Wonder Woman 1984 General Discussion and Speculation - Part 2

[Willi Berg]

They won't be nothing alike.

 

[kguillou]

Wonder Woman is DC's most heralded film since The Dark Knight, why would Patty or Warner Bros have any incentive to completely disregard that movie? They won't disregard it. Its a stand alone sequel. Its telling its own story without creative restrictions. That's all.

 

[metaphysician]

I think there should be more romance and heart and real human feelings in these movies, these days.

Yeah, the issue is that far too many movies *don't* have any actual romance in them. They instead have a purely mechanical and inhuman "love interest subplot", which is at best a cold soulless imitation of actual romance, and at worst is literally as meaningful as the medal award scene at the end of Star Wars.

 

[sup101]

Nobody saying they should disregard WW, they should disregard BVS and JL and the whole walking away from mankind deal, which they seem to be doing.

 

[Aurakles]

If they keep the continuity of Wonder Woman 2017 then "stand alone movie" doesn't mean "it has no connections to other films".
In which they haven't ruled out connections to other DC films.

Again, I'm not saying it will be connected, just that it might be.
If I had to bet on it, I'd wager it will contradict some other DCEU films, but I wouldn't bet the house on it.
I'm just saying we can't be sure at this stage.

 

[misslane38]

Don't tie Patty hands behind her back. Now she has to wipe everybody minds, so they can forget WW was beating bad guys up in a public mall, running down the street in the nation capital, in the middle of riots. Yeah, lets wipe everybody minds, just to stay true to a dceu that's on life support.

I don't think Patty would do it to connect or disconnect from the DCEU, and I feel like it's equally prescriptive to suggest that Patty should disconnect as some sort of dramatic rebuke of the previous films when we have no idea how much she cares about all that drama or how much she dislikes what those previous films did. More importantly, any reversal doesn't limit the narrative or make anything pointless any more than it did in Superman 2 when Superman's intimacy with Lois and his power loss were all reversed to restore the status quo by the film's end. There was a similar premise in the Smallville episode "Infamous" where Clark goes public only to use a Legion ring to undo it. Patty has spoken on several occasions about how she found the 1980's setting appealing because it spoke to the idea of going to extremes, the price to be paid for doing so, and the ephemeral nature of it all.

Characters can learn lessons, and audiences can appreciate a journey, when the growth is largely internal to the character. I think it would provide an excellent context for what we've already seen from present day Diana, and would provide a strong foundation for a closing film in the trilogy to focus on what it means to be public for real including a focus on Diana embracing a role as an ambassador for the Amazons and finally letting her return home to Themyscira having reconciled her two worlds in the classic monomythic sense.

Nobody saying they should disregard WW, they should disregard BVS and JL and the whole walking away from mankind deal, which they seem to be doing.

It doesn't at the moment, because we've seen Diana in set pics from WW84 walking around in civilian clothes with no disguise yet not being recognized. So, at least for some portion of the film, it's unlikely that she would be a publicly well-known superhero. Then there's the chance that any public sightings will be reversed or explained away. We can't know for sure. What we do know is that even in her alleged "walked away" state in BvS, Diana still got involved in stopping Doomsday. That suggests that what her comments to Bruce at the end of the film meant was that she never stopped helping people or being a hero, just that she did so as a solo hero who didn't cooperate with anyone or seek the spotlight.

As for the sequel question. I thought Patty was pretty clear when she spoke about this at SDCC:

I never want to do more of anything for the wrong reason. I don’t even want to go to that place in my head of how you keep it going and cash in. The thing that mattered to me the most is I wanted to make great movies in my lifetime. And I found myself saying I have these characters I love and this world that I love and we can make a movie about something completely new, pure and strong and as unique as the first one. Of course, I want to do that.

The purpose of all of the "not a sequel" comments isn't to communicate that WW84 will disregard continuity, but to inform people that the film isn't a direct follow up like Chamber of Secrets was to the Sorcerer's Stone; fans of the first won't get to see Etta, Chief, and Sameer or see how Diana grieved Steve and found her way in Man's World on her own during the early twentieth century. It's also to say that it's not going to repeat a formula for easy consumption and success. It's not like the next episode of a TV series. It can be a stand alone and new story while still being connected to what's come before. Then, maybe it won't be. But, I don't believe it's been definitively established yet, and until then the possibility of connection still exists.

 

[sup101]

They retcon it, she's public in WW84. This Universe don't even have a Batman.

 

[sup101]

Will Zack fans demand that Matt Reeves stick to Zack DCEU continuity too, are will he be allowed to do his own thing. They already said it won't be connected to it.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Will Zack fans demand that Matt Reeves stick to Zack DCEU continuity too, are will he be allowed to do his own thing. They already said it won't be connected to it.

