Patty Jenkins replies to James Cameron

lo and behold, three threads on this, so I can repost. Cameron and Jenkins are both partially right-…or wrong...from their certain points of view:

- WW may be a big step for the CBM genre, but it's only a tiny leap for the movie genre as a whole: Previously, there were no successful female-led and female-directed CMBs ever, they all flopped. So, WW and its reception is a milestone for CBMs. Cameron may have overlooked this aspect.

- But on a higher level strong female warriors are an ancient thing, it's rooted in all mythology (e.g. Greek or Norse or Asian). Hollywood did not invent that, it was always there. Cameron and his ilk just added nuances: Grounded semi-realistic female warrior characters like Leia in Star Wars (77), Ripley in Alien (79), or later Sarah Connor in Terminator or much later Furiosa in Mad Max. Wonder Woman is the more naive, mythological, idealized version of this type, modelled from the archetype of the beautiful warrior princess ( a la Brünhild).

- Thus, in this regard WW is actually a sort of back step with her perfect looks and superhuman strength. But it genuinely comes with the CBM territory and source material. This is fairy tale land for kids after all.

- Not to forget: great that this overpowered god-mode character was not written as a Mary Sue! Diana's abilities and rank flow from her character backgrounds and history. The story reality does not bend around her to glorify her: no WW must finally realize the world is not as simple as she thought and she must adapt (duality of human nature monologue). Despite her status as demi-goddess she can be petty and self-righteous, she makes mistakes and is naive and learns, she loses and fails terribly and must fight for things, she is not awarded with everything (missions, attention, status, items etc) automatically. Pretty solid writing that!

None of the female-led or female-directed comic book movies were given that proper push.  None of them got close to an Iron Man or Spider-man in support.  They were all small productions like Punisher: War Zone and Catwoman and Elektra.  Wonder Woman just now got that push for being associated with Batman and Superman in the DCEU.  Friggin Suicide Squad got a bigger budget than Wonder Woman.  If other female directors and characters got the same respect before as Wonder Woman did now then things would be different.

Saying that she a step back because she has perfect looks and strength is like saying that Superman is.  Wonder Woman's lore is that she was molded from clay by a woman (her mom).  For women, by women.

Yes, she was awarded missions or items, but she did take them.  Well, except the crown, she was awarded that.  She was awarded status and attention because she was given the title of princess.  She was unknowingly given her second title. 

I wonder how much this will come back to haunt James Cameron if Avatar 2 ever makes it to theaters.

Ripley and Sarah Connor sacrificed their femininity to become strong characters. They basically turned them into men. Same can be said of Furiousa. Wonder Woman on the other hand tried to show a strong woman who was still very much feminine.

Neither approach is wrong or better than the other. They're just different.

Yup. It's kinda dumb to look up to fictional characters as your role models anyway. There's a reason they're called "fiction". 

That's what I mean by a unisex character with a bit of vulnerability.  It's getting a female character to the point of making her a man without making her a lesbian.  In T2, he turned Sarah into a female Kyle Reese.  We were okay with that because John is her son and with the male lead being a robot, ain't no time to explore her sex life.  Can't do that the other way around because we wouldn't accept it with a suspected gay male "Sarah."  That's where Genesys went wrong.  They tried to merge T1 Sarah with T2 Sarah, T2 Sarah with Kyle, Kyle with T1 Sarah, and Kyle with T2 John.  I think that's why they had Kyle and Sarah bickering over who will save the day throughout the movie. Because Kyle would have become that male Sarah.

The public was ready for it in 1915 when Mountain Girl in Intolerance was swinging around on ropes and firing off arrows from a bow.
There have been super heroic women characters in film and tv for decades/centuries.

Bionic Woman, tv Wonder Woman, Modesty Blaise, Pat Savage   etc.

The studio executives are just massively out of touch with audiences and make decisions according to ideological tastes of their own making.

By 1994 the action man caricature film was waning--the Last Action Hero didnt do so well.

The Mask on the other hand did very well.
And Carrey was no action man.

Geena Davis was given a couple of leading parts of an action variety--Cutthroat Island faltered but there was many reasons--including that she was miscast. Lawless would have been much better for it.
The problem is entirely with the studio management and what they choose to make/market.
It is not audience decided-the management of the studios decide what to make and audiences can only choose between what they offer.

Lucy Lawless was the ideal 90s Wonder Woman. The other potential contenders were Terry Farrell and Famke Janssen but Lawless had more of a heroic screen presence.