Wonder Woman (2017)

[The Joker]

On principle, I agree. It should be a clean reboot, but didn't Gunn make some sort of comment recently that he's going to be working on Peacemaker Season 2 after "Superman Legacy"?

Course I could be misremembering, but if not, this reboot being messy is simply on par for the course at this stage. Peacemaker continues on, Blue Beetle supposedly being the first "character", but not exactly the first "movie" in his universe (sure .. makes a lot of sense), and now Gal possibly returning.

Let's not make things complicated here!

[Travesty]

And I'm pretty sure they're keeping Momoa as Aquaman. lol

[thecolorsblend]

"Let's keep what works!"

The mix and match approach failed two previous regimes. But Gunn and co. will somehow be able to figure it out?

I find it funny that DC on film is having the same problem as DC Comics (historically) has had. Namely, a refusal to do a universe-wide clean slate reboot. DC tried mixing and matching for decades. And they've got the failures to show for it too.

Reboot or don't reboot. I truly don't care. But don't mix and match. It doesn't work. It never works. No, you're not the one smart enough to figure it out. It won't work for you either.

It doesn't work.

[The Laughing Fish]

On principle, I agree. It should be a clean reboot, but didn't Gunn make some sort of comment recently that he's going to be working on Peacemaker Season 2 after "Superman Legacy"?

Course I could be misremembering, but if not, this reboot being messy is simply on par for the course at this stage. Peacemaker continues on, Blue Beetle supposedly being the first "character", but not exactly the first "movie" in his universe (sure .. makes a lot of sense), and now Gal possibly returning.

Let's not make things complicated here!

Yes, creepy Gunn did go on record saying he planned to do another Peacemaker after Superman.

Nobody should be surprised by this, this attempt at a DC reboot was always going to be a farce with Gunn at the helm. He's not someone with integrity to do what's best for the brand. He announced a Viola Davis Amanda Waller spin-off FFS. Who asked for that?

So fans miss out on projects with Keaton, Cavill and Affleck, but let's make another Gadot Wonder Woman, even though 1984 is regarded as a failure. Not very fair, is it? Might as well keep Miller as the Flash then, because losing tons of money clearly isn't something taken seriously at that dumpster fire known as WBD.

Let's see if any of this sh*t gets made. I read that the labour strikes in Hollywood could last for another six months, and if they happens then WBD will bleed even more money than they already have. If the investors and shareholders don't wake up soon and stop Zaslav and Gunn's nonsense then they deserve to go under too.

[The Dark Knight]

Look, I like Gal and all, but this "reboot" stuff is starting to look really messy. If we're getting a new Superman and Batman, why keep Gal around? This just makes no sense.

Agreed. A selective reboot is an insult to Cavill and anyone else who appeared in the old DCEU and hasn't been allowed to continue on. If you're going to reboot go the whole hog. I liked the idea of going with someone like Ana De Armas if we absolutely had to create a new continuity. Having Blue Beetle as part of the new roster is also stupid to me. They should've just scrapped it along with Aquaman II and started completely clean. The route they're taking only serves to aggravate an already problematic situation.

[The Joker]

And I'm pretty sure they're keeping Momoa as Aquaman. lol

lol IKR! At this stage, I wouldn't doubt Momoa staying on as Aquaman, and playing Lobo as well. 

Yes, creepy Gunn did go on record saying he planned to do another Peacemaker after Superman.

Ok. Right. Thanks for confirming, TLF. So essentially the Gunn mindset is "There's a new start to the DCU, but I'm not rebooting MY stuff, and the characters I like are going to be folded over into this new DCU!"

This is very reminiscent of how DC Comics has typically handled all their reboots, and it's always messy. Some more so than others, but none come out completely exempt from the disorganization of it all. One of the main reasons why I tend to be against reboots to begin with. On film, it can be done, but doing a reboot that encompasses an entire "universe" (rather than a singular IP) so soon after a previous version can (and probably will) cause issues with the audience acceptance due to the previous version being so fresh in peoples minds. As a consequence, comparisons will constantly be made (perhaps even more so since there wasn't a substantial length of time between the two), which may not be to the benefit of the current product.

