Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) (1 Viewer)

[Jack P]

I’ll be there in the theater! The first WW was great. Though I never read the comics, so I don’t know why setting it in WWII would make it better, but I appreciated the explanation that they decided to set it in WWI because it was a war that had more moral ambiguity than Nazi Germany in WWII.

And that is precisely the problem. "Moral ambiguity" was little more than Hollywood double-speak for "we don't want to be pro-America" and never mind if that means tampering with the source material. The idea that this "had" to be this way is nonsense.

Of course this film didn't even get attitudes about WW1 right since I didn't hear a single person utter the phrase "war to end all wars" or "make the world safe for democracy" or the name "Woodrow Wilson" and his "Fourteen Points." WW1 emerged long-term as a giant mistake but most people who fought it at the time didn't see it as such.

 

[Tommy R]

I cannot speak to Hollywood’s motivations or wanting to not be pro-American, but I none the less appreciate the first Wonder Woman film’s historical setting.

I also don’t know what the intention was by the filmmakers, but I personally didn’t interpret the ending of the film, with David Thewis being the actual Aries and his defeat, being what ended the war. I feel that Diana’s emotional revelation about human nature was still intact, and the war ending was just keeping in line with history. That’s just the way I saw it though.

 

[Sam Favate]

I always kind of assumed that the first film was set in WWI to distinguish it from Captain America: The First Avenger, which is set in WWII, and with which Wonder Woman has a number of similarities.

 

[TravisR]

Of course this film didn't even get attitudes about WW1 right since I didn't hear a single person utter the phrase "war to end all wars" or "make the world safe for democracy" or the name "Woodrow Wilson" and his "Fourteen Points."

Yep, they did not worry about pleasing the minute fraction of the audience that wanted specific historical accuracy from a comic book movie where the main character is a 5,000 year old Amazonian princess that is the daughter of gods.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yep, they did not worry about pleasing the minute fraction of the audience that wanted specific historical accuracy from a comic book movie where the main character is a 5,000 year old Amazonian princess that is the daughter of gods.

Thanks for the morning laugh.

 

[Jack P]

Yep, they did not worry about pleasing the minute fraction of the audience that wanted specific historical accuracy from a comic book movie where the main character is a 5,000 year old Amazonian princess that is the daughter of gods.

My comments were prompted by a silly article linked in this thread that said this film *had* to be about World War I which attached some profound depth to the notion that the filmmakers had no choice but to do so. Having made that decision to attach such high profundity to a comic book instead of taking what should have been simple comic book entertainment rooted in the straight ahead message of the original source material, it's more than fair game to note the absurdity of a character (Steve Trevor) spouting platitudes that don't reflect what an American flyer would have been saying about that particular war.

I realize of course that those who are in love with PC attitudes couldn't begin to comprehend that point so I will leave it at that.

 

[JimmyO]

Of course this film didn't even get attitudes about WW1 right since I didn't hear a single person utter the phrase "war to end all wars" or "make the world safe for democracy" or the name "Woodrow Wilson" and his "Fourteen Points." WW1 emerged long-term as a giant mistake but most people who fought it at the time didn't see it as such.

Really? Play from 3:58

 

[Jack P]

Fair point on that phrase. But the whole underlying bold idealism of that phrase is completely absent from what he then says next so what we get is an empty slogan devoid of proper context. And any American flyer subjected to a lasso of truth wouldn't be so ignorant of the other items I mentioned nor would he be talking about the war in such dark, dreary terms.

They're the ones that decided they were being more "realistic" to not set things in the Good War. So again, it's fair game to note where they're not being honest about the war they chose to set things in.

 

[JimmyO]

This is not a movie for historians or people looking for a documentary. Steve Trevor in that scene I think did a remarkable job of articulating how horrible the war was, and he was trying to warn the amazons about how they were all in danger from the threat of this war.

