The First Wonder Woman Movie To Be Set In The 1920s, And Its Sequel During World War II

[toastedbread]

All that said, I should add I don't want to be preached at by a WW movie anymore than most others would, but clever writing can show bigoted attitudes and Diana's reaction to them without beating the audience over the head. There's a way to include a girl-power theme without preaching.

Indeed. I suppose what I'm afraid of is that a modern-era film engaging with feminism that was well-written and not-preachy might still be perceived as preachy by some because it's an emotive issue, and that a poorly written film dealing with those same issues would just be flat out preachy and terrible. But the historical period might give needed space to some who would otherwise feel it was a personal attack, in the case of something well-written, or at least provide a narrative conceit as damage control in the case of something badly written.

(And Darius - glad you liked it, thank you!)

[Top Carnivore]

Indeed. I suppose what I'm afraid of is that a modern-era film engaging with feminism that was well-written and not-preachy might still be perceived as preachy by some because it's an emotive issue, and that a poorly written film dealing with those same issues would just be flat out preachy and terrible. But the historical period might give needed space to some who would otherwise feel it was a personal attack, in the case of something well-written, or at least provide a narrative conceit as damage control in the case of something badly written.

(And Darius - glad you liked it, thank you!)

True. And it's too bad some might view a feminism theme--poorly of cleverly written--as a personal attack. It just isn't. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that women have been treated unfairly, and still are today. Of course, it's men who put that system in place, and enforced it and some men clung to it desperately as women gained more and more much-deserved rights. We cannot bury the truth. Yet again, I seriously doubt a WW movie is gonna be about preaching brimstone and fire. True feminism isn't male-bashing or taking away men's rights or belittling them. It's about giving women an equal seat at the table. Unfortunately some men feel threatened by this.

(Of course watch me be wrong and WW will be on a rampage murdering men left and right, decapitaing guys with her nifty sword until only women--and sperm banks--exist. Lol!)

[aegisbearer]

Assuming this will come to pass:

A WW 2 movie seems like a logical starting off point for obvious reasons (just check WW's history) with a modern movie as a sequel. Going from the 1920s (more on that in a moment) and then into the 1940s means it'll be years before we really see a stand-alone Wonder Woman movie in a modern context.

The 1920s brings in suffrage and prohibition, and even an upsurge with the KKK, among other issues. Is there really a conflict on a larger scale in the 20s where Diana could make a difference? This time period also means new villains or complete re-imaginings of traditional ones: we might see a flapper-esque Cheetah, a speakeasy run by a Circe-like character, or a mob-boss Ares, for example. Although that's an intriguing idea, it puts more effort into world-building than should be necessary. Wonder Woman has plenty of rogues that could be used: Paula von Gunther, Ares, Cheetah, Silver Swan, Circe, the original Doctor Cyber, to name just a few. I feel like the 1920s is an arbitrary time period to start with where the 1940s has a seated history for Diana. Her first movie should seem familiar yet tweaked.

I feel like the desire to be edgy has pushed this idea out there. With such a rich history for Diana, I just don't understand the need to shake things up so much. I think the reason people don't seem to like her earlier rogues galleries (Blue Snowman, Hypnota, Eviless, Osira, etc.) is because no one has really tried to do them justice so they're stuck in the past.

[Top Carnivore]

Assuming this will come to pass:

A WW 2 movie seems like a logical starting off point for obvious reasons (just check WW's history) with a modern movie as a sequel. Going from the 1920s (more on that in a moment) and then into the 1940s means it'll be years before we really see a stand-alone Wonder Woman movie in a modern context.

The 1920s brings in suffrage and prohibition, and even an upsurge with the KKK, among other issues. Is there really a conflict on a larger scale in the 20s where Diana could make a difference? This time period also means new villains or complete re-imaginings of traditional ones: we might see a flapper-esque Cheetah, a speakeasy run by a Circe-like character, or a mob-boss Ares, for example. Although that's an intriguing idea, it puts more effort into world-building than should be necessary. Wonder Woman has plenty of rogues that could be used: Paula von Gunther, Ares, Cheetah, Silver Swan, Circe, the original Doctor Cyber, to name just a few. I feel like the 1920s is an arbitrary time period to start with where the 1940s has a seated history for Diana. Her first movie should seem familiar yet tweaked.