The more I read about this hodgepodge that is Gunn's vision, I find myself more inclined into the notion that if Warners is going to continue on making DCEU/DCU (whatever it's called now? Gunnverse?) movies, they should have just really doubled down on the pre-Gunn plans. It's such a crap shoot anyways, and it's become increasingly apparent that Gunn's name/praise/endorsement of any DC property doesn't really amount to zilch at the box office.

Help me out, TLF, whom among Warners were momentarily planning out the DCEU just prior to Gunn? I assume this would have meant a MOS2 with Cavill and Calle, and apparently some sort of version of Batman Beyond (since supposedly Christina Hodson was in the middle of writing the script)?

Honestly, if a Wonder Woman 3 happens with Gal, I'll check it out. I like her in the part, and since I don't have a whole lot of faith in Gunn or his vision going forward, it could be regulated as a elseworlds and that's perfectly acceptable. WW2017 and WW1984 are fairly self contained films, so there's really no need to lean onto Gunn's precarious shared universe ideas to round out a Gadot Wonder Woman Trilogy. If that actually happens.

[The Laughing Fish]

Help me out, TLF, whom among Warners were momentarily planning out the DCEU just prior to Gunn? I assume this would have meant a MOS2 with Cavill and Calle, and apparently some sort of version of Batman Beyond (since supposedly Christina Hodson was in the middle of writing the script)?

As it was stated numerous times on this forum, the other executives who appeared to be pro-Snyderverse, as well as trying to keep Keaton and Calle along for the ride, were executives Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy. They were temporarily in charge of DC Studios before Gunn and Safran were formally announced, and they were responsible for greenlighting The Flash's second reshot ending that got scrapped - the one that had Barry meeting Keaton's Bruce Wayne and Calle's Supergirl together with Cavill's Clark Kent and Gadot's Diana, and Batfleck lost in another timeline asking for Barry's help in a post-credit scene. De Luca and Abdy definitely must've been instrumental to grant Cavill's cameo in Black Adam, and getting Affleck to appear in Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (whose scene/s have now been scrapped).

To add further insult to injury, THR reported that De Luca and Abdy were also reportedly trying to get the Justice League cast to reunite for at least one more movie before those dickheads Gunn and Safran sabotaged everything.

It should be stated that De Luca and Abdy were always intended to be in charge of the WB Pictures division and they were only in charge of DC for the interim. It was reported the only reason Gunn and Safran got the jobs was because that douchebag Zaslav couldn't convince anyone else to take them.

As you can see, it appears De Luca and Abdy were trying to keep many people happy, and not burn bridges with the Keaton camp and the Snyderverse actors camp. However, I do question their wisdom in not signing Cavill up for a contract that would've made it difficult for Gunn and Safran to oust him from the Superman role.

Honestly, if a Wonder Woman 3 happens with Gal, I'll check it out. I like her in the part, and since I don't have a whole lot of faith in Gunn or his vision going forward, it could be regulated as a elseworlds and that's perfectly acceptable. WW2017 and WW1984 are fairly self contained films, so there's really no need to lean onto Gunn's precarious shared universe ideas to round out a Gadot Wonder Woman Trilogy. If that actually happens.

I personally wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Gunn's ego over his undeserved GOTG success will make him double down on the rubbish comedic route that has plagued Wonder Woman ever since 1984, and we all know Warners don't learn from the error of their ways. Gadot's cameos couldn't save Shazam or Flash, but I still expect those WB disphits to try and shove her in a shared universe again. Of course, there is always a good chance that Gadot may be forced to retract her announcement and get humiliated like Cavill did.

As I said, if WB's investors are willing to lose even more money into Gunn's nonsense, they deserve to go under too.

