Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) Official Trailer Drops!

[j9ac9k]

Retconning BvS isn't a big deal because it was a poor creative choice anyway, and isn't the problem of Patty Jenkins because she isn't responsible for it. Snyder was and he's out. The first movie was still lining up with that portrayal I guess, but it was done in a vague way. Mainly because Jenkins and Gadot found it a poor creative choice that they disagreed with and were pretty vocal about it. So it being vague allows this movie to establish that even if she operated in secret, she never shut herself off from the world, certainly not due to Steve. And she's going to have a complicated dynamic with a female antagonist in this movie, which I do not believe we've seen much of in mainstream superhero films aside from Gamora and Nebula.

Yes, it was a poor choice lacking in forethought and it was bad characterization, but that doesn't change the fact that the choice was made, and it's how she was portrayed in BvS, JL, and the first WW.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yes, it was a poor choice lacking in forethought and it was bad characterization, but that doesn't change the fact that the choice was made, and it's how she was portrayed in BvS, JL, and the first WW.

The former two don't matter because WB is moving on from them and treating the WW franchise as it's own self contained thing anyway. Nobody in the GA will care because they liked WW and didn't care for those movies.

Within the context of the WW film series itself, the situation in the first movie is ambiguous and thusly allows this retcon (if it can be called that) to not be that intrusive and flow with it pretty naturally. Again, nobody except continuity nerds is going to care.

[j9ac9k]

The former two don't matter because WB is moving on from them and treating the WW franchise as it's own self contained thing anyway. Nobody in the GA will care because they liked WW and didn't care for those movies.

Within the context of the WW film series itself, the situation in the first movie is ambiguous and thusly allows this retcon (if it can be called that) to not be that intrusive and flow with it pretty naturally. Again, nobody except continuity nerds is going to care.

We're having two different conversations. I know they're changing it - that's not what I'm talking about. All I said was that it's how she was portrayed in those movies. Nothing that happens in the future changes that's how the character was written in those movies and at the time, that's how she was presented at the time. That's all.

[SiegePerilous02]

We're having two different conversations. I know they're changing it - that's not what I'm talking about. All I said was that it's how she was portrayed in those movies. Nothing that happens in the future changes that's how the character was written in those movies and at the time, that's how she was presented at the time. That's all.

But what I'm saying is that her being written that way in her solo film specifically is a source of contention. Not everybody came away from that film thinking she locked herself away because Steve died. You did (and maybe some incels did because they were projecting what they want onto her), but not everyone. The fact that people came away from it wondering if she really retired in between WWI and BvS/the end of her first film means it's not clear cut. And now we have an answer.

[Bunch of Coconuts]

It’s pretty obvious even in BvS that Diana didn’t lock herself completely from the world. She seems rather wealthy, after all.

But to not take it at face value when she herself claimed that she didn’t remain active as a hero... Did she, at that point, have a reason to lie?

[Agent Z]

I'm looking forward to this film and I honestly don't see how Diana retiring after World War 1 was "bad characterization" especially when BvS made it clear her decision to do so wasn't just motivated by Steve's death. In fact, I'm sure the notion that she only quit because Steve died only got into people's heads after the first WW movie. Then again, what people hate about the earlier DCEU movies and what actually happened in them are not the same thing.

[kjn]

I think basically everything said about Diana (or basically anyone else) in Batman v Superman and Justice League has to be treated as non-canon at this point. Aquaman left it to only a single reference that Justice League fought Steppenwolf.

[Guy_McNichts]

Not for nothing, but when I walked out of the first Wonder Woman movie, my impression was that she didn't walk away from mankind. Despite Steve's death, it ends on a hopeful note with Diana outright declaring to Ares mankind is worth protecting despite its flaws.

Seemed pretty clear even her first film was fudging if not ignoring BvS...which Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot later confirmed.


BTW, if incels and youtube grifters are using Wonder Woman as a prop against feminism, it has little to do with the movie or character. I guarantee they care about Wonder Woman about as much as they care about Alita: Battle Angel.

I also love that the guys who constantly bitch about Brie Larson conveniently forget that Gal Gadot said "anyone who isn't a feminist is a sexist."

But hey, grifters gotta grift.

[Jim Kelly]

There's been some revisionist history here about the first WONDER WOMAN movie--which is odd since, the movie didn't come out that long ago, you'd think we'd be able to remember back that far. The movie was hailed by women and girls all over the planet for giving them a female super-hero they could rally behind.

Not to minimise the male viewpoint--I am a male myself and there were just as many boys as girls that saw the movie--but boys get to see lots of male super-heroes on screen. When the movie came out, I was so happy with it that I watched many youtube videos from people who had seen the movie and I especially sought out female viewpoints. I understood that for a lot of them this was an important milestone in film. They saw someone like them become a super-hero. In the way this movie was shot, in the perspective of the female characters, it took into account a feminine outlook on the world.

