3. We’ve just been goofing around, ever since. It’s been a nice romantic interlude.

    Cranston: Matt is really one of the bosses — and he brought on Zeb to take over this show, and even though the guy who brought on the guy doesn’t agree with everything, he gave the power over to Zeb to say, “You know what? You’re running the show. You’re the showrunner, so go and do what you think is best.” That’s pretty remarkable.

    Wells: We try to run it like a relationship, where it depends on how passionate either one of us is about something. If it’s keeping Matt up at night and I just think it’s a slightly bad decision, I’ll just let him have it. And that goes both ways. The real problem is when we’re both equally passionate. Then, I don’t know how we solve it. Whoever is more stubborn wins.

    Senreich: When you know someone for as long as we’ve known each other, it doesn’t feel like there’s ever a wrong way to play it out. I do believe in the people that I work with. I’m friends with these people, and I know that’s a dangerous thing and people say not to do it, but I like going to work and smiling every day. I don’t want to work with people I don’t like.

    Titanium Rex is searching for relevance as he gets older. You, ironically, have become more relevant later in life, Bryan.

    Cranston: Try telling that to my wife! Art business is a little different. It’s a little different. And I’ll say for men, too. It’s different for men. There’s more opportunities for men. There really is. So I’m certainly the recipient of that good fortune, and I’m appreciative of it. Had it never happened, I’d still be a working actor and be fine, and not know what you miss.

    I don’t think life or this business owes me anything, so you reap what you sow. If you work hard, you have a better chance of producing something that you’re proud of. If you don’t, you won’t. And it’s really simple. Ask Warren Buffett: “All right, Warren, what’s your secret?” He goes, “Well, just make more right decisions than wrong ones.” I swear to God that’s what he says. You go, “That’s it?” He goes, “Yep, that’s it.” Wow. Make more right decisions than wrong ones.

    And it’s like, yeah, I think all of us try to do that every day. And that’s no different. This is what we try to do at work. We think this is the strongest choice. We’re not positive. We think, OK. Then it comes to us, and we’re reading it, giving notes, or reading it in the booth doing it. Then some suggestions, and they’ll take two or three different ways of doing something.

    Wells: Or if we were unsure about something … Sometimes an actor saying, “This doesn’t feel right to me either.” That’s happened with Bryan, it’s happened with Yvette [Nicole Brown]. Then you’re like, “OK, I had that in the back of my head that that might be wrong. If you think it’s wrong as well, then let’s sit down and change it.” And you have to be open to that. You have to be open to the happy accidents and discovering that stuff, where it doesn’t feel as alive, and you’re missing out on great stuff.

    Bryan, your “Breaking Bad” co-stars Aaron Paul and Betsy Brandt told me recently that if there’s any downside at all to be a part of that series it’s the high level of work that you got to do, making it hard to decide what to do next. Do you feel that way when you thought about what the projects were going to be?

    Cranston: It’s a nice, difficult position to be in. Yeah, the bar was raised with the quality of writing on that show, and you want to see if you can match that anywhere you go, and I do. I want to make sure that what I do has specific purpose, and not just throwing a dart at something to keep busy.

    This is an example of just that: that good storytelling doesn’t have to be in the form of the classics. It doesn’t have to be revered by everybody. In fact, to me, the best storytelling is not universally loved by every single person. And to me, I think you water down the efficacy of the work itself.

    Is there any chance we’re going to see Walter White on “Better Call Saul”?

    Cranston: I don’t know. You could. I actually think it’d be fun. I have not been approached by it. I know that Vince [Gilligan] wouldn’t do anything that would damage the overall brand that he’s worked so hard to develop on a stunt-cast kind of thing. Then I think, “Well, what if it’s just a brush-by? If it’s just two guys in a market. Are those ripe? I don’t know.” We don’t even register that we knew each other three years before we see each other again. That’s life.

    It’s actually very honest. It happens. So the bottom line is, I would do it in a second. If Vince wanted me to be on the show, I’d be on the show.

    What’s been the unique pleasure of doing this show, distinct from the “Robot Chicken” experience?

    Senreich: For me, “Robot Chicken” is a sketch comedy show. It’s “SNL” using action figures. It’s always been that, and we always laugh, because if you look at the staff of “Robot Chicken,” my first sold scripts were dramas with Geoff Johns as my writing partner. Zeb comes from the comic book world and was working in comic books for a while. We have two playwrights. It’s like, very odd selection of people who have worked with “Robot Chicken.”

    But this lets you tell a story where you actually can sit down, and it puts us back to our roots where we’re like, “OK, we can actually find characters, we can go into their history, we can deal with their relationships,” and that’s something that we’ve always loved to do.

    Wells: For me, there’s an animatic for a later episode, and it’s a scene between Jillian [Bell] and Bryan. And we were watching an animatic, and I got choked up watching it. It’s like, “That’s not supposed to happen in the Stoopid Buddy Stoodios, watching an animatic for one of our shows!”

    Cranston: That happens to you when you watch animated porn, too.

  • Meet the Justice Society of America Icons Joining ‘Legends of Tomorrow’

    DC's LEGENDS OF TOMORROWThe Legends of Tomorrow are about to meet the greatest superheroes of Yesterday.

    When The CW’s super-team series “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow” returns for its second season, the ragtag band of misfits are still figuring out the right way to go about their time-traveling superhero-ing, and their often ill-advised efforts are quickly going to stand in sharp contrast to the seemingly perfect adventuring of DC Comics’ original team of superheroes, the Justice Society of America — a wartime group of costumed crusaders that pre-dates even the Justice League.

    Executive producer Arrow,” actually wrote the JSA comic book — sat down with Moviefone to reveal the series’ motivation for folding in even-more-legendary group, and the logic behind the inclusion of the various members of its TV roster.

