Wonder Woman 1984 General Discussion and Speculation - Part 2

[Willi Berg]

I think in terms of movies, having a romance can tend to be cliche. If it's done in a predictable fashion a million times over there's nothing that imaginative about it. But Patty did it incredibly successfully in the first WW movie and it is obviously one of her strong suits- exploring that emotional side to Diana. I am sure Patty will put a twist to it in WW84 and that there is something substantial she wants to say.

That being said, I agree that WW doesn't necessarily need to have a love interest. I would be fine if Wonder Woman 3 is about Diana on her own. Especially if it's the last movie of a trilogy. There can be that tension with another character but it doesn't have to be a romance or the focal point of the movie.

 

[Willi Berg]

Gal was at the MTV Movie and TV Awards and presented Best Horror Performance to Sandra Bullock for 'Bird Box'. When Gal was introduced they announced her as "the star of Wonder Woman 1984" (still almost a year away!):

 

[-JKR-]

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

 

[Willi Berg]

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

I agree, as long as it's done in an interesting way. Not as an obligation or a cynical marketing ploy, as it has been in many cases.

 

[-JKR-]

I agree, as long as it's done in an interesting way. Not as an obligation or a cynical marketing ploy, as it has been in many cases.

Well, you know, the examples that come to mind are Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman movies (esp. Returns), Raimi's Spider-Man, Iron Man (in which I loved the dynamic and banter btw Tony and Pepper), Avengers: Age of Ultron (the "freak love" btw Bruce and Natasha is WAY underrated), del Toro's Hellboy movies, the Deadpool movies... and even though it wasn't romance, the first Ant-man stood out for being about fathers and daughters. Nolan's Batman movies weren't very romance-driven, but I still appreciated the presence of Rachel and Selina.
Human emotions, romantic or otherwise, are key to great movies.
Otherwise we're watching action figures on the big screen.

 

[Willi Berg]

Well, you know, the examples that come to mind are Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman movies (esp. Returns), Raimi's Spider-Man, Iron Man (in which I loved the dynamic and banter btw Tony and Pepper), Avengers: Age of Ultron (the "freak love" btw Bruce and Natasha is WAY underrated), del Toro's Hellboy movies, the Deadpool movies... and even though it wasn't romance, the first Ant-man stood out for being about fathers and daughters. Nolan's Batman movies weren't very romance-driven, but I still appreciated the presence of Rachel and Selina.
Human emotions, romantic or otherwise, are key to great movies.
Otherwise we're watching action figures on the big screen.

Just say there is no love interest in Wonder Woman 3. That doesn't mean there will be a lack of human emotions and connections. There can be other ways for Diana to express and explore her feelings. Her relationship with the human race as a whole, for example. There is a difference between having real emotions in a movie and having a love interest. There can be other relationships to explore for Diana- humans, the gods, the Amazons, whether her family, friends, the villains etc. If her only love interest is Steve, then that was firmly established in the first movie and further developed in this second one. Just because there is no "romance" it doesn't mean there will be a lack of emotion. It is a major part of Diana's story in the movies but there are other parts of her story too.

 

[-JKR-]

I didn't say that. I just said that I don't see any problem with there being a romance in this movie, and that NOT having one doesn't make the movie "progressive."

 

[Vlyse]

It's not the Snyderverse, but Patty's own films, that I am defending as still a thing. Making Diana public contradicts WW and is terrible characterization for Diana. We'd skip over her formative years as a superhero. It would be a stretch to explain how no one recognizes Diana as Wonder Woman, given she can be Diana Prince antiquities expert with no one knowing or treating her like a superhero in WW or WW84. It would also be difficult to explain her lack of involvement in World War II. Or , if the 80s is when she debuts, why then? My issues with Diana being public have very little to do with Snyder. I've only said that the wording in BvS and WW is vague enough to allow multiple interpretations and possibilities.

Beyond that, my interest is also as a Superman fan -- again nothing to do with Snyder. In DC lore, Superman is meant to be the first public superhero. Not honoring that disrespects his character and nearly a century of storytelling across all media.