I feel like the desire to be edgy has pushed this idea out there. With such a rich history for Diana, I just don't understand the need to shake things up so much. I think the reason people don't seem to like her earlier rogues galleries (Blue Snowman, Hypnota, Eviless, Osira, etc.) is because no one has really tried to do them justice so they're stuck in the past.

1920s seemed random to me too. If this rumor is true, it means a writer or creative team pitched a unique enough concept to win over Diane Nelson and the relatively new CEO of WB. I'm liking it more and more because no modern superhero movie has been set in this time period. No one can ever cry that DC is copying anybody. Fans want originality, well this is what it looks like. Plus, if the first half focuses on Themyscira--Amazon culture, politics, royal hierarchy, daily/nightly life, romance, hunting, battle training, spirituality (I hope to see Diana praying under moonlight in the nude, not because of sexual reasons but because the panel was so beautiful in the book). Etc., etc. Exploring Themyscira beyond a few obligatory scenes is a WW fans dream come true. At least it is for me.

Then when she gets to man's world at some point in the 1920s, I hope she sees the seeds of World War 2 being planted (by Ares) and her mission, among other goals, is to stop the next World War. Which she doesn't, of course and then in sequel she's trying to end the new war, fighting Nazis. And not just any Nazis but hopefully, as someone mentioned on another forum, make it Zombie Nazis reanimated by Hades via a pact Hitler made with Ares. In fact, Hitler is probably Ares favorite acolyte.

So much promise!

[Lax]

Couple of deletions, so let's take it back a step.

Keep the snark and the personal commentary out of the discussion.

I appreciate your restraint, in return I'll exercise some of my own.

Okay, I'm uncomfortable leaving Lax's comment stating that feminism is about how evil men are without rebuttal. But apparently my response was inappropriate. I guess it could have been called snarky in the mildest terms, but I'm going to guess that it was taken as more personal than I intended. I apologise for that.

One of my responses was deleted as well, neither of us were being singled out.

So let me try this again with appropriate context and framing:

Feminism is not about how evil men are. I know that this is a common misconception, but it is not the case.

And in what I genuinely do not intend as a personal attack, I think that however you come down on the issue of feminism and its wider purpose, Lax's post proves my wider point: feminism is a highly emotive issue that provokes a lot of angry or dismissive attitudes. We can argue over whether they are warranted, but I don't think we can argue over the fact that it happens. This is why I feel dealing with it in a historical context, such as the 1920s, might give more space and detachment and allow more people to watch without feeling judged.

Likewise I don't intend this as a personal attack, but it's quite a challenge to explain why I don't like something without getting into the reasons for why that is. Out of consideration for the mod we're putting aside the argument of "why" and simply acknowledging that the controversy exists? Fair enough, I'll use an analogy as a buffer.

One of the reasons people offer for not liking this film being set in the 1940's is that the topic of WWII has been done to death. Captain America did it, Magneto's back-story revolves around it, they even made Hannibal Lector the victim of Nazis as a child. World War II has been dead for almost 70 years and people in the present are tired of hearing about it.

Now imagine if World War II were still being fought during these past 70 years, showed zero signs of ever stopping, and the people of today have started to grow disenchanted with the war itself.

A studio with an immortal character decides the best time period for that character's first solo movie is to be set during the 1940's because that's where the war really kicked off. Those who are in favor of the war, then and now, will naturally appreciate the studio's decision because they're the target demographic and hope that taking a step back and viewing the war through a historical lens will allow others to enjoy the movie in spite of it's inevitably Pro-WWII message.

Those who have grown disenchanted with the war that shows no signs of stopping will see the studio's choice of time period as subtle or not-so-subtle use of propaganda. An attempt to remind us of the noble reasons it started and by extension a tool that will be used as support for why it's still noble today. Ultimately we live in the present and nostalgia only goes so far.

If some fans find relief in the avoidance of a long-dead World War II simply because of it's over-the-top prevalence in fiction, others will find annoyance at the focus of an ever-living "World War II" because of it's over-the-top prevalence in the real world.

[RealWonderman]

1920s seemed random to me too. If this rumor is true, it means a writer or creative team pitched a unique enough concept to win over Diane Nelson and the relatively new CEO of WB. I'm liking it more and more because no modern superhero movie has been set in this time period. No one can ever cry that DC is copying anybody. Fans want originality, well this is what it looks like. Plus, if the first half focuses on Themyscira--Amazon culture, politics, royal hierarchy, daily/nightly life, romance, hunting, battle training, spirituality (I hope to see Diana praying under moonlight in the nude, not because of sexual reasons but because the panel was so beautiful in the book). Etc., etc. Exploring Themyscira beyond a few obligatory scenes is a WW fans dream come true. At least it is for me.