It's fine for people to have their own opinion on a movie, but to adopt an attitude that all those female viewers were duped is patronising to them.

As for Diana's sexual interest in Steve--she's a woman who chooses what she wants to do and when she does it. She's in control. If they made her into some sort of virginal innocent that remains inviolate to the advances of men, that would play into the Madonna-whore complex that plagues female characters in male-centred movies. Diana gets to have sex on her own terms and she's not shamed for that. And this was all filmed by Jenkins in a discrete fashion that showed respect to the characters and to the actors portraying them.

[Osiris-Rex]

There's been some revisionist history here about the first WONDER WOMAN movie--which is odd since, the movie didn't come out that long ago, you'd think we'd be able to remember back that far. The movie was hailed by women and girls all over the planet for giving them a female super-hero they could rally behind.

Not to minimise the male viewpoint--I am a male myself and there were just as many boys as girls that saw the movie--but boys get to see lots of male super-heroes on screen. When the movie came out, I was so happy with it that I watched many youtube videos from people who had seen the movie and I especially sought out female viewpoints. I understood that for a lot of them this was an important milestone in film. They saw someone like them become a super-hero. In the way this movie was shot, in the perspective of the female characters, it took into account a feminine outlook on the world.

It's fine for people to have their own opinion on a movie, but to adopt an attitude that all those female viewers were duped is patronising to them.
.

Wonder Woman was the first successful comic book female superhero movie. We had Supergirl way back in 1984. As well as Elektra, Barb Wire, Sheena: Queen of the Jungle, Catwoman, Tank Girl. I guess it is hard to rally around failures.

[Sandy Hausler]

I honestly think I might prefer the swinging on lightning travel set then her having actual flight.

Its a little Spider-Many but the visual is amazing and it suits her as a athlete/amazon more so than magical flight.

What about an invisible plane?

[Sandy Hausler]

The former two don't matter because WB is moving on from them and treating the WW franchise as it's own self contained thing anyway. Nobody in the GA will care because they liked WW and didn't care for those movies.

Within the context of the WW film series itself, the situation in the first movie is ambiguous and thusly allows this retcon (if it can be called that) to not be that intrusive and flow with it pretty naturally. Again, nobody except continuity nerds is going to care.

I, thankfully, don't remember much about BvS. What exactly was inconsistent?

[SiegePerilous02]

I, thankfully, don't remember much about BvS. What exactly was inconsistent?

Her line with Bruce at Clark's funeral implies she turned her back on humanity because they "made it impossible to stand together."
Thankfully it was rather ambiguous to start with, and the ending of her first film was as well, so this one having her still be active without any reservations (even if she largely operates in secret) works.

[Totoro Man]

We're having two different conversations. I know they're changing it - that's not what I'm talking about. All I said was that it's how she was portrayed in those movies. Nothing that happens in the future changes that's how the character was written in those movies and at the time, that's how she was presented at the time. That's all.

so what does this mean? does it mean that if people try to engage your ideas about the film with arguments and references to the actual narrative of the film that you're going to ignore them? if these arguments don't support your line of reasoning and interpretation of the first WW film then they're not having the same 'conversation'?

this makes it look as though you are incapable of, or unwilling to, dispute ANY of the perfectly valid counter-arguments that have been made by SiegePerilous02's and others.

look, you're entitled to your opinion about the film. but when you respond to lengthy arguments from other people that actually reference the film and then say "I'm just talking about how she was presented"... it looks like your copping out. it looks like you can't even be bothered to actually defend your declared position.

so the first Wonder Woman film wasn't as confrontational or as revolutionary as you felt it should be.... big deal? I don't see why a superhero(ine) period piece would NEED to confront the present day 'patriarchy'. but, if you feel that's necessary then you can always go out and watch other movies instead. maybe you would like "Mad Max: Fury Road" or "Terminator: Dark Fate" instead? or perhaps you'd prefer the pseudo-historical speculations of "Agora" or "the Favorite"? (Hollywood is typically very, VERY bad with history!)

it just seems like you're setting up an ideological strawman by which to judge the Wonder Woman film. and you're judging it unfairly by standards that it never intended to live up to in the first place. it's like people ridiculing James Cameron's "Aliens" as being a right-wing patriarchal response to the subtle feminist and sexual themes of Ridley Scott's "Alien". true story: people have declared that "Aliens" was the reaction of angry right-wing man children to the threat presented to them by "Alien". even though Cameron has been vegan for ages now... and would fit neatly into the typical Hollywood liberal puzzle.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Wonder Woman 1984 - Official Main Trailer