The fact that you lamented a phrase that you felt was woefully absent, and as it turned out was present, verbatim, shows that you really checked out of the movie early because the setting was not to your liking. Nothing wrong with that - but come on man. It's a comic book movie, and in that context, it doesn't need to stand up the scrutiny of historical accuracy.

Like, you know, I don't see anything in the history books about a lady with a lasso and tiara ending the war by fighting a god on an airfield with a big bolt of lightning.

 

[Jack P]

Uh, no. I watched the whole movie. I was impressed by Gadot and thought she was terrific and the fact she was terrific only makes the fact she wasn't in a traditional telling based on the source material which was World War 2 and helping the Allied war effort against a definable evil (which remains part of the charm of the TV series) all the more regrettable from my own subjective standpoint. The fact that the source material was tampered to tell the story in a way it hasn't been told before is a fair game item to object to, and when *others* put forth an allegedly profound reason for why the film had to be World War I instead of World War II that's also fair game to be critical of . Since they went to so much trouble to give us authentic looking period decor of London, the battlefields etc. I don't think its asking too much for a character to be authentic in terms of what the actual attitude would be in order to sell the idea that this change in time and setting was somehow necessary.

 

[TravisR]

What is the source material for a 70 some year old character? Certainly shortly after the war ended, National/DC didn't have her fight the Nazis any more. They've kept in relative step with the modern day. Should all WW comic books have kept her in WWII? If not, why can't the movies make changes too?

 

[Chris Will]

Why do comic characters have to have a new "suit" in almost every movie? They show WW in a brand new suit at the end of this trailer but, if this is 1984, why does she go back to her original suit in the present day (Batman vs Superman)?

 

[Jack P]

What is the source material for a 70 some year old character? Certainly shortly after the war ended, National/DC didn't have her fight the Nazis any more. They've kept in relative step with the modern day. Should all WW comic books have kept her in WWII? If not, why can't the movies make changes too?

Oh I see. *Backdating* the origin story by an additional 25 years is how you keep in "relative step with the modern day." Thanks for the afternoon laugh!

 

[AshJW]

tampering with the source material

If you don't like them tempering with the source materials then you better avoid every comic movie. Because they always temper with it in some ways.

 

[Jack P]

Tempering their tampering wouldn't be such a bad idea.

 

[Blimpoy06]

I personally didn't find the WWI setting that pertinent to the plot of the first movie. It was a nice change of pace from the many WWII stories that abound in super hero films. Any war or conflict could have served the purpose for Ares to be involved. I've said it here before, but I thought Xena told this same story better 20 years ago.. It was enjoyed by many, that's meant someone found it interesting.

I'm not sure how relevant the 80's setting will be to the new film, other than occurring before the appearance of Superman and Batman in the DC Universe. It seems important to Warner's to keep Wonder Woman away from the current continuity. Not a bad idea IMHO.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

And that is precisely the problem. "Moral ambiguity" was little more than Hollywood double-speak for "we don't want to be pro-America" and never mind if that means tampering with the source material. The idea that this "had" to be this way is nonsense.

So you're upset that the historical portrayal wasn't one-note and jingoistic enough?

And any American flyer subjected to a lasso of truth wouldn't be so ignorant of the other items I mentioned nor would he be talking about the war in such dark, dreary terms.

I think you greatly underestimate how miserable it was to be on the front lines during World War I. And Steve Trevor, as an intelligence asset with in an insider's perspective on the war and its human toll, would be more cynical than the average infantryman on the front.

 

[Jack P]

What the PC people call "one note" others would call a proper recognition of the American sacrifice.

As for the second point, it's the "average infantryman" (especially the French or British who had been involved in three years of fighting the horrors on the Front, whereas Americans were not involved for that long comparatively speaking) who would have been more cynical and disillusioned by then as opposed to an American pilot.

 

[Tino]

All this serious talk about wars and accuracy and horrors. It’s just Wonder Woman!

 

[dpippel]

Hello!