Wonder Woman Emerges From Retirement In Batman v Superman

Wonder Woman Emerges From Retirement In Batman v Superman

wonder woman

According to Zack Snyder, Batman vs Superman's Wonder Woman is a 5000-year old former superhero coming out of retirement.

Remember when Warner Bros revealed Bruce Wayne was a superhero before the events of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? Well, Batman's got nothing on Wonder Woman. According to director Zack Snyder, Gal Gadot's version of Diana is 5000 years old, and started her hero career long before its other characters were born. In fact, Batman v Superman is what draws her from retirement, kicking off events that lead into the upcoming Justice League film.

"It was incredibly organic how Wonder Woman came into the story," Zack Snyder told Empire magazine. "The whole concept came of, 'Let's not save anything. Let's try it all.' Then Wonder Woman's entrance made us realize we were much closer to the Justice League than we thought. We realized we were one movie away.

Snyder is referencing Wonder Woman's comic book origins as both an unaging Amazonian princess and one of the most powerful warriors of the DC Universe. It's a fairly bold move, considering past attempts to adapt Wonder Woman weren't so faithful or far reaching. Presumably this Wonder Woman has fought supervillains well before the events of her World War I-era film, opening all kinds of doors into DC Universe history.

We don't know what caused Dawn of Justice's Wonder Woman to retire from crime-fighting, but Gal Gadot herself offered some hints. "She's seen it all, she has seen what humans can do, so it was very hard for her to come back," Gadot explained, adding that Diana Prince behaves a little differently from Wonder Woman. "They have the same attitude. Although when she is Diana she tries to blend in, she is not too outgoing. I don't want people to think she is perfect. She can be naughty."

We already knew Wonder Woman would have a superheroic past, but making that history several millenia long was unexpected. And that's just the latest Batman v Superman plot reveal, following news that Jesse Eisenberg is playing Lex Luthor's son and Doomsday has a role to play in Justice League. It's certainly going to make for a complicated DC cinematic universe when Dawn of Justice launches on March 25, 2016.

Source: Comic Book Movie

Permalink

I'd only be interested if the whole "gal gadot" thing was just an elaborate troll. Wonder Woman is supposed to stand tall and proud, not constantly have her head cocked like a confused cocker spaniel.

I guess that means they won't have an origin story for her stuffed into BvS, so that's some good news. The fact that she's being shoved in there at all (along with the rest of the Justice League) is still quite the problem.

I'd believe you could do something like this in a book, which doesn't have the same constraints on time and structure, but as a movie, I still feel like this is going to end up feeling bloated and awkwardly paced.

First Batman and now Wonder Woman? Man the DC Cinematic Universe sounds like it had a really interesting past. Wish we could have seen that first. :P

Yeah, sure, five thousand years, why not. The number is so big it's basically incomprehensible--what do you do for amusement over the course of 1,811,640 days? What does that do to your perspective?--but whatever. Big number is big; mysterious background is mysterious.

Part of me wonders if the man who thought Sucker Punch is feminist is using this mysterious background to make some ham-fisted metaphor for how men never know what's going on in a beautiful woman's head because we're too busy sexually objectifying them (which point he tries to make by sexually objectifying her), but I can't bring myself to care. This movie was never meant for me.

I'm sorry, Gal Gadot. I've failed you. I don't believe you as Wonder Woman. As what's her name in Fast and Furious, sure.
But not as Diana.

So that other one with the WW1 setting tied in, well within the same universe?

Johnny Novgorod:
I'm sorry, Gal Gadot. I've failed you. I don't believe you as Wonder Woman. As what's her name in Fast and Furious, sure.
But not as Diana.

She doesn't fill out the WW costume any better than she did the bikini.

So unnecessary too, the Lady Sif costume shows how to do it right.

Johnny Novgorod:
I'm sorry, Gal Gadot. I've failed you. I don't believe you as Wonder Woman. As what's her name in Fast and Furious, sure.
But not as Diana.

Best keep the image of Wonder Woman as a painted/animated character. No live action man or woman can truly resemble their animated counterparts.

