The "Batgirl" movie script has a new screenwriter...

[Callate]

After Joss Whedon admitted he was getting nowhere with the script for a Batgirl movie, he yielded the opportunity back to WB, who have passed it on to...

...The author of Unforgettable (25%, RT)... And the upcoming Transformers sick-up spin-off, Bumblebee.

[link]https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batgirl-movie-back-bumblebee-writer-1101078[/link]

Yyyyyyyyyyyyeahhhhh.

Soooo, maybe this woman has as-yet unplumbed depths as a scriptwriter that simply haven't been given a chance to shine, as yet.

But I think the more likely bet is that the DCCU has decided that, having been bouncing along the bottom for some time, it is now the time to break out the shovels.

Oh, and before I forget, RT reveals that Unforgettable isn't Ms. Hodson's only credit.

She was also behind Shut In (RT 8%), which Rotten Tomatoes summarizes as "Fatally undermined by a clich?d, confused plot and a total absence of thrills, Shut In wastes its talented cast -- and viewers' time."

Sigh.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Isn't Joss Whedon already controversial in his writting of Female characters as of late?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Isn't Joss Whaedon already controversial in his writting of Female characters as of late?

He's been that for almost a decade at this point, since Dollhouse premiered. The criticism against him is chiefly that he keeps re-using the same tropes for his female characters, and that those tropes are admitted author appeals of his. It can basically be summed up as petite, superficially vulnerable girl being good at kicking ass (Buffy, Faith, Echo etc.) or petite, superficially innocent girl who turns out to have unexpected depth (Kaylee, Willow, Fred etc.). His critics mean that this is not the feministic, woman empowering message it is first made out to be, as it still essentially hinges on these women being conventional women before depth is allowed. There's also the on-going discussion about whether Dollhouse was sleazy and exploitative or subversive in its' repeated sexualized depiction of the Actives.

I think that sufficient to say is that most of his insistent critics are feminists, so whether you think he's controversial or not largely depends on how much you hang around feminist circles. By most metrics, he's a pretty typical if somewhat progressive writer, director and producer in US television and movie media.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Isn't Joss Whaedon already controversial in his writting of Female characters as of late?

He's been that for almost a decade at this point, since Dollhouse premiered. The criticism against him is chiefly that he keeps re-using the same tropes for his female characters, and that those tropes are admitted author appeals of his. It can basically be summed up as petite, superficially vulnerable girl being good at kicking ass (Buffy, Faith, Echo etc.) or petite, superficially innocent girl who turns out to have unexpected depth (Kaylee, Willow, Fred etc.). His critics mean that this is not the feministic, woman empowering message it is first made out to be, as it still essentially hinges on these women being conventional women before depth is allowed. There's also the on-going discussion about whether Dollhouse was sleazy and exploitative or subversive in its' repeated sexualized depiction of the Actives.

I think that sufficient to say is that most of his insistent critics are feminists, so whether you think he's controversial or not largely depends on how much you hang around feminist circles. By most metrics, he's a pretty typical if somewhat progressive writer, director and producer in US television and movie media.

Then I guarantee you that he would have made Batgirl exactly that description you say of his female characters.

 

[maninahat]

Isn't Joss Whaedon already controversial in his writting of Female characters as of late?

Hey, I was calling him a sexist, rubbish writer before people heard about it.

As for OP, I heard she got picked because she did a really good draft script to Gotham Sirens (which will never be made).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

They're gonna make a Batgirl movie? Don't have to be a Prophet to predict how badly that one will bomb.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Isn't Joss Whaedon already controversial in his writting of Female characters as of late?