Not only does Wonder Woman being public not harmonize with Patty's filmmaking or the Superman mythos, but it also would be a missed opportunity to not use the 80s, especially the 1984 allusion, to examine perception and show us how Diana's ideas about her role in the world evolve.

Exactly. This has nothing to do with Diana's arc in BVS/JL. Patty Jenkins' own film starts and ends with Wonder Woman proclaiming how she used to want to save the world but doesn't anymore. She still fights and gives when she's needed, but she doesn't do it in an out and proud public superhero kind of way. Diana's story in 1918 ends with her in Trafalgar Square disconnected from mankind. It doesn't show her integrating herself into our society even as a civilian. She looks like she's about to walk away, in the wake of Steve Trevor's death. From Etta, Chief, et al.

So if Diana is shown in WW84 to be established with mankind already, well that's quite unfortunate and skips over a lot of her initial growth as a superhero. And besides the first film has narrative issues with wanting Ares to be both a red herring for mankind's dark heart and the sole cause of it.

I'm cautious of Patty Jenkins.

 

[jmc]

Wonder Woman being a more romantic superhero series frankly should be celebrated. We've gotten sweet f-all in terms of having love stories with any substance in all of superhero movie history. Deadpool the only other recent example. Having one that centres on the hero wearing their heart on their sleeve makes the series stand out. It gives the series a feminine touch. So many other modern female heroes in the last 5 or 6 years have tried to make their leads be like men which is boring as ****. If Patty Jenkins is embracing romance then I'm all for it.

 

[Willi Berg]

Wonder Woman being a more romantic superhero series frankly should be celebrated. We've gotten sweet f-all in terms of having love stories with any substance in all of superhero movie history. Deadpool the only other recent example. Having one that centres on the hero wearing their heart on their sleeve makes the series stand out. It gives the series a feminine touch. So many other modern female heroes in the last 5 or 6 years have tried to make their leads be like men which is boring as ****. If Patty Jenkins is embracing romance then I'm all for it.

Well, the love story in the first WW movie is a big part of why it worked, it was a big part of why I liked it. We of course know Steve is in WW84 but I just wonder where it would go in 3, if there is no Steve Trevor/Chris Pine. Chris Pine has said

Spoiler

“I think Steve’s done...I think Steve’s done his bit. I wish them all the luck in the world.”

(Things could always change of course.) But it could also be about Diana truly moving on and she could even have another love interest. I don't mind if she does, but I also don't think she needs to have another love interest/love story. If she is done with it in this movie then that love story with Steve would be enough. There are other stories that could be told. And she could still remain a romantic superhero. The third movie could be deeply emotional in other ways.

 

[nodecision]

How is not having a romance progressive?

One of the things said about the Captain Marvel movie was that it had a better role model than WW in that Carol Danvers did not need a boyfriend. I don't really agree, but I've seen it argued.

 

[-JKR-]

So that's the newest message in "female empowerment"? Stay single. Stay lonely. Basically, work towards becoming The Simpsons' cat lady. Cool. Now love is a weak spot.

 

[Dark Raven]

Gal was at the MTV Movie and TV Awards and presented Best Horror Performance to Sandra Bullock for 'Bird Box'. When Gal was introduced they announced her as "the star of Wonder Woman 1984" (still almost a year away!):

As the star of Wonder Woman 1984, Gal is still looking great even 35 years later!

 

[Abudefduf]

There's nothing wrong with female heroes having boyfriends and there's nothing wrong with female heroes not having boyfriends. Variety is good.

I really liked the Diana/Steve romance in the first movie so I'm not mad Jenkins is bringing him back.

 

[AverageMan]

Gal was at the MTV Movie and TV Awards and presented Best Horror Performance to Sandra Bullock for 'Bird Box'. When Gal was introduced they announced her as "the star of Wonder Woman 1984" (still almost a year away!):

She looks good seeing as she's done 83 Wonder Woman films prior to this!

 

[Snow Queen]

“So, male superheroes could have Lois Lane. They can have love, they can have vulnerability, they can have complexity. But women superheroes or strong women characters had to be, ‘I don’t need anyone, I’m the toughest person in the world.’ That’s not fair to anybody. No human being is an island like that." - Patty Jenkins.

