-
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
- Thread starter Cpt-GargameL
- Start date
Spongebob doesn't belong to a cinematic universe where everything is connected.
I doubt it. Just because it's not a sequel to the first film doesn't mean the first film never happened. That's like saying Steve should've been alive in Justice League because it wasn't a sequel as well.
I would be just okay if each WW movie was just a random one off story from her incredibly long history. I don't really care about the continuity thing if the movie is good.
It just doesn't work well as a motif/leitmotif. Which I think it should. Superman's theme is the bar.
So they actually DID give up on any kind of universe
Ah, so they're lying
The last Time Warner movie had a 1 sentence reference to a previous movie and didn't foreshadow a sequel.
Pretty dumb way to describe the movie, when they could have just called it a loose sequel. Hell, part of the reason I hate MCU is because of the albatross of connecting every damn movie to one another. I like standalone movies, but sequels with some background connections work fine.
How did you ever enjoy movies?
I think that is the point. What happened in the first one has no real affect on 1984.
Silly question.
It's not that I can't enjoy solo comic book movies. It's that I enjoy them so much more when they're connected. So does everyone else, it would seem. That's kinda why The Avengers blew up in the first place.
After that, it's kinda hard to care too much about one-off superheroes. I enjoyed Wonder Woman and I'm sure I'll enjoy this one as well, but I dunno if it's gonna be a day one thing. It's more exciting when you know all the solo films are eventually building to something bigger. I devour every new MCU film during its first showing because I want to see how it fits into the universe they've built, see if it changes anything.
There's also the issue that audiences are now conditioned to expect that from superhero films, so it's gonna be kinda weird and confusing if there really are gonna be multiple actors playing different versions of the same character in different continuities.
Last edited:
I don't get what they are trying to say really, just say its a continuation of the story presented starting in WW. They seem they want to go out of their way to say it's stand alone.
Only way I can think they are trying to say is how Aquaman is a continuation of Justice League and not a squeal to it, but even that doesn't really work. Its a damn sequel to WW, call it that lol
Only way I can think they are trying to say is how Aquaman is a continuation of Justice League and not a squeal to it, but even that doesn't really work. Its a damn sequel to WW, call it that lol
New story, new Trevor.
I didn't ask about comicbookmovies
If the movie takes place in the timeline of the original one at a later point, it's a sequel. I'm not fond of dumb word games.
It would honestly be very next level if this and a potential third movie were just retelling a of the first film, set in different time periods. Would the masses even notice? Probably not. God I wish this was happening.
"There's nothing to get invested in if it's just a bunch of standalone movies. "
Let me rephrase maybe. Did you ever get invested in non comicbook movies?
uh, sure. That's wholly irrelevant to the discussion in this thread though.
Wonder Woman is a superhero. Now that the MCU has given us 20+ comic book movies in an interconnected universe, it's tough to get excited by one-off's again. Sequels are popular for a reason, especially for superheroes. In a way, MCU is putting out 3 sequels a year in a franchise we've been following for over a decade. It's like comfort food for my eyeballs.
Superhero movies are intrinsically kinda silly (especially as I get older), so removing that comfort food aspect negates a lot of the appeal to me.
So for movies it is not neeeded, but for (comicbook) movies it is?
It's like you can't read.
I never said it was needed. I said, specifically, that comic book movies are more enjoyable to me when they're part of an interconnected universe. The undeniable success of the MCU (and The Avengers in particular) suggests that a large percentage of viewers feel the same way, so it's not exactly a controversial statement.
This. The first movie still happened. They're just not following up on any threads from it.
Is Aquaman not part of DCEU now?
That's a stupid gotcha, in any case. Clearly standalone movies can still make money, but it's undeniable that a huge part of the MCU's appeal is the fact that it's all connected. People aren't tearing up during the latest Endgame trailer because the movie just looks so good as a standalone picture.
Why the hell didn't they just say that, then? lol, jesus.
Me thinks it'll completely ignore the BvS/JL continuity of Wonder Woman suddenly vanishing from the face of the earth after WW1.
Guess we don't have to worry about Wonder Women trying to inconspicuously save the day in the 80s :P
Guess we don't have to worry about Wonder Women trying to inconspicuously save the day in the 80s :P
How many enjoy Dark Knight more because Scarecrow shows up again? Like literally noone cares and the movie isn't for the worse due to it.
The new Wonder Woman is still connected... its still Gal Gadot. The new aquaman acted like the justice league never happened, and it was better for it. They tried the extended universe with justice league, Batman v superman, suicide squad kinda. It failed because they didn't let each movie be it's own thing. Theyre doing what they should've done before, focus on the individual films, build the audiences relationship with the characters. The new spiderverse movie isn't connected to anything, yet people still love it.
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.
Last edited:
Aquaman treat JL as canon actually. Mera mentioned something like saving Atlantis by defeating motherbox or something.
They also wouldn't have to explain why she did nothing during ww2
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