In part yes. But also the whole 'writing female empowering characters while actively partaking in Hollywood Casting Couch culture'. The dude is infamous for this 'you want to be in Joss's Buffy, well Joss has to be in Buffy first' attitude. Its only a matter of time before he's run out of Hollywood with all the others.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I don't think people would have such an issue if he didn't go round saying he was all feminist and empowering and all, and having supporters (loudly) agree. If he was just another writer with cliched female characters, well, so's half of them.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Well that doesn't exactly bode well for the quality but we'll see I suppose. It couldn't possibly be worse than the first half of the Killing Joke movie right?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I don't think people would have such an issue if he didn't go round saying he was all feminist and empowering and all, and having supporters (loudly) agree. If he was just another writer with cliched female characters, well, so's half of them.

Yeah but like all Male Feminists it was just a front to get laid. He's all for empowering female characters, so long as they take their tops off for him.
I mean the Buffy cast was basically just a buffet table for him.

 

[Erttheking]

They're gonna make a Batgirl movie? Don't have to be an Oracle to predict how badly that one will bomb.

Sorry, couldn't pass that up.

And I have to say, I can't really comment on how Joss handles female characters considering Firefly was the only show of his I watched (it was ok, didn't really reach the best show ever expectations people hyped it up as) and his characters in there were decent, if a bit uninspired although they were polished. Though I wish he could've figured out what the fuck he wanted to do with River, because he seriously couldn't make up his mind there.

Anyway, I can't really comment on how he'll handle a Batgirl movie, but, you know, it's DC. They're not exactly on a winning streak as of late, so it'll probably bomb on those merits alone.

I don't think people would have such an issue if he didn't go round saying he was all feminist and empowering and all, and having supporters (loudly) agree. If he was just another writer with cliched female characters, well, so's half of them.

Yeah but like all male feminists it was just a front to get laid. He's all for empowering female characters, so long as they take their tops off for him.
I mean the Buffy cast was basically just a buffet table for him.

Please tell me more about how my investment in the plight of women is all so I can just stick my cock in them. And boy is this mindset ironically really insulting towards men, implying that they only ever get invested women's causes because they're horny.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Please tell me more about how my investment in the plight of women is all so I can just stick my cock in them. And boy is this mindset ironically really insulting towards men, implying that they only ever get invested women's causes because they're horny.

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'Male Feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'Male Feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'Male Feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

 

[the December King]

And I have to say, I can't really comment on how Joss handles female characters considering Firefly was the only show of his I watched (it was ok, didn't really reach the best show ever expectations people hyped it up as) and his characters in there were decent, if a bit uninspired although they were polished. Though I wish he could've figured out what the fuck he wanted to do with River, because he seriously couldn't make up his mind there.

Funny, Firefly was one of the only things he was involved in (next to early Roseanne, which I loved) that I did enjoy, because River wasn't so easy to lock down, as well as a lot of the other characters, like the preacher... at least before he did clarify, with the movie, that River was, in the end, just another tiny unstoppable ninja teen (and personally, a character trope I despise).

EDIT: Serenity was the movie. Sorry, I'm not saying anyone knew that or not, just that I had forgotten... I couldn't remember the damn name and I wasn't really in a position to look it up when I first posted, heh

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'male feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'male feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'male feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

Disagree, there. Now, sure, lots of self-professed male feminists are self-professing for a reason, but the same is true of almost anything something could self-profess as. Sometimes it's genuine, sometimes when genuine it's warranted.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'male feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'male feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'male feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

Disagree, there. Now, sure, lots of self-professed male feminists are self-professing for a reason, but the same is true of almost anything something could self-profess as. Sometimes it's genuine, sometimes when genuine it's warranted.

And sometimes when you call someone your "girlfriend", they are just a girl that is a platonic friend.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'male feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'male feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'male feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

Disagree, there. Now, sure, lots of self-professed male feminists are self-professing for a reason, but the same is true of almost anything something could self-profess as. Sometimes it's genuine, sometimes when genuine it's warranted.