So long as it's well done (as with anything), I don't see why there's a problem with having a love interest or not having one. I get sick of how routine these often get, with two characters seemingly falling in love only on the grounds that it's a guy and a girl and they looked at each other, or the plotline is tacked on because they feel like they have to and it doesn't really add anything, but the first film was neither of those and I see no reason to expect the sequel to be.

 

[nodecision]

So that's the newest message in "female empowerment"? Stay single. Stay lonely. Basically, work towards becoming The Simpsons' cat lady. Cool. Now love is a weak spot.

I think it's a positive message at its core, that girls shouldn't need to have a man. I just don't agree that Diana choosing to have a boyfriend somehow makes her the inferior character.

 

[Abudefduf]

Also I'm not expecting Captain Marvel to stay single forever. We all know she's going to get a boyfriend/girlfriend in the future.

 

[-Arya-]

The romance angle in the first WW was one of my favorite parts. It’s what made the 3rd act so emotional for me despite the CGI battle. Give me more, I say.

 

[misslane38]

I am sure Patty is more then capable of defending her own films.

Never said she couldn't. I was just explaining my motivation since you're so determined to lie and say it's rooted in a desire to defend Snyder and the Snyderverse when it's not.

By the way, that is a lot of words to basically said what I already said. The Superman mythos. Snyder already made Batman a superhero long before Superman.

Read my words again. You claimed that I was motivated by defensiveness of Snyder, but my response focused on defending Patty's storytelling and Superman's wider mythos (i.e. outside of Snyder's canon). In addition, Batman wasn't a public superhero. He was an in-the-shadows vigilante that even Victor Stone and others thought was an urban legend. He was nothing close to a public superhero in the same way Superman was, and he certainly didn't challenge humanity to confront an existential crisis related to their religious faith and their place in the universe.

You are trying to hold onto something, specifically Snyder's connected universe, when they clearly don't care about retconning or ignoring whatever they like.

Again, this is not about Snyder. Deliberately ignoring and misinterpreting what I said to repeat that baseless claim won't make it any more true. It's a strawman.

 

[dhandler01]

I like what I'm hearing so far! For those *****ing about romance lighten the **** up a little for crying out loud and stop being a bunch of miserable kill joys.

I feel this post needs to be put in the HOF for many reasons

 

[misslane38]

EXCLUSIVE: Plot, Character Details Revealed For 'Wonder Woman: 1984' - That Hashtag Show

Major spoilers for the whole plot

Ah, the "That Hashtag Show" spoilers. Spoilers from a source whose tweet of the news only got a measly 10 retweets. I would have thought a solid scoopster would have more reach on social media. Anyway, let's examine the spoilers they shared.

Spoiler

First, they tell us that Diana is working as a spy during the Cold War, and she is after a Russian spy. Second, they tell us she's a known superhero. Consider those two spoilers together. Do they make sense? How is a world famous person with a very obvious accent and who despises deception and allying with one government going to successfully operate as a spy?

Then we get to the Max Lord spoilers. He supposedly got his powers from an alien invasion, and that power was to grant wishes. Okay. So, in the elaborate backstory for this film there will have been an offscreen preceeding alien invasion. These aliens "invaded" yet somehow the Earth was spared and accidentally Max, or Max and other people, got abilities such as the ability to grant wishes, which is a very odd extra terrestrial power to give when it sounds more magical in nature and not the kind of power you accidentally transmit. Oh, and in addition to Lord having bizarre genie powers from aliens, he also has the ability to transfer living souls into others' bodies (his to Steve's)?

Plus, the wish power is used by Diana to resurrect Steve? That makes her look terrible to be so selfish and impulsive. And Diana not only makes the huge mistake of resurrecting Steve, but she also somehow screws up by influencing Barbara to become Cheetah.

Meanwhile, none of these spoilers account for all of the set info that relates to Diana and Barbara as people who work with antiquities. Specifically, the Smithsonian as a significant setting and a flashback to an ancient time are known to be used in the film.

