It should but realistically those changes aren't going to be explored because they'd be a movie in their own right.
That's why I'm a little dubious of the idea that the Nazis never rose to power and that WW2, at least the European theatre, didn't occur. I could see it if Wonder Woman (2017) was a standalone film but the presence of the DCEU complicates that.

Unless Jenkins and Snyder want to argue that a world without Nazism would lead to one with a Cold War almost exactly like our own.
 
Maybe it was like, I dunno, the DNVP who lead a fascist Germany accross europe and into defeat.
 
This feels pretty far afield of discussing the movie, like, nothing about WW2 and Superman is any different from any other political issue and Wonder Woman. She either has the viewer's take, in which case the world is unrecognizable, or she has the opposite side's take, in which case she's monstrous, or she doesn't deign to have a take, in which case people start calling Snyder a nazi again.

The studio has no incentive to play this particular game, so it doesn't. Why alienate part of your audience when you can keep the whole thing? The Flash has no opinion on tax policy, Batman doesn't drop any bars about border control and Wonder Woman's actions during WWII won't be examined.
 
It's kind've messy and odd, but it's not that huge a leap to go "Okay Diana goes through the first film/WW1, gets burnt out for a variety of reasons (Steve's death, man's inhumanity to man, etc.) and just goes dark until Superman and Batman throwing down jolts her out of complacency". It's definitely weird that Diana just kind've sits back during the 20th Century and does nothing, but it's an acceptable level of weird because this is a superhero movie. Endgame does literally the exact same thing with Steve choosing to go back to an alternate timeline/the MCU's own past (it's very confusing and everyone has offered contradictory answers) and everyone AFAIK just kind've shrugged it off.

It's just that that progression (WW1, nothing for 9X years, BvS) doesn't leave a lot of room for sequels. It's either "technical interquel where we just hand wave away Diana's presence" or "Post Justice League sequel". Aquaman is, technically, set after Justice League but it's so disconnected from the rest of the DCEU it's essentially a stand alone film, and I don't really blame the filmmakers for saying "fuck it" and deciding to explore Diana's "lost" period than sticking with a generic present day setting.
 
Last edited:
Or Zeus called up Diana, "I have a quest for you" off she goes, it takes a week her time, but for Timey Wimey reasons it takes 60 years our time.

Zeus: "Ooops."
 
I mean a big part of her character in the DCEU is that she had become bitter and detached from the world after seeing man's inhumanity to man so it'd fit her character if she just resolved to stay out of it this time.
 
Or Zeus called up Diana, "I have a quest for you" off she goes, it takes a week her time, but for Timey Wimey reasons it takes 60 years our time.

Zeus: "Ooops."
Zeus is dead.

Though she could have been running around the edges of the theatre punching Nazi occultists in the face before they summoned Cthulhu. Staying out of the direct affairs of conflict but putting out all sorts of supernatural fires across the decades.
 
The usual handwave is Hitler doing some mumbo jumbo with the Spear of Destiny that makes it too dangerous for super-powered folks to fight in the European theater until after V-E day. And as she hadn't figured out flight yet, she wouldn't have been too much help in the island hopping naval combat of the Pacific theater.
 
Last edited:
Or she focused on saving lives over fighting armies and hung out in France helping to smuggle people out.
 
Stop: Let's not use antisemitic dogwhistles
let's not use antisemitic dogwhistles

@Reveen, it's not acceptable to claim that this scene had a so-called hidden message to thumb their nose at critics of the IDF. Imagine a similar scene for an actor who had been in the US military. Or someone else saying something like that. It discounts what the person has gone through. You may not agree with what the IDF does, but to claim that this scene is meant in such a way isn't only disingenuous, but it's also an antisemitic dogwhistle. I will be infracting you under Rule 2 and giving you a three day threadban.

There is absolutely no way in hell that scene wasn't intended by someone (be it the writers, producers, Godot, whoever) to thumb their nose at critics of the IDF and Israeli Government. It hardly even comes off as feel-good pro military propaganda, it feels like a sneering joke at the idea of shooting missiles at children.

Sure plenty of people may not have thought anything of it, but there's no way in hell that that very specific imagery got put into the movie in such a random seeming way without some intention behind it.

Imagine if you had a superhero movie with a lead actor who's a known Jihadist where the hero is trying to save a plane, steers it toward a massive pair of twined high rise buildings, smiles at the camera, then veered the plane off at the last second. Literally no one here would be denying that that would basically mean "Haha 9/11 lol".



... yes?

Like, that's what being in an army means. You're trained to be absolutely obedient to the military/political interests of a state and therefore you have some culpability for how those interests are pursued.

This doesn't mean that literally everyone in an army should be punished because one person committed an individual warcrime. Obviously people join armies for various reasons and have various degrees of awareness of their state's crimes. But you still share some of the responsibility by definition. Especially if you actively support said army.



It does not.


 
So, did any one of the makers of this film talk about the hole acadentaly turning wonderwomen of all people into a rapist thing?
 
So, did any one of the makers of this film talk about the hole acadentaly turning wonderwomen of all people into a rapist thing?
Pat Jenkins endorsed someone's twitter's explanation.

It's a very weak explanation in my opinion.

www.themarysue.com

Patty Jenkins' Disappointing Response to Criticism of Body-Swapping Storyline in Wonder Woman 1984

After news that Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) would return in Wonder Woman 1984, after his death in the first film, the question was: How are they going to explain his return? The answer was not great.

Composed out of basically 2 parts.

1) The 80's did it, which means that unironically, uncritically replicating a skeevy aspect of the body swap story is actually intentionally pointing it out which makes this okay
2) Magic wishes mean consequences are magically unmagicked.
 
Last edited:
What really bothers me about Steve Trevor stealing a random guy's body is that I could ignore it the way I gloss over minor dumb ideas that are necessary to make comic book plots work... if the film didn't draw attention to it. Repeatedly. If you want to handwave something and totally ignore its implications, sure, fine, I can play along with that, but it really does not work when you explicitly point out the problem on multiple occasions.
 
What really bothers me is that this whole thing was easy to avoid, because there was no need to have him possess some random guy's body in the first place. We see people's wishes create matter out of nothing throughout the film, so why couldn't it just conjure him up in the flesh without any bodysnatching?
 
What really bothers me is that this whole thing was easy to avoid, because there was no need to have him possess some random guy's body in the first place. We see people's wishes create matter out of nothing throughout the film, so why couldn't it just conjure him up in the flesh without any bodysnatching?
Honestly combined with all the other issues this movie has (wats show no tell, wonderwoman gaining a bunch of powers that if you never read the comics seem to come out of no ware, gust tarable dialog tho out) and this film gust feels like the first movie this writer ever made, like how did non of this get chaute by the editors? So strange.
 
Back
Top