    Moviefone: Let’s talk first about some of the eras that you’re going to visit, and especially how they might relate to DC lore.

    Marc Guggenheim: Well, we’re going to go back to the Old West and see Jonah Hex again. We are going to go to 1940s and meet the Justice Society of America. We are going to go to feudal Japan, and anyone who’s watched “Arrow” knows that there’s a connect-up with Japan and “Arrow.”

    Not every episode can or should connect up with DC lore. To me, approaching it that way is the cart dragging the horse for us. Let’s start with the most organic story we can tell, the most fun story we can tell, and then look for ways to make those connections.

    What intrigued you about bringing the Justice Society of America — the team featuring the DC’s 1940s-era heroes and their descendants and successors — into the new season?

    I think there’s two things: one was the fanboy wish-fulfillment. I love the JSA — I used to write the JSA in comic-book form. And then there was the storytelling potential, mainly in that we realized very early on that the JSA essentially were like this funhouse mirror to hold up to the Legends, to show how screwed up the Legends are by showing them a team that isn’t screwed up at all. We just thought there would be a huge amount of fun to be had by watching the Legends interact with a superhero team that actually does it right.

    Let’s tick down the membership of the JSA on “Legends,” and why you were excited to include them in the show.

    I’ll say just overall, [producers] Phil Klemmer, myself, Dan Evans, and Geoff Johns sat in a conference room with a list of all the JSA members — as you know, there’s a lot of them — and we wanted to pick a mix that was diverse in gender, diverse in race, diverse in power sets, so that when you assembled that team, you wouldn’t feel that it was all, “Oh, they’re all the same kind of hero.” We really wanted to mix it up.

    So there’s Vixen, there’s Doctor Mid-Nite, there’s Obsidian, there’s Hourman, and there’s Stargirl. Doctor Mid-Nite to me is one of the quintessential JSA members — I didn’t know how you do the JSA without Doctor Mid-Nite. I really, really wanted to do Stargirl because of that character’s connection with Goeff [who created the comic-book character and based her personality on that of his late sister].

    Vixen — honestly, it really came about because Megalyn [Echikunwoke] didn’t want to reprise the role on “Legends” as a series regular, but we had our heart set on doing Vixen. So it really came about out of necessity. In talking it out, we realized since we’re already doing the JSA and there’s again this generational component to the JSA, there’s an opportunity here to introduce Vixen this way. I will say it’s very convenient for us that Vixen gets her powers from a magical amulet that can be passed down from generation to generation. I would say if the powers were like more natural meta-human, it would be a little harder for us. So it worked out very, very, very well.

    Obsidian, because I thought his powers are cool, the look would be cool — I like the idea of, in terms of having as diverse a team as possible, I think Obsidian’s probably, if not the most prominent gay character in the DC canon, he’s in the top two or three. So that was very appealing.

    Hourman we had already. Hourman came about because Geoff had suggested him at the end of Season 1 when I called him up and said, “Look, we need a hero to crash land in front of the Legends and say, don’t get on that ship!” And he was the one who suggested Hourman and the JSA. That just opened up all these great possibilities for us. Oh, and Commander Steel. I forgot Commander Steel! Commander Steel is Nate Heywood’s grandfather, so he’s related to our new cast member, Nick Zano.

    Tell me what you wanted to do with the generational aspect of Commander Steel.

    Well, I think one of the fun things about JSA that makes the JSA the JSA is this idea of what they call “legacy characters.” We were just very enamored with the idea of, “What’s it like to have someone like Commander Steel to live up to?”

    That’s an interesting legacy and an interesting challenge for a character to have to deal with. It’s like, “Wow — my grandfather literally helped defeat the Nazis and was a superhero. How do I even come close to making my life matter as much?” So it felt a way to tell some really good character drama, but at the same time honor what makes the JSA a fun concept, which is they’re not only the first superheroes, but the first line of superheroes.

    You had to leave some classic JSA-ers, like the Jay Garrick Flash and the Alan Scott Green Lantern, off the table?

    Yeah, because that becomes its own separate thing. I mean, yes, everyone would love to do, like, Jay Garrick, and we would love to do it, too. I think in Season 2, with time travel, to throw in parallel universes on top of it, that would be biting off … not more than we could chew, but certainly biting off more than we should chew.

    “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow” Season 2 premieres Thursday, October 13th, on The CW.

  • SDCC: Ben Affleck in Talks to Direct, Star and Co-Write Solo ‘Batman’ Movie

    Just as Comic-Con begins, so does a new era for The Dark Knight.

    Batman v Superman” star Ben Affleck is reportedly in talks to cowrite a “Batman” standalone film with DC Comics’ chief creative officer Geoff Johns, according to Deadline.

    Affleck will also star as Batman and possibly direct, with the latter rumored to be a condition of his deal to don the cowl in “BvS” when he first signed on to that film in 2013.

    Deadline also reports that Affleck and Johns, a popular DC Comics scribe, are already at work on a script that the team may finish by end of summer — before Affleck goes off in November to direct the 2016 crime thriller “Live By Night,” based on the novel by Dennis Lehane.

    Affleck’s second appearance as the Caped Crusader won’t start shooting until after “Night” is finished, which means we won’t see a solo Batman film until at least 2018 or 2019. Deadline broke the story two days before Affleck and his “BvS” costars arrive for Warner Bros.’ epic Hall H presentation at Comic-Con Saturday.

    Before becoming DC’s CCO, Johns was responsible for writing such popular and successful comics runs as “Green Lantern” and “Justice League.” This will mark Johns’ first feature writing credit.

    “Batman v Superman” hits theaters March 25, 2016.
    %Slideshow-303659%