• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

WONDER WOMAN 1984 Is Not A Sequel And Will Be A Standalone Adventure

Cpt-GargameL

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,324
#1
We have had a few threads on this topic a lone I believe but now we have official confirmation as to what this movie actually is.

But Wonder Woman 1984 producer Charles Roven — the veteran producer behind Justice League, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad, the Dark Knight trilogy and, yes, Wonder Woman — would like those fans to know that they are wrong. Wonder Woman 1984 is by no means a sequel to the previous Wonder Woman installment. And according to him, Jenkins herself would like to avoid any perception of the S word. “She was just determined that this movie should be the next iteration of Wonder Woman but not a sequel,” Roven tells Vulture. “And she’s definitely delivering on that. It’s a completely different time frame and you’ll get a sense of what Diana-slash–Wonder Woman had been doing in the intervening years. But it’s a completely different story that we’re telling. Even though it’ll have a lot of the same emotional things, a lot of humor, a lot of brave action. Tugs at the heart strings as well.”

In essence, its a good excuse to use and bring back Steve Trevor and potentially keep him alive (depending if his character survives this movie) for future movies and completely retcon BvS.

SOURCE
 

Serene

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,437
#5
does anyone at wb, like, talk to each other ever or do they all just make new directions up every day
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,869
#9
...you’ll get a sense of what Diana-slash–Wonder Woman had been doing in the intervening years.

What do they think a sequel is exactly? Just because it takes place decades later, doesn't make it not a sequel.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,860
#11
“It’s a completely different time frame and you’ll get a sense of what Diana-slash–Wonder Woman had been doing in the intervening years.”

So it’s a sequel with a time skip.
 
OP
OP
Cpt-GargameL

Cpt-GargameL

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,324
#12
So that's why Steve is alive, because the first film never happened and not magic or something?
Basically. It's like a way for them to play it safe with Wonder Woman. I hope it stops with this movie and they continue on the usual normal tragectory of these films.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,996
#13
"it's not a sequel because it's set in a completely different time frame"

You do not understand what the word "sequel" means lol. It's a fucking sequel. Stop with your marketing BS.
 
Nov 18, 2018
592
#18
I assume the DCEU going forward is going to be a New52 type deal where some parts are rebooted and some parts aren't, and no one knows what the fuck is happening.
 
OP
OP
Cpt-GargameL

Cpt-GargameL

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,324
#20
I don't get how it's not a sequel. So the things that happen in the first film didn't happen for this film then? They're ignoring it all?
They're cherry picking. Only selecting which parts are mentioned/remembered and then telling a completely new story, just so that they can use Steve Trevor it seems. Otherwise I see no reason why they're doing this.

It's like they want to continue making standalones and barely have them connected as a way to play it safe.
 
Nov 3, 2017
3,207
#21
Because if there's one thing audiences can't stand these days, it's sequels.

Good god, WB.
First move is 1918, second movie is 1984, somehow lets make it a direct sequel, lol come on, 66 years between movies many the people she interacted with in WW1 is DEAD..
 
Oct 27, 2017
170
#22
I don't get how it's not a sequel. So the things that happen in the first film didn't happen for this film then? They're ignoring it all?
Jenkins does indeed envision this latest Wonder Woman installment as a strike against sequelitis: “It’s a stand-alone film in the same way that Indiana Jones or Bond films are, instead of one continuous story that requires many installments.”
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,935
#24
Think this might be a better quote

a source close to the director told Vulture that Jenkins does indeed envision this latest Wonder Woman installment as a strike against sequelitis: “It’s a stand-alone film in the same way that Indiana Jones or Bond films are, instead of one continuous story that requires many installments.”
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,622
#27
I don't get how it's not a sequel. So the things that happen in the first film didn't happen for this film then? They're ignoring it all?
They're just saying it's a completely standalone story and premise in a new setting, rather than continuing the conflict from the first movie. Considering how they specifically reference what Wonder Woman has been doing between the movies, they're still in continuity with each other. Of course, I don't get how even that wold be possible with them bringing back Steve Trevor. His death has to be acknowledged here.
 
Oct 25, 2017
933
Mexico City
#28
How could it be a sequel when all it is is a movie that thells the story of Diana after the first movie in a consequent timeframe with the same actors and in the same spirit as the previous installment?
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,840
#31
Chris Pine really helped carry the first film but still kinda strange to just not go with someone else. I guess they feel it's too good to pass up and could do better with another go considering the dumpster fire of the early DC universe so no big deal. I do like just make a good film instead of connecting it, they can do ensemble films later.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,577
#32
How does DC not understand that half of the appeal of MCU is the fact that everything exists in the same timeline?

We want sequels. We want to see how all these different movies are connected.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,775
#34
First move is 1918, second movie is 1984, somehow lets make it a direct sequel, lol come on, 66 years between movies many the people she interacted with in WW1 is DEAD..
It's... It's still a sequel. A sequel doesn't mean it needs to take place right after the first story. There can be gaps in time.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,064
Chicago
#35
It’s not a sequel guys.

Yes, there will be allusions to the previous film. Yes, a character central to the first film will be ressurected which will assuredly require an explanation of how he survived the events in the first film. Yes, the actors are the same. Yes, the events that occurred previously still matter and will have informed these characters. Yes, there will be a consistent throughline in tone. Yes, there will scenes showcasing the events that occurred between the previous film and this new one.

Hey though... this isn’t a sequel.
 

gdt

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,032
#40
My guys this is just marketing gibberish so people feel they can hop right into this movie.

They aren't ignoring the last one.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,935
#41
How does DC not understand that half of the appeal of MCU is the fact that it's an interconnected universe?
I think they understood that, which is why they rushed together a sloppy interconnected universe. They didn't have a Kevin Feige visionary, they had Snyder and it bit them in the ass. But after Wonder Woman and Aquaman have been successful with very minor connective tissue to the larger universe, they seem to have decided to just get talented directors and let them do what they want, even if it has no larger connection to a shared universe.

It's probably cheaper too.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,334
#43
So do they not know what a sequel is?
or do i not know what a sequel is?



Edit - Also, what kid of journalist starts a PARAGRAPH with the word "BUT"

Consider me rustled at the this whole thing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,196
France
#45
What they mean is, if you didn't watch the first film and/or if you aren't even a DCEU fan, you should still totally go see this new film because it will be great and all, and if you're a DCEU fan who care about canon and continuity and whatnot, the first film is still canon and you should totally go see this new film and stuff. Basically what they are saying is their film is awesome and you should totally go see it and give them money whatever you are and whoever you are.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,687
#47
I don't know why they're being so weird about this.

It's the second Wonder Woman movie, it takes place in the time line after the first one, it's a sequel.

There are even pics with Chris Pine's character somehow being back and in the 80's.

Even if he's an illusion or clone or something it's still a direct callback to a character in the previous movie.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,577
#48
I think they understood that, which is why they rushed together a sloppy interconnected universe. They didn't have a Kevin Feige visionary, they had Snyder and it bit them in the ass. But after Wonder Woman and Aquaman have been successful with very minor connective tissue to the larger universe, they seem to have decided to just get talented directors and let them do what they want, even if it has no larger connection to a universe.
So exactly the opposite of what most people want then. =/

Reading about all these different joker movies, the new Batman, how they might be rebooting Suicide Squad... like, I don't even want to waste my time. There's nothing to get invested in if it's just a bunch of standalone movies.