• 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

Oct 25, 2017
6,164
#57
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.
Far as I'm concerned, there is no DCEU anymore. Just stand alone films where you might get a cameo from time to time.
 
Oct 26, 2017
939
#61
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?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,430
#63
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
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,642
Providence / Boston
#64
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.
 
Oct 25, 2017
673
#65
But it had Steve coming back.... and gal gadot is back as wonder woman from the previous wonder woman movie.... totally not a sequel
 
Nov 1, 2017
1,616
Iowa
#66
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.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,533
#67
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.
 
Nov 15, 2017
1,223
#70
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
17,031
bork land
#71
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
 
Oct 28, 2017
870
#75
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...
 
Nov 15, 2017
1,223
#81
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
684
#84
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.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,984
#85
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.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,265
#86
“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
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,984
#90
That's because it's a prequel to Raiders.
Most people aren't even aware of that. There is nothing that makes Doom a prequel, aside from a blink and you'll miss it time date at the start of the opening credits.

It's deliberately done so because that's how the 30's adventure serial was
 
Oct 25, 2017
892
US, East Coast
#93
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
 
Oct 25, 2017
396
#99
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...