[The Joker]

As it was stated numerous times on this forum, the other executives who appeared to be pro-Snyderverse, as well as trying to keep Keaton and Calle along for the ride, were executives Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy. They were temporarily in charge of DC Studios before Gunn and Safran were formally announced, and they were responsible for greenlighting The Flash's second reshot ending that got scrapped - the one that had Barry meeting Keaton's Bruce Wayne and Calle's Supergirl together with Cavill's Clark Kent and Gadot's Diana, and Batfleck lost in another timeline asking for Barry's help in a post-credit scene. De Luca and Abdy definitely must've been instrumental to grant Cavill's cameo in Black Adam, and getting Affleck to appear in Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (whose scene/s have now been scrapped).

Alright. Appreciate the in-depth response.

To add further insult to injury, THR reported that De Luca and Abdy were also reportedly trying to get the Justice League cast to reunite for at least one more movie before those dickheads Gunn and Safran sabotaged everything.

It should be stated that De Luca and Abdy were always intended to be in charge of the WB Pictures division and they were only in charge of DC for the interim. It was reported the only reason Gunn and Safran got the jobs was because that douchebag Zaslav couldn't convince anyone else to take them.

I remember Todd Phillips being a notable name that turned down the job. Apparently there were many others as well. Are there any other big names that you can recall turned down the offer as well, TLF?

As you can see, it appears De Luca and Abdy were trying to keep many people happy, and not burn bridges with the Keaton camp and the Snyderverse actors camp. However, I do question their wisdom in not signing Cavill up for a contract that would've made it difficult for Gunn and Safran to oust him from the Superman role.

That was a indecisive arrangement that proved to be unfavorable for sure, though it sounds like De Luca and Abdy might've genuinely had the best intentions in mind when negotiating Cavill's return as Superman. Attempting to get a solid foundation to build upon, only to get circumvented is classic Warner Bros.

I personally wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Gunn's ego over his undeserved GOTG success will make him double down on the rubbish comedic route that has plagued Wonder Woman ever since 1984, and we all know Warners don't learn from the error of their ways. Gadot's cameos couldn't save Shazam or Flash, but I still expect those WB disphits to try and shove her in a shared universe again. Of course, there is always a good chance that Gadot may be forced to retract her announcement and get humiliated like Cavill did.

Oh, I'm not in any way convinced a Gadot Wonder Woman Trilogy is going to happen. With a studio like WB, it's best not to invest too much on anything cause plans and directions can and often do change just like the wind. That's why I choose words like "precarious", "wavering", "shifting", "indecisive" ect when describing anything relating to long-term planning where the DCEU is concerned.

Viewing any DCEU news thru a rather detached POV can be a asset.

As an aside, I personally don't think cameos are honestly indicative of anything. For instance, I've heard the goofball argument that, "If people REALLY wanted Henry Cavill back as Superman, they would have purchased a ticket for Black Adam!" Um, no. That doesn't work for me brother. With inflationmania continually running wild (and other factors to say the least), it's already quite evident that disposable income isn't nearly what it once was for a lot of people, and the argument that a 1-2 minute cameo in a whatever movie is somehow signifying of interest because they didn't run out a buy a ticket comes across as a rather inane argument.

Speaking as someone who likes Cavill as Superman, and Gadot as Wonder Woman, I can't say I went and bought a ticket for "Black Adam" or "Shazam 2" just for their cameos despite being well aware of them appearing in the films. To sit thru a 2 hour movie I barely have interest in (and pretty much none with Shazam 2) for a 1-2 minute scene (and I think Henry's was less than that in BA)? Haha! Now, if this was more of a "Spider-Man No Way Home" situation where Cavill/Gadot had plenty of screen time, that's a entirely different story. 1-2 minutes? Nah. I can wait for Blu Ray/4K on that. After all, it's just a cameo.     

As I said, if WB's investors are willing to lose even more money into Gunn's nonsense, they deserve to go under too.

A lot is riding on Gunn's "Superman Legacy". It might be successful. It might not. I don't personally believe future DC films are going to be anything other than the crap shoot they have already been for years now.