Maybe somehow the film makes all of this make sense. However, to me these spoilers sound so silly and nonsensical that they lack credibility.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Exactly. This has nothing to do with Diana's arc in BVS/JL. Patty Jenkins' own film starts and ends with Wonder Woman proclaiming how she used to want to save the world but doesn't anymore. She still fights and gives when she's needed, but she doesn't do it in an out and proud public superhero kind of way. Diana's story in 1918 ends with her in Trafalgar Square disconnected from mankind. It doesn't show her integrating herself into our society even as a civilian. She looks like she's about to walk away, in the wake of Steve Trevor's death. From Etta, Chief, et al.

So if Diana is shown in WW84 to be established with mankind already, well that's quite unfortunate and skips over a lot of her initial growth as a superhero. And besides the first film has narrative issues with wanting Ares to be both a red herring for mankind's dark heart and the sole cause of it.

I'm cautious of Patty Jenkins.

The bookend is all because of JL. It is why it feels so disconnected to the actual film. Look at how she talks about JL and the potential for another one. Does she sound excited by the idea of not being able to do what she likes? That is why they are perfectly fine with ignoring it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Never said she couldn't. I was just explaining my motivation since you're so determined to lie and say it's rooted in a desire to defend Snyder and the Snyderverse when it's not.

Uh huh...

This has nothing to do with Patty's vision. This has everything to do with how it relates to the rest of the Snyderverse movies. Like do you think Patty stayed up late at night thinking about how she is going to make 1984 work to hold onto the "integrity" of a bookend forced on her because of BvS and JL? I am going to go with no.

Read my words again. You claimed that I was motivated by defensiveness of Snyder, but my response focused on defending Patty's storytelling and Superman's wider mythos (i.e. outside of Snyder's canon). In addition, Batman wasn't a public superhero. He was an in-the-shadows vigilante that even Victor Stone and others thought was an urban legend. He was nothing close to a public superhero in the same way Superman was, and he certainly didn't challenge humanity to confront an existential crisis related to their religious faith and their place in the universe.

And this is exactly why I say you are defending the Snyderverse. Going with the idea that Batman wasn't a "public hero" is laughable. In world where there was at least a Robin, a Joker, a Penguin (with his own little exploding wind up penguin army) and that Batmoblie. Which, how do I put this... wasn't exactly quiet.

You know what, it totally makes sense. I am sure that Batman and the Joker had a very low key feud. It rarely made the papers. It isn't like the Joker is big on attention seeking or anything. Just like how Wonder Woman running through a mall isn't going to attraction any attention... And what about Bat signal? The two decade urban myth, had a flippin symbol they shined in the sky.

The attempts to contort all of this is insane. It was always very simple. They wanted the history of the characters to stand in for a lack of films, while coming up with half ass explanations for why it all still theoretically works. Which it never did. They even turned Barry into Wally.

Again, this is not about Snyder. Deliberately ignoring and misinterpreting what I said to repeat that baseless claim won't make it any more true. It's a strawman.

I said it was about the Snyderverse. As in the BS continuity. You are presenting the strawman by limiting it to Snyder alone, ignoring the original point. Which is the clinging to the shoddy attempts at continuity.

The idea that 1984 would be stronger being held to something so universally panned is ridiculous. People want to see Wonder Woman, be Wonder Woman. Patty clearly wants to invoke the television show, and Wonder Woman being a hero out in the world is a big part of that.

 

[Snow Queen]

And this is exactly why I say you are defending the Snyderverse. Going with the idea that Batman wasn't a "public hero" is laughable. In world where there was at least a Robin, a Joker, a Penguin (with his own little exploding wind up penguin army) and that Batmoblie. Which, how do I put this... wasn't exactly quiet.

You know what, it totally makes sense. I am sure that Batman and the Joker had a very low key feud. It rarely made the papers. It isn't like the Joker is big on attention seeking or anything. Just like how Wonder Woman running through a mall isn't going to attraction any attention... And what about Bat signal? The two decade urban myth, had a flippin symbol they shined in the sky.

I can believe the Joker exists. I can believe a Penguin-themed man who uses wind up penguins exist. I can believe a giant crocodile man roams the city. I can believe a man made of clay. I can believe a Mad Hatter-themed guy with hypnosis hats. I can believe someone controls plants. But Batman? That one's clearly not real. I mean, I know the government specifically uses him to catch their criminals for them, but...nah.