Well as I said, you can be male and a feminist. Those are fine things. I'm male, and I support feminism. But I'm not a Male Feminist.
Its an infamous thing, and very well known. Hell even Urban Dictionary knows:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=male%20feminist

Think of it this way, to be a feminist is gender neutral. Anyone can be a feminist. But we only add a gender when we want to create a difference. A Female Feminist. A Male Feminist. Whatever gender we do it because its different from being a regular feminist, that again is a gender neutral thing.
The addition of the Male part puts it into the self-serving, creepy sex part.
A truly genuine feminist, who is not in it for the self-promoting and praise and sex, doesn't need to qualify their gender. They're just a feminist.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'male feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'male feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'male feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

Disagree, there. Now, sure, lots of self-professed male feminists are self-professing for a reason, but the same is true of almost anything something could self-profess as. Sometimes it's genuine, sometimes when genuine it's warranted.

Well as I said, you can be male and a feminist. Those are fine things. I'm male, and I support feminism. But I'm not a Male Feminist.
Its an infamous thing, and very well known. Hell even Urban Dictionary knows:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=male%20feminist

Think of it this way, to be a feminist is gender neutral. Anyone can be a feminist. But we only add a gender when we want to create a difference. A Female Feminist. A Male Feminist. Whatever gender we do it because its different from being a regular feminist, that again is a gender neutral thing.
The addition of the Male part puts it into the self-serving, creepy sex part.
A truly genuine feminist, who is not in it for the self-promoting and praise and sex, doesn't need to qualify their gender. They're just a feminist.

Ah, you mean like saying "Male Feminist" with upper case and emphasis, as opposed to "male feminist"?

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'male feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'male feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'male feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

Disagree, there. Now, sure, lots of self-professed male feminists are self-professing for a reason, but the same is true of almost anything something could self-profess as. Sometimes it's genuine, sometimes when genuine it's warranted.

Well as I said, you can be male and a feminist. Those are fine things. I'm male, and I support feminism. But I'm not a Male Feminist.
Its an infamous thing, and very well known. Hell even Urban Dictionary knows:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=male%20feminist

Think of it this way, to be a feminist is gender neutral. Anyone can be a feminist. But we only add a gender when we want to create a difference. A Female Feminist. A Male Feminist. Whatever gender we do it because its different from being a regular feminist, that again is a gender neutral thing.
The addition of the Male part puts it into the self-serving, creepy sex part.
A truly genuine feminist, who is not in it for the self-promoting and praise and sex, doesn't need to qualify their gender. They're just a feminist.

Ah, you mean like saying "Male Feminist" with upper case and emphasis, as opposed to "male feminist"?

Yes yes. That. Male Feminist capitalized as a title, rather than male feminist, which is just a male who is a feminist.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well no, obviously men can care about women. But the 'male feminist' title is the problem. You can be a male, and you can be a feminist. But going around telling women you're a 'male feminist' is a pickup artist tactic.
Like how you can have friends who are girls, but calling them your girlfriend implies something, ie a relationship. So to a 'male feminist'. It implies something, and not a very good something.

Disagree, there. Now, sure, lots of self-professed male feminists are self-professing for a reason, but the same is true of almost anything something could self-profess as. Sometimes it's genuine, sometimes when genuine it's warranted.

And sometimes when you call someone your "girlfriend", they are just a girl that is a platonic friend.

I mean you can, but you might want to run it by them first, and don't be surprised if the girl corrects you in conversations by saying 'We're just friends' or 'Not like his girl girlfriend, just a girl who is his friend'
and certainly don't continue to introduce her as your girlfriend after she specifically told you to stop, and makes it clear there is no relationship.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

For what it's worth, I doubt whatever she's gonna write will be worse than whatever Whedon would have come up with. Let me be perfectly honst here, if the DCU didn't die with Suicide Squad, it died when they they got rid of Snyder and Terrio and turned the movie they were working on into a moronic farce (under the direction of Joss Whedon, unsurprisingly), any chance that they would produce something of genuine artistic merit again went out of the window with them. Ever since they've been trying, an failing, to chase the consistent mediocrity of Marvel's cinematic output.