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

Van Bur3n

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
12,918
It’s a sequel that does not want to be called a sequel, so we’ve come up with a new world: basequat.
 

jesu

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,454
UK
It's totally a sequel.
Just not continuing the immediate story after the first one.
 

Wally_Wall

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,062
Ok, I love DC and WW but this is just stupid. Not a sequel but all the characters from the previous film are in it? Are we supposed to disregard everything that happened?
 

Htown

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,277
it's not a sequel, it's <DEFINITION OF A SEQUEL>

oookay

also it's super weird how they're trying so hard to distance it from the first one considering how much of a success it was
 

ZeoVGM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,804
Providence / Boston
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.




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
You're reading into it too much. It is a sequel.

Steve isn't randomly going to just be alive. There's going to be a reason why he is back.
 

Star-Lord

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,054
But it had Steve coming back.... and gal gadot is back as wonder woman from the previous wonder woman movie.... totally not a sequel
 

UraMallas

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,649
Iowa
it's not a sequel, it's <DEFINITION OF A SEQUEL>

oookay

also it's super weird how they're trying so hard to distance it from the first one considering how much of a success it was
I loved the first one so them telling me it isn't going to be like the first one makes me less interested in this.
 

wenis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,393
So I shouldn’t expect to see BvS, Justice League and the First Wonder Woman come back to theaters for one of those special “catch up for the new one” special showings then....

Ya know? For the rich DC film history.
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,598
I think what they mean is it's not a sequel in that it picks up right after the last one or touches on the same themes. Basically, don't expect more of the same.

The wording is dumb because it's obviously a sequel, but I kind of get what they're trying to say.
 

Fat4all

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,880
bork land
ok, picture a spiritual sequel

except some locations might get revisited

and some actors will be cast in their original roles

call it a spiritual squeakquel
 

Mona

Member
Oct 30, 2017
15,347
i cant for the life of me understand why they're making this seem so complicated
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,224
I...... I dont care, this is the best thing smoking in the DCEU. So fuck it, Im on board regardless.
 

mordecaii83

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
1,148
So uh... why are they trying to distance from the original film? Better yet, does anyone at DC have any idea what they're doing? I was interested in the film, but everything I've heard about it is so confusing that it will take a lot to get me in a theater to see it at this point...
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,598
The original Wonder Woman sits in a weird place for the DC films because it was a well received movie sandwiched in between a couple poorly received ones. With Shazam and Aquaman clearly being positioned as the start of the "New DCEU" as it were, I can see them feeling like they have to try and distance WW84 from what came before. Even it that includes its own prequel. Especially when people aren't quite ready to be receptive to DC's films again (look how quickly people started breaking out the old "they don't know what they're doing!" posts in here over a bad interview).

I do think it's a bit silly, though. People liked the first Wonder Woman. Just lean into that and ignore the movies that surrounded it.
 
Last edited:

CDX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
910
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.”
Yeah the Indiana Jones movies are sequels.

I don't know why they don't want to call it a sequel. If it's like the Indiana Jones movies then WW84 IS a sequel.
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,063
Yeah the Indiana Jones movies are sequels.

I don't know why they don't want to call it a sequel. If it's like the Indiana Jones movies then WW84 IS a sequel.
Temple of Doom is completely standalone, it could be watched before Raiders.

There is almost nothing that attaches it to Raiders.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,861
“With different tv and movie universes and us rebooting everything ever 5 years, who gives a shit about continuity?”

DC reboots there comic universe so much why not do the same with the movies.

Besides better to distance themselves from all the grim dark shit
 

€pcott

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,058
US, East Coast
Makes me wonder how Winter Soldier would be with the same reasoning: Cap just walking around 50 years later with Bucky in casual clothes... like nothing happened, talking about cell phones and Youtube... just an unrelated adventure fighting Serpent Society.

That’s just weird
 

hoju

Member
Oct 25, 2017
526
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.
What the...