Zack fan here, Reeves can do whatever he wants.

I hope that answers your bald question.

 

[misslane38]

Will Zack fans demand that Matt Reeves stick to Zack DCEU continuity too, are will he be allowed to do his own thing. They already said it won't be connected to it.

That's different. It's totally separate at this point. Plus, Batman is irrelevant to WW84. Any version of Batman, Affleck or Pattinson, would likely still be a teen or younger in 1984. Also, Diana being public contradicts Patty's own filmmaking in the first film and WW84 set pics that show Diana able to walk around anonymously with no disguise.

 

[sup101]

I'm so happy Patty ignoring BVS and JL.

 

[sup101]

You continuity nuts will get over it..She saves a little girl in the mall from bad guys in that Comic Con clip. It's cool that she's public.

 

[misslane38]

You continuity nuts will get over it..She saves a little girl in the mall from bad guys in that Comic Con clip. It's cool that she's public.

Clark saved people on an oil rig. He wasn't public yet. Even so, in a film like WW84 about (possibly) magic, regret, and mind control, anything is possible.

 

[sup101]

You'll get over it, the general audience won't care and you going to see it no matter what.

 

[sup101]

Anyways, I am done with this topic. I just hope Patty can give her vision without having to delete it. The character has over 75 years of History and this is only her 2nd solo outing. I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert on WW, Superman got me into comic book characters. The WW movie got me into WW. I don't want the character to be tied down to a shaky intended Zack character Arc that most people don't agree with, including Gal. Patty understands WW. I don't want Patty to give her vision and then somehow has to erase it with mind wipes are magic. The most important thing is making a great movie though. We will see. Good luck Patty!

 

[Willi Berg]

In the first movie, in the modern scenes, Diana works at the Louvre, but at the end she is dressed as WW and goes and helps out in an emergency.

In 1984, let's say she is at the mall as Diana, sees a little girl in trouble, changes into WW and fights the bad guys.

Some suspension of disbelief is required in terms of the superhero disguise. People don't click that Diana Prince is WW, the same way they don't click Clark Kent is Superman, even though he is only wearing glasses. So Diana can then go about her business as usual.

As for who WW is in 1984, it could be just like in the first movie- she does her thing, people there see her. but she never announces herself as "Wonder Woman" or as a "superhero." There is an advantage for Diana that she lives so long that people come and go over the years, people live and die. There are reports of sightings of her. But nothing is ever confirmed.

It could very well change in 1984, with mass media, that she is exposed. I could believe that. Maybe magic is involved, or maybe evidence is destroyed. Or maybe she continues to be an urban legend, talked about but there's never a unanimous confirmation of her existence.

As for what that means for BvS and JL, I really don't think they need to worry about it so much. If WW in 1984 mostly keeps to herself then BvS and JL won't be contradicted. WW has been around so long, as Batfleck said, but they just haven't heard of her. Because she still remained mysterious despite sightings of her. She went back into hiding after those sightings, it was decades ago, and if she did appear it was only seen by some people long ago, or nothing they could confirm.

 

[nodecision]

In the first movie, in the modern scenes, Diana works at the Louvre, but at the end she is dressed as WW and goes and helps out in an emergency.

In 1984, let's say she is at the mall as Diana, sees a little girl in trouble, changes into WW and fights the bad guys.

Some suspension of disbelief is required in terms of the superhero disguise. People don't click that Diana Prince is WW, the same way they don't click Clark Kent is Superman, even though he is only wearing glasses. So Diana can then go about her business as usual.

As for who WW is in 1984, it could be just like in the first movie- she does her thing, people there see her. but she never announces herself as "Wonder Woman" or as a "superhero." There is an advantage for Diana that she lives so long that people come and go over the years, people live and die. There are reports of sightings of her. But nothing is ever confirmed.

It could very well change in 1984, with mass media, that she is exposed. I could believe that. Maybe magic is involved, or maybe evidence is destroyed. Or maybe she continues to be an urban legend, talked about but there's never a unanimous confirmation of her existence.

As for what that means for BvS and JL, I really don't think they need to worry about it so much. If WW in 1984 mostly keeps to herself then BvS and JL won't be contradicted. WW has been around so long, as Batfleck said, but they just haven't heard of her. Because she still remained mysterious despite sightings of her. She went back into hiding after those sightings, it was decades ago, and if she did appear it was only seen by some people long ago, or nothing they could confirm.

It probably would contradict Batfleck's accusation that she "shut herself down for a century" (which is a good thing). Unless they find a way to reinterpret that statement of course.

