Wonder Woman (2017)

[The Dark Knight]

WW is established to be someone willing to kill. Superman has no establishing character emotions beyond generalization.

Zod clearly defined the terms of their battle with his "either you die or I do" statement. That's on him, not Cavillman. Did he want to snap a fellow Kryptonian's neck? No. Cavillman was put into a situation that required lethal force. Your whole argument that Cavillman wasn't established as being someone willing to kill is meaningless. A situation dictates our response. If I'm on the bus and some crazed knife wielder says "either you die or I do"...it's gonna be him on the floor, not me. 

Him killing means nothing to the movie or Clark or the scene and is contradicted in the next scene.

In truth Superman has no more rights than every other normal person. Because that's all he is. He can die. He has faults. He's not special. He's only human.

C'mon. You're the semantics king and you're saying Superman is human?

[Dagenspear]

Zod clearly defined the terms of their battle with his "either you die or I do" statement. That's on him, not Cavillman. Did he want to snap a fellow Kryptonian's neck? No. Cavillman was put into a situation that required lethal force. Your whole argument that Cavillman wasn't established as being someone willing to kill is meaningless. A situation dictates our response. If I'm on the bus and some crazed knife wielder says "either you die or I do"...it's gonna be him on the floor, not me.

That doesn't define Clark's character. We have no strong understanding of his personality to grasp whether or not the fight matters. I'm not arguing whether he was right in killing Zod or not. I'm arguing that it meant nothing to his character. There's no measure for his character in that fight. About whether he was unwilling or willing to kill. Connect that to the fact there's no struggle or conflict in the fight until we get to the scene where Zod decides to suddenly make good on his threat. Then we get an idea, but only after and then we go to the next scene and that conflict didn't matter.

It doesn't.

C'mon. You're the semantics king and you're saying Superman is human?

You know what I mean, I'm sure. He's flawed, he sins, he's not different from us. His powers and alien-ness don't make him special in that sense. He doesn't have a right to state on his own terms, morality.

[Edd Grayson]

Happy Birthday to Gal Gadot, who is 33 today! 

[The Joker]

[The Laughing Fish]

[The Laughing Fish]

The sequel is called Wonder Woman 1984, and the plot will be set in that year.

This is the teaser logo:



Chris Pine returns in this new set photo, as released on Patty Jenkins's Twitter page:



Keep in mind, I don't think this is Steve Trevor. I think this is supposed to be another relative of his who strongly resembles him.

I know it might sound too premature to judge, but I'm not impressed. But then again, I'm not too enthusiastic about any comic movies right now.

[Catwoman]

I love the idea of a mid '80s setting. One of my favorite eras of the past. Totally dressing the part when I go see it.

[The Joker]

I'm interested. Of course. The above image alludes to the sequel addressing pop culture of the early-mid 80's era, which is easy, but I think that Patty, Gal, and crew also addressing real life events, in a non-goofball way, from that specific time period, would result in a movie with a little more substance to it. I think the cold war is going to be a back drop, so go all out with the historical points. Address the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, the country embracing conservatism with Ronald Regan's 49 State landslide reelection, the space shuttle's Challenger & Explorer, the 1st first embryo transfer resulting in birth, AIDS in the 80's, the 1st female doing a space walk, or even a reference to Michael Jackson's hair catching on fire.

Perhaps all of these historical points would be considered too heavy handed for a mere superhero flick in a time where they are overwhelmingly transformed into light hearted action comedies, but I think if you're going to make a point in setting the movie in the year of 1984, the real life events of that particular year should be addressed in some fashion, and not simply ignored or grossly glossed over. You know, something more than just a catchy 80's retro soundtrack. Personally, I would be fascinated at the psychology and perspective of a empathetic immortal amazonian princess demigod, who has lived thru and possibly witnessed historical events from 1918 to 1984. Let alone dealing with hardships of friends inevitably growing older and eventually passing away (thinking of Etta Candy and the ragtag band of soldiers Wonder Woman fought with along with Steve Trevor during WW1). Considering how Zack Snyder addressed how the world and military would react to a superpowered being in a real world setting (even going into politically with BvS), I'm sure Snyder himself would agree.

Course it doesn't have to be all gloom, and it honestly shouldn't be, but '84 has significance in history and I would like to see that historical content bleed into the film to atleast some extent. Also, I think Patty Jenkins 1st Wonder Woman film did a good job in feeling more in line with what Zack Snyder's original DCEU vision, than Suicide Squad or Justice League did, and I, being selfish, would like for atleast some of that vision to continue on, if even in a more diluted sense, with Jenkins continuing on in the director's chair.

Please, just anything other than yet another typical Marvel popcorn fare action comedy coming off the assembly line. I want some meat rather than potatoes all the time.

[The Dark Knight]

Agree with everything you said, Joker.

I'm in the superhero burnout phase - but I did enjoy the first Wonder Woman film, and of course I love Gal. So the goodwill is there, and I think a sequel is justified. By all accounts, Jenkins was able to present her vision without studio interference, and hopefully that's also going to be true here.

The 80s setting is smart, because significant time has passed since World War One to see changes in her personality, but it's still a good 35 years ago from present day 2019.

Having some reference to Orwell's 1984 would be a good, logical move. Especially considering a lot of what the book spoke about has already come true. But at the same time, 1984 era Diana could rebel against that mindset. That the future doesn't have to be bleak, and we don't have to accept this way of life. 1984 can be what we want it to be, not what we think it's going to be. That kind of thing.

Basically, the DCEU's only hope right now is Gal. Affleck may be leaving, if reports are to be believed, and MoS2 looks to be way off. That can't help but dampen enthusiasm for the cinematic universe as a whole. But then again, these WW films will be able to be viewed as a separate trilogy, largely disconnected from the overarching DCEU.

[The Joker]

Perfectly stated, TDK.

And I agree wholeheartedly with your astute observation of Orwell's 1984. It definitely would fit into a narrative, and possibly Diana's fears of mankind accepting such a future.