This is the one and only Wonder Woman:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111136442/4450980-5549019752-rs_63.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8tYbHYgl--/quofdugnaeg3u102wa2x.jpg

Sure... if you are young and never knew Lynda Carter....

Samtemdo8:

Best keep the image of Wonder Woman as a painted/animated character. No live action man or woman can truly resemble their animated counterparts.

This is the one and only Wonder Woman:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111136442/4450980-5549019752-rs_63.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8tYbHYgl--/quofdugnaeg3u102wa2x.jpg

Samtemdo8:

Johnny Novgorod:
I'm sorry, Gal Gadot. I've failed you. I don't believe you as Wonder Woman. As what's her name in Fast and Furious, sure.
But not as Diana.

Best keep the image of Wonder Woman as a painted/animated character. No live action man or woman can truly resemble their animated counterparts.

This is the one and only Wonder Woman:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11113/111136442/4450980-5549019752-rs_63.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8tYbHYgl--/quofdugnaeg3u102wa2x.jpg

Actually I think Gina Carano would've looked good in the WW part. Not sure about her acting chops, but then again who the hell can vouch for Gadot's? At least Gina looks the part. Dates Henry Cavill, too.

Guess they missed the news about that pic with the omega symbol in it.
Kinda expected the Escapist to have an article on that as well.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZqK1CNVAAAuaup.jpg

Why is she wearing brown? Supposed to be blue and red. Oh right, Snyder.

Damn Snyder! You know what I like about the teaser of this film? Because it told us enough to be excited. Now, the marketing is revealing every plot point. Even if it's a good movie, we won't be surprised.

I think people should cut Gal Gadot some more slack. This is a Zack Snyder movie after all: we're just lucky some part of the film won't feature shirtless beefcakes growling at each other.

Y'know, except for the part of the movie's demographic that's all about man-on-man action. But then, that segment of the audience should be about as happy with this movie as you can be for something PG-13 whose title doesn't literally contain the word 'gay.'

Why do they let them keep adding information? Is there somewhere in the world where people keep going "YES, YES, TELL US MORE, TELL US MORE! YOU DON'T NEED TO SAVE ANY OF IT FOR THE MOVIE OR LEAVE ANYTHING INTERESTING UNKNOWN!"? Is someone giving them feedback that people appreciate knowing everything in advance? Does someone appreciate knowing everything in advance?

I feel like I'm the kind of person this movie is aimed at, enjoying both super hero action movies and having been a devote fan of the Justice League cartoons on Cartoon Network. Yet every single time I hear about this train wreck of a court case, it only makes me want to see it less!

And why the hell is Wonderwoman being shot with a Gears-of-War filter?!

Fanghawk:
Snyder is referencing Wonder Woman's comic book origins as both an unaging Amazonian princess and one of the most powerful warriors of the DC Universe. It's a fairly bold move, considering past attempts to adapt Wonder Woman weren't so faithful or far reaching.

Uh-huh. Are we also referencing Wonder Woman's comic book origins as the "honorary member" of the Justice Society who was made secretary and got to stay home while the boys went off to fight Nazis? The one with a thing about bondage?

I'm fine with Wonder Woman and I think a lot of the more recent portrayals of her are great. But I think suggesting that the version of her in the movie owes more to some "pure" original comic book origin than more recent versions is revisionist history, or at the very least playing a bit loose with the term "origins".

[SARCASM] You are right, DC, there is absolutely nothing interesting about a superhero who has been around for 5000 years, she has obviously doing nothing relevant for the entire planet and will have no tales to spin at all about her exploits. [/SARCASM]

Seriously though, where the hell was she when the Kryptonians invaded? Was DC scared that Wonder Woman might actually be able to stand up to them? WTF

VoidWanderer:
[SARCASM] You are right, DC, there is absolutely nothing interesting about a superhero who has been around for 5000 years, she has obviously doing nothing relevant for the entire planet and will have no tales to spin at all about her exploits. [/SARCASM]

Seriously though, where the hell was she when the Kryptonians invaded? Was DC scared that Wonder Woman might actually be able to stand up to them? WTF

Man I'd have paid in Nazi stamped gold to see Wonder Woman throw down against Faora.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here