Then when she gets to man's world at some point in the 1920s, I hope she sees the seeds of World War 2 being planted (by Ares) and her mission, among other goals, is to stop the next World War. Which she doesn't, of course and then in sequel she's trying to end the new war, fighting Nazis. And not just any Nazis but hopefully, as someone mentioned on another forum, make it Zombie Nazis reanimated by Hades via a pact Hitler made with Ares. In fact, Hitler is probably Ares favorite acolyte.

So much promise!

LOTS of yes in here!!!!!!

[toastedbread]

One of my responses was deleted as well, neither of us were being singled out.

I wasn't implying that one was. Because a mod stepped in my first instinct was to question whether I really needed to step back into the discussion. I decided yes because it's an issue that's important to me and I was uncomfortable with the last statement being an unchallenged assertion that feminism was anti-men, directly in response to something I'd said. By not responding, I was worried it wouldn't be clear that I fundamentally disagreed. I don't expect to change your mind, but making the statement was important to me.

I don't feel there's anything else useful I can add to this discussion. I do think your analogy is slightly ill-chosen; if you want to make a statement about people growing disillusioned with the moral righteousness of a conflict and questioning why they're fighting it, I'm not sure Nazis - one of the most clear cut examples of terribleness in recent history - is a great go-to? Plus it's getting into Godwin's Law territory? But that's ultimately not the core issue - even if you chose a different analogy you're essentially just reasserting your position on feminism: one I'm already aware of and already strongly disagree with.

So yeah. Without much else to say, my intention now is to let this lie. Although I hope, when the film does come out, you enjoy it as much as I hope I do.

[misslane]

Indeed. I suppose what I'm afraid of is that a modern-era film engaging with feminism that was well-written and not-preachy might still be perceived as preachy by some because it's an emotive issue, and that a poorly written film dealing with those same issues would just be flat out preachy and terrible. But the historical period might give needed space to some who would otherwise feel it was a personal attack, in the case of something well-written, or at least provide a narrative conceit as damage control in the case of something badly written.

(And Darius - glad you liked it, thank you!)

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of making feminism more palatable by placing a Wonder Woman film during a time so audience's from a later era can pat themselves on the back for a job well done when there's still so much work to do. It seems toothless. If modern feminism and feminist issues makes sexists or people with privilege uncomfortable, then good. Let it. Nonetheless, I can maybe be okay with it if it's something that is executed with a lot of care and with clear nods and relevance to contemporary issues.

[AmiMizuno]

But Diana was made to e a feminist iconic the best way is to show it by action but we still not some liners of gender equality we shouldn't be to a fear of letting the feminist be in Wonder Woman how we should do it is other.

[toastedbread]

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of making feminism more palatable by placing a Wonder Woman film during a time so audience's from a later era can pat themselves on the back for a job well done when there's still so much work to do. It seems toothless. If modern feminism and feminist issues makes sexists or people with privilege uncomfortable, then good. Let it. Nonetheless, I can maybe be okay with it if it's something that is executed with a lot of care and with clear nods and relevance to contemporary issues.

I 100% appreciate your point. This is a position I hold largely out of cynicism and it does not make me feel great.

Saying, "if this makes you feel uncomfortable, good!" is emotionally satisfying, but if it just results in people reflexively shutting down or getting aggressively negative, I'm not sure what's been gained (beyond the personal catharsis of refusing to engage with that particular narrative, which I don't mean to dismiss, but we're dealing with a movie that's bigger than any individual). Is it fair that the burden of opening dialogue or of compromising or educating falls to people who are already also dealing with the negative effects of the situation in the first place? No, of course it's not. But...but practically, at a certain point you have to define your goals.

The world is fundamentally messed up when it comes to gender. Either Wonder Woman, as a movie, chooses not to engage with that, or it does, and then it has to deal with the all the social pitfalls that entails. Including people who need handholding and distance so as not to get angry and switch off.

Do we need those people? I guess...I kinda think yeah. Both specifically if we want the movie to be successful, and also globally if we want the world to get better.

It's not any one person's job to educate sexists about being sexist, but equally, if no one does, how will things ever get better?

