Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Wonder Woman' started by Thread Manager, Jul 13, 2017.
Gal during press conference in JL China talking about WW not walking away from mankind and admitting that during the creative process they realised they made a mistake and corrected that idea from BvS when making WW solo movie:
In other words, the moment Patty Jenkins was hired to direct. Patty wanted nothing to do with the gives up on mankind arc for Diana. I also suspect that she is setting the WW sequel in the past so that she doesn't need to be tied to anything that is currently happening in the DCEU. She can simply do another standalone WW movie.
Thing is... They still need to explain what she was doing and where she was in between the end of WWI and her public appearance in BvS. She wasn't a public super hero since nobody knew of her. The existence of super powered beings is clearly something only now coming to light in the world in the films. If she didn't turn away from mankind then what the hell was she up to? And was it also kept secret? I frankly never had an issue with the idea that she was emotionally burned out after the death of Steve and then seeing that mankind stumbled into wars again and again after, but that's me. It's an unnecessary retcon if it's even addressed again. I honestly am 50/50 on another WW set in the past. That could be a fine movie but as we already did it why do it again just updated to the 70's or 80's? Why not a film set today dealing with today's issues? That's me though. YMMV.
Also... Patty was hired by Snyder and his wife, the story for the film was Snyder's and they were EP's (Snyder appeared in the film as well as a background soldier) so I don't know if anyone can say it was purely because Jenkins was hired that they are saying this now. Plus... I'm not sure we can assume it will even be referenced in the sequel.
From Patty's interviews, it sounded like she was going with the plan of having Diana walk away from mankind but she said that by the end of making the movie and getting to know the Diana character they couldn't see her doing this and saw it going against the message of the entire movie. It was an early idea that I think they saw impeded them. How they confront it in the WW sequel we will have to wait and see. But it's almost like Gal is saying that it is a contradiction and will be an inconsistency in the movies. In Wonder Woman 2 unless she does everything covertly and 'behind the scenes' and they want to go out of their way to make sure it is done that way (and could be if Diana is a spy/undercover agent), then she will still be in Man's World dealing with its issues.
I guess the issue is how much of a public superhero WW actually is after her first movie. I mean, it's not like she is out there declaring herself to the world and dealing with governments, officials, the public etc. as WW. Maybe as Diana Prince, but not as WW. And everything she does doesn't have to be a great showcase to the world in the way Superman's heroics perhaps are. The sequel will show us how she will continue in the world, the main thing being that she did not leave. After BvS and JL is where she seems to be the "public hero".
My hope is that if they do set the sequel in the past that the big spectacle parts deal with the world of the gods. You can have things occur in "other worlds" like on the island or Olympus and that takes care of the issue of "secrecy" I suppose.
That could be a way to go but it would seem very hard not to have WW in the "real world" dealing with stuff and showing her powers. If it is some kind of covert mission or only seen by a small number of people I guess that could retain her mystery. And since it is the past, then she could go underground again.
They'll probably say that she was busy being Wonder Woman, and that BvS wasn't her first public appearance since the end of WWI. It was a small line in there, and has been superseded by the Wonder Woman movie which was far better received and more successful than BvS. So it's Wonder Woman that is the movie that is writing the canon and not BvS.
I find it absolutely hilarious to see so many DC fans suddenly turn on Gal due to her comments. The harshest comments coming from die-hard Zack Snyder fans who feel her comments were a direct shot at him. Comic book movies were a mistake.
I hope they explain it some way rather than just ignore it.
They could say that after the first movie Diana felt humans and god's shouldn't mix so much, and so she performed super heroics all over the world in a covert way to meta humans remained secret until Superman came along.
To the average joe we all probably sound like that nerd that asked the Itchy and Scratchy question about the xylophone ribs playing the same note in succession.
I thought that was THE message of the movie. She kept thinking this conflict of nations couldn't have been thought up by humans but by a god of war, but the god of war apparently fed off of and somewhat influenced the follies of man.
And so she wouldn't get involved unless a god was interfering with the human world.
I feel that they already did explain it at the end of WW. She did effectively walk away from mankind momentarily, and it was at the end of WWI. And it was 100 years ago.
So when she says in BvS that 100 years ago she walked away from mankind, she isn't inaccurate about that. It doesn't just have to mean that for the last 100 years she has stayed away from mankind. Just that an incident happened 100 years ago.
If a man were to say "10 years ago I walked out on my family", it doesn't necessarily have to mean it is still true today. It might simply refer to an incident that happened 10 years ago, and it would still be accurate what he has reported. But in those 10 years he may have reconciled with his wife and family.
A comparison my son and daughter have made to me more than once
But if the sequel is set in the past, wont it contradict all of this? Thats my worry, that it shows her operating out in the open and being noticed during the 80s, thats what I hope they explain rather than ignore.
I'd have to know how they approach the sequel. I assumed no matter the era before the present, we'd just get Herculean stories at this point showcasing the "I've killed things from other worlds before" rather than another historical war movie.
Thats what I am expecting, but then we heard its going to set during the Cold War. So real world events will be involved.
It won't contradict it, because she wouldn't be in her "walked away" phase anymore while in the 1980s. That phase only was temporary and occurred at the end of the war.
That makes ZERO sense. As illustrated in BVS when Lex Luthor discusses his "meta-human" theory with the Senators, no, super humans were not a known quantity before Superman's public appearance. This is obvious in both MOS and BVS and it would be a HUGE contradiction of what has already been established. Batman also sees the picture from WWI and asks "WHO ARE YOU?". She was unknown to the world's greatest detective before BVS. It's not just "A small line in there."
PS the BO totals for WW stands at $821 million. BVS is $871 million. If you want to argue that WW made more money than BVS go ahead. But it wouldn't be true.
It is an absolute fact that WW was a more PROFITABLE movie than BvS.
WW: 5.5x its production budget
BvS: 3.4x its production budget
Well it's good that's not what I posted then isn't it? So... BVS sold more tickets and took in more money in the BO is still not in dispute then? GOOD. It's also interesting that you can't refute anything else in my post. So... Yeah.
Dark Raven wrote, "Wonder Woman movie which was far better received and more successful than BvS", and you countered that with BO numbers. BvS selling more tickets than WW does not make it more successful. Net profit is all that matters.
Winner: Wonder Woman
Patty Jenkins obviously has over plans and should be allowed to do as she wishes and not be beholden to a stupid line in a movie. Wonder Woman at her core would never do such a thing as abandon mankind and Patty obviously sees that.
JL may have more rework in it about WW being more known after world war 1, we don't know.
The WW sequel may certainly have pointing to her being a well known figure especially if it is set in the past.
Some people act like this has never been done before. Like it is the first time they have changed some continuity or background of a character as they we're being a new franchise.