 

[misslane38]

Anyways, I am done with this topic. I just hope Patty can give her vision without having to delete it. The character has over 75 years of History and this is only her 2nd solo outing. I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert on WW, Superman got me into comic book characters. The WW movie got me into WW. I don't want the character to be tied down to a shaky intended Zack character Arc that most people don't agree with, including Gal. Patty understands WW. I don't want Patty to give her vision and then somehow has to erase it with mind wipes are magic. The most important thing is making a great movie though. We will see. Good luck Patty!

Neither you nor I know Patty's intentions for WW84, so I don't quite understand why you are clamoring in defense of her artistic freedom. You don't know if what you want and what she wants is the same thing. I don't either. I have my suspicions, but it remains to be seen what will happen. So, we can agree to disagree and to wait and see.

 

[Willi Berg]

It probably would contradict Batfleck's accusation that she "shut herself down for a century" (which is a good thing). Unless they find a way to reinterpret that statement of course.

If Patty has to decide whether or not to contradict the JL or change it to something she would rather do, then she definitely should do her own thing. She and Gal already said that WW wouldn't walk away from mankind. I care more about Patty's WW movies than JL lol. And ultimately, these are only a couple of lines (in BvS and JL.)

And maybe Batfleck doesn't know everything about WW.

 

[misslane38]

It probably would contradict Batfleck's accusation that she "shut herself down for a century" (which is a good thing). Unless they find a way to reinterpret that statement of course.

That statement was more about Diana being stuck in her grief over Steve and not being a team player like she was in the photo he returned to her featuring her alongside Sameer, Chief, and Charlie. It wasn't about her not helping people at all. It was just about her not playing a public and inspirational role like Superman. He knew she had been a hero. He saw her be a hero when she saved him from Doomsday, for example. Later, Diana reflects on her motivation for laying low, saying she was afraid of leadership. JL doesn't deny her heroism. That's all consistent with BvS and WW. It remains to be seen how public Diana is or gets in WW84 and how permanent that might be.

 

[nodecision]

If Patty has to decide whether or not to contradict the JL or change it to something she would rather do, then she definitely should do her own thing. She and Gal already said that WW wouldn't walk away from mankind. I care more about Patty's WW movies than JL lol. And ultimately, these are only a couple of lines (in BvS and JL.)

And maybe Batfleck doesn't know everything about WW.

Yeah maybe WW had Batfleck (along with the whole world) fooled. BvS did suggest that WW was better at stealth than Batfleck after all, lol.

 

[RomanticPenguin]

glad gal/patty and fixing the BvS problem



good for them

 

[misslane38]

glad gal/patty and fixing the BvS problem



good for them

They fixed it for the audience by clarifying what the line from BvS means. It doesn't mean Diana stopped helping people; it means that she helped people while still staying under the radar. That is the canon in Wonder Woman (Diana is not recognized in present day) and the canon in BvS, since Diana seems to have no trouble taking on Doomsday. I never understood why anyone interpreted the line in BvS to mean that Diana abandoned mankind. She and Bruce are talking about whether or not heroes like Barry and Arthur want to be found in order to join a team, like the team she was on with Steve during WWI that was captured in the photo in BvS/WW. She explains that "walking away" was a decision she made because she could no longer stand together with mankind, which is exactly the same thing Diana concludes in her narration in Wonder Woman. Men have to make the choice between light and dark because darkness is something no hero can defeat.

 

[RomanticPenguin]

clark kent, lois lane cameo in WW84 could be pretty fun

@4:15

sowing the seeds for patty to fix them maybe

 

[Willi Berg]

They fixed it for the audience by clarifying what the line from BvS means. It doesn't mean Diana stopped helping people; it means that she helped people while still staying under the radar. That is the canon in Wonder Woman (Diana is not recognized in present day) and the canon in BvS, since Diana seems to have no trouble taking on Doomsday. I never understood why anyone interpreted the line in BvS to mean that Diana abandoned mankind. She and Bruce are talking about whether or not heroes like Barry and Arthur want to be found in order to join a team, like the team she was on with Steve during WWI that was captured in the photo in BvS/WW. She explains that "walking away" was a decision she made because she could no longer stand together with mankind, which is exactly the same thing Diana concludes in her narration in Wonder Woman. Men have to make the choice between light and dark because darkness is something no hero can defeat.

Because that is what they originally intended. But they decided to change it, and found a way to change the meaning of that line. Kind of like in Star Wars, a certain point of view "Vader betrayed and murdered your father". They changed their intentions so had to make the line fit.

"A hundred years ago, I walked away from mankind, from a century of horrors. Men made a world where standing together is impossible."