But to clarify - it was never my intention to suggest that the 20s would be good because it would let people unfairly pat themselves on the back. I feel like if it's written well, it'll be a safer way to open an ongoing dialogue, and if it's written poorly (which I think there's a HUGE chance of) it may be...less cringeworthy. If we're very lucky it'll deflect some of the worst hate-trolling you know the film's gonna get if it so much as mentions the "f-word" explicitly.

However.

The fact I'm discussing this in terms of compromise and managed expectations is a sad thing. I am (very un)happy to admit that my position is one borne out of cynical pragmatism.

I think the 20s era is a good idea because it's a setting that I believe can sustain these compromises while still offering a higher chance of turning out something of genuine thoughtfulness and quality than many of the other options (including setting it in the modern day).

But...it is what it is. It's not idealistic. I get why you don't like it.

(I do unironically want Wonder Woman driving a stock car and hanging out in speakeasies, though.)

[misslane]

The fact I'm discussing this in terms of compromise and managed expectations is a sad thing. I am (very un)happy to admit that my position is one borne out of cynical pragmatism.

I think the 20s era is a good idea because it's a setting that I believe can sustain these compromises while still offering a higher chance of turning out something of genuine thoughtfulness and quality than many of the other options (including setting it in the modern day).

But...it is what it is. It's not idealistic. I get why you don't like it.

(I do unironically want Wonder Woman driving a stock car and hanging out in speakeasies, though.)

I appreciate your perspective as well and apologize if I projected my frustration with the potential need for the film to compromise onto you when obviously you're not one who would want such a thing if all things were in a more ideal position. In addition, I'm pleased to say that despite my reservations I am genuinely excited by the prospect of a period piece; they're a favorite of mine. I do worry, however, that if the rumor is true and the films go from the 1920s, to the 1940s, to modern day that there will be little stability in terms of Diana's supporting cast. She'll either come and go from these time periods (and the people in them) or stick around while they age. By the time the rumored third film premieres, will anyone from Man's World in the first film or even second be relevant? I imagine any Amazons can remain part of a stable supporting cast, though, which is a plus.

[Silvanus]

Assuming this will come to pass:

A WW 2 movie seems like a logical starting off point for obvious reasons (just check WW's history) with a modern movie as a sequel. Going from the 1920s (more on that in a moment) and then into the 1940s means it'll be years before we really see a stand-alone Wonder Woman movie in a modern context.

The 1920s brings in suffrage and prohibition, and even an upsurge with the KKK, among other issues. Is there really a conflict on a larger scale in the 20s where Diana could make a difference?

It could be a fictional conflict, but perhaps one tied to history; for example, maybe World War I disturbed or empowered some ancient evil. Maybe there's a backlash against suffragism, and enraged sexist men have turned to spirtualism to invoke some terrible masculine force to protect them against the supposed tyranny of women.

This time period also means new villains or complete re-imaginings of traditional ones: we might see a flapper-esque Cheetah, a speakeasy run by a Circe-like character, or a mob-boss Ares, for example. Although that's an intriguing idea, it puts more effort into world-building than should be necessary.

This all sounds great to me. Dr. Psycho could be a good fit too, since the idea for him seems to have come from Marston's dislike for psychoanalysts around that time period (as mentioned in the new book by Lepore). The Baroness could be a proto-nazi who's reacting against Germany's loss in the Great War by invoking old German gods and dominating people in their name.

[Lax]

So yeah. Without much else to say, my intention now is to let this lie. Although I hope, when the film does come out, you enjoy it as much as I hope I do.

Well, for whatever it's worth, I hope my suspicions prove false.

[toastedbread]

I appreciate your perspective as well and apologize if I projected my frustration with the potential need for the film to compromise onto you when obviously you're not one who would want such a thing if all things were in a more ideal position.

Nah, dude, we're cool and I understood what you were saying. You were making a valid point.

[daBronzeBomma]

I guess, aside from my ingrained dislike of prequels, it bothers me that if they go this route (WondySoloMovie1 = 1920s, WondySoloMovie2 = 1940s, WondySoloMovie3 = 2020s) that two out of her three movies are likely automatically preordained; and it also means Wonder Woman's early heroics left no public reminder (or else no one would have been gasping as Superman's public debut in MAN OF STEEL) in the DCCU.

It's like her first two future movies already don't matter. Wonder Woman's place is not confined to the past, but free in the here and now.

And I never bought Wonder Woman as the secret agent type (not with that particular costume nor that particular power/skill set).

This all just feels ... wrong.