• 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
6,507
Honestly if the movies are good I doubt people would care. And don’t comic books do that all the time? Different authors having different interpretations and such? And what Marvel did with their movies has paid off, Feige is a genius. But the idea that one offcomic book movie is a waste of time because there won’t be a sequel or whatever is insane to me. A good movie is a good movie
Comics definitely do that, they’re a damn mess lol. Another thing I love about the MCU, it distills everything down to a single continuity. You don’t need to look up a reading order to understand what the hell is going on. Just watch the movies in the order they came out. Simple.

And while it’s true that a good movie is a good movie, it’s also true that a good superhero movie in a 20-movie series that has little winks and nods to other movies in that series is more enjoyable to me. It just is, I dunno what else to say. In 2019 I have way less motivation to see a cape movie that isn’t connected to anything else.

The frustrating thing is that there is no reason that DC couldn’t have the exact same thing going for it. Hell it could be even better, since WB actually has all of the rights to their A-listers. Batman and Superman are fucking monstrous properties, the cinematic universe could be legendary. But nooo, now we’re back to just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Fucking hell.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,470
I don't understand why they keep harping on this "it's not actually a sequel" thing. Just because it's not Wonder Woman Part II doesn't mean it's not a sequel.

It's the next movie in the Wonder Woman franchise. It's a sequel!
 
Oct 27, 2017
457
WA, USA
Some filmmakers are really fucking weird. They get something in their heads about the meaning behind their creative vision or whatever and then say shit like this. This is the sort of stuff you should keep to yourself or wait until an audio commentary or something.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,128
It's a sequel. It takes place after the first movie. The first movie didn't just not happen. Technically all the DCEU has happened they just want to forget the bad ones (impossible). So unless he is saying the approach is to not produce the movie with the thought "this is a sequel", I guess.

Dude, it's a sequel.
 
Jan 10, 2018
3,051
I would’ve enjoyed BvS more if it took place in TDK timeline though. I also would’ve enjoyed seeing Harvry Dent have some sort of cameo in MoS. TDK was also pre-Avengers.

Again, obviously, superhero movies can be fine as solo films. They’re just more interesting when they’re part of a larger universe.

I feel like you’re trolling me right now. The MCU is as popular as it is because it’s an interconnected universe. Period. That’s, like, half the point of it.


It’d be fine if they weren’t making multiple Joker movies with different actors and rebooting stuff like Suicide Squad so soon after the original. That’s just putting comic book level timeline complexity into movies. I’m a nerd and even I can’t be bothered with that shit.

What they should’ve done before is wipe everything and start fresh with an actual vision. Or just salvage the DCEU. It wasn’t irreparable, early MCU had some stinkers too. This new approach is just bogus.

The amount of MCU movies which are considered more interesting than Dark Knight are still extremely low, aren't they?

I really don't get how what happened before doesn't matter is so confusing.

You survived 4 Spidermen just fine.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,372
Indonesia
The only question is Trevor, if the movie ignore the first one and treat Trevor as if he never died, or this is WW first meeting with Trevor, again, than that would be really weird and confusing.
 
Oct 27, 2017
711
I'm all for making stand alone movies.. but this is so stupid (assuming Chris Pine is alive and they're simply ignoring the fact that he's dead)
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,721
Kind of a weird approach when it has the same characters.

I get they want to tell a different story without having to be bound with tying to the first film or BvS, but this is a surprising approach to that.

What other film franchise keeps most elements the same but makes an effort for it to just be another stand alone movie than a sequel? The Bond films?

It's going to be really weird to see Steve Trevor alive in a completely different decade with no acknowledgement of that discrepency. It will be like the Fox X-Men movies.
 
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?
I'm going to assume that this will be a soft reboot. That everything that happened in the first Wonder Woman movie will still have happened, but certain details will be changed.

Like, Batman vs Superman kinda forced Steve Trevor to be in WW1 so they went with that in the first Wonder Woman movie but, in the not-a-sequel-but-totally-a-sequel, maybe they'll change it so it was Steve's grandfather instead and he just looks like him.

I'm going to assume, as well, that they'll change what happened with the gods. The idea that Ares was the only god alive kinda sucks, so maybe they'll change it so she still fought Ares in WW1 but he never wiped out all the others thousands of years prior to the movie.

Plus if Poseidon is still around you can use that in an Aquaman sequel and maybe even have Wonder Woman in it too.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,340
A weird interpretation of sequel. I mean it can be a separate story but still a sequel provided it is a continuation of some sort, in this case of the character herself.

So that's why Steve is alive, because the first film never happened and not magic or something?
That doesn't seem to be the case. They mention "intervening years" so this is a sequel, just one that doesn't involve a continuation of the previous story.
 
Oct 27, 2017
163
Good

Make all DC films standalone and have nothing to do with one another.

Just focus on making fun movies
 
Last edited:
Dec 4, 2018
974
If there's one director that earned 100% of my trust it's Patty Jenkins. The first movie is the closest we've ever gotten to the Nolan films in recent times. She can whatever she wants, it's probably gonna be awesome.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,618
are they trying to distance themselves from the MCU? Because lots of movies are sequels (I.e. have characters from previous movies and exist in the same ‘universe’) without being a direct continuation - lik Indiana Jones etc.

It’s only really recent years and specifically MCU that is doing any particular sense of continuity.

So in comparison to MCU it’s not the same, but in every real sense of the term it’s a sequel.
 

WaffleTaco

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,609
This sounds really dumb. Like maybe the first Wonder Woman was a fluke. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but good lord, this and that Steve Trevor is coming back is just so bizarre.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,505
Unless he means it's completely stand alone from the previous one, as in: the events of that film did not happen in this one, it's still a sequel.

Hell, even if they did scrap everything from WW1, it's technically still a sequel
 
OP
OP
Cpt-GargameL
Oct 27, 2017
1,293
This sounds really dumb. Like maybe the first Wonder Woman was a fluke. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but good lord, this and that Steve Trevor is coming back is just so bizarre.
Maybe it's an excuse to just bring Steve Trevor back since people liked him so much so making this "a new take" on Wonder Woman is a way to bring back Steve Trevor and potentially not kill him in this new movie in order to continue using him? Idk just thinking.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,213
This sounds really dumb. Like maybe the first Wonder Woman was a fluke. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but good lord, this and that Steve Trevor is coming back is just so bizarre.

Gonna be realm funny when’s loki is in Thor 4 and Killmonger is in BP 2.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,306
United Kingdom
Like the DCEU needs anymore complications, Aquaman got the ship back on course, don't start doing weird shit and fuck it up again.

I'm hoping it's just them trying to make it sound like something different, but really it will still be a sequel, just with it's own storyline, at a different point in time.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,961
If they mean it doesn't follow directly from the original's story of WWI monsters, but it's still in the same universe and Diana and Steve are still there, that's a sequel. If it's literally disconnected from all previous DCEU films, then they have themselves an Evil Dead2 situation where that gets murkier
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,121
Ohio
I'll wat h it because Wonder Woman was great but this is some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. The entire movie the majority of the audience will be scratching their heads wondering why the movie doesn't explain how Pine is still alive as I'm assuming the first movie won't be referenced at all. The vast majority won't know this is a standalone film because we are the minority. Weird choice