• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

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

Cpt-GargameL

Cpt-GargameL

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,024
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."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


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
 
jelly

jelly

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
33,841
So that's why Steve is alive, because the first film never happened and not magic or something?
 
Keldroc

Keldroc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,968
Because if there's one thing audiences can't stand these days, it's sequels.

Good god, WB.
 
Serene

Serene

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
52,485
does anyone at wb, like, talk to each other ever or do they all just make new directions up every day
 
Gundam

Gundam

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,801
It's totally going to be though.

This is just "you don't have to watch the first one" to me.
 
Killthee

Killthee

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,168
"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.
 
AuthenticM

AuthenticM

Son Altesse Sérénissime
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,975
"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.
 
Tabaxi

Tabaxi

Member
Nov 18, 2018
12,836
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
Oct 27, 2017
7,024
FarronFox said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.
 
Jimi D

Jimi D

Member
Oct 27, 2017
306
FarronFox said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Neece

Neece

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,194
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."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
NeonZ

NeonZ

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 28, 2017
9,370
FarronFox said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.
 
Flaurehn

Flaurehn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,359
Mexico City
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?
 
jelly

jelly

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
33,841
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.
 
molnizzle

molnizzle

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,695
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.
 
Gundam

Gundam

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,801
WB Says Wonder Woman Sequel Is Definitely Not A Sequel, Continues To Be Sequel Anyway
 
Kalentan

Kalentan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,590
Nemesis121 said:
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..
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

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.
 
JigglesBunny

JigglesBunny

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
31,042
Chicago
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

gdt

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,459
My guys this is just marketing gibberish so people feel they can hop right into this movie.

They aren't ignoring the last one.
 
Neece

Neece

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,194
molnizzle said:
How does DC not understand that half of the appeal of MCU is the fact that it's an interconnected universe?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
Hassel

Hassel

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,363
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.
 
DiipuSurotu

DiipuSurotu

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
53,148
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.
 
Rodney McKay

Rodney McKay

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,181
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.
 
molnizzle

molnizzle

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
17,695
Neece said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
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.
 
Strike

Strike

Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,320
Okay. As long as it's good, I'll watch it. I don't really care what you want to call it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.