[The Laughing Fish]

I remember Todd Phillips being a notable name that turned down the job. Apparently there were many others as well. Are there any other big names that you can recall turned down the offer as well, TLF?

I remember hearing a rumour that they approached Mr. MCU himself, Kevin Feige. Aside from that, I don't know any other director or producer who was approached. But I do remember one of the executives who wanted the role was attached to produce Justice League Mortal back in the 2000s. I'm not enthused about that guy though, because he apparently went along with some Rolling Stone troll who dismissed the Snyderverse fandom as being controlled by bots during an interview.

Viewing any DCEU news thru a rather detached POV can be a asset.

Without a doubt. Believe it or not, I stopped caring what happened to DC ever since Gunn was appointed. Squandering Keaton's comeback made was also another factor that was unforgivable, but nowhere near as shocking as hiring that man Gunn. I couldn't get his obscene comment history and association with sordid people out of my mind, so if there's a silver lining to this, I'm glad Keaton, Affleck, and Cavill won't have anything to do with him. If Momoa and Gadot want to sell out to be with that kind of company, that's not my problem.

As an aside, I personally don't think cameos are honestly indicative of anything. For instance, I've heard the goofball argument that, "If people REALLY wanted Henry Cavill back as Superman, they would have purchased a ticket for Black Adam!" Um, no. That doesn't work for me brother. With inflationmania continually running wild (and other factors to say the least), it's already quite evident that disposable income isn't nearly what it once was for a lot of people, and the argument that a 1-2 minute cameo in a whatever movie is somehow signifying of interest because they didn't run out a buy a ticket comes across as a rather inane argument.

Speaking as someone who likes Cavill as Superman, and Gadot as Wonder Woman, I can't say I went and bought a ticket for "Black Adam" or "Shazam 2" just for their cameos despite being well aware of them appearing in the films. To sit thru a 2 hour movie I barely have interest in (and pretty much none with Shazam 2) for a 1-2 minute scene (and I think Henry's was less than that in BA)? Haha! Now, if this was more of a "Spider-Man No Way Home" situation where Cavill/Gadot had plenty of screen time, that's a entirely different story. 1-2 minutes? Nah. I can wait for Blu Ray/4K on that. After all, it's just a cameo.

Yeah, I must admit, you've raised an excellent point. Besides, it's rather dishonest to pin all the hopes on Cavill's Superman future on a ten-second cameo for a film that was advertised as the start of a "Black Adam Cinematic Universe" by the Rock himself, along with the "hierarchy in the DC universe is about to change" attitude. In terms of marketing, Rock's ego was his own worst enemy. I think if he had distanced himself from Emmerich and Hamada's agenda and flat-out said, "Black Adam has to share the same world as the Justice League, and that means getting Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot back" then maybe his film would've had a better chance.

But what bothers me is the arrogance of WBD if they think keeping Gadot and Momoa around is supposed to be extending some sort of olive branch to the aggrieved fans. If anything, they're just proving the skeptics right about what a farce this reboot is shaping up to be.

A lot is riding on Gunn's "Superman Legacy". It might be successful. It might not. I don't personally believe future DC films are going to be anything other than the crap shoot they have already been for years now.

If WBD cares about their finances, which I'm not convinced they do going by their insane decision-making, I'd put everything on hold indefinitely. If the numbers haven't been responding well to DC's comedic copycatting of the MCU for the last four years, then what makes them think Gunn repeating that tired formula for Superman is going to be any different?

[The Laughing Fish]

It appears WBD and DC Studios are DENYING there is a plan to do another Wonder Woman with Gal Gadot:
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-3-not-in-development-1235693545/

This is despite Gal saying this:

"I was invited to a meeting with James Gunn and Peter Safran," Gadot said, "and what they told me, and I'm quoting: 'You're in the best hands. We're going to develop Wonder Woman 3 with you. [We] love you as Wonder Woman— you've got nothing to worry about.' So time will tell."

Someone is lying, and it's not Gal.