Patty Jenkins says Wonder Woman 1984 is "not a sequel," even though it definitely is
Aux Features FilmLook: We would never, in a million years, try to tell director Patty Jenkins—whose Wonder Woman marked the first real bright spot in an otherwise sloggy DC Comics Cinematic Universe—how to do pretty much anything, ever. She’s way smarter than us, Wonder Woman was great, and Wonder Woman 1984 is looking extremely exciting, at least from the brief, neon-heavy glimpses of it that we’ve seen
But.
As devoted practitioners of the fine art of pedantry, we do have to express a certain amount of confusion at statements Jenkins has apparently been making to the film’s producers, making it clear that, in the words of long-time producer Charles Roven, the upcoming film about the continuing adventures of Wonder Woman is “not a sequel” to the previous movie.“She was just determined that this movie should be the next iteration of Wonder Woman, but not a sequel,” Roven told Vulture recently, going on to note that, while Wonder Woman 1984 will, indeed, feature the same cast, the same sense of humor, and the same emotional tone as the first Wonder Woman movie, it’s still definitely not a sequel to Jenkins’ 2017 hit.
We suspect that the real problem here is the stigma that still exists around the word “sequel,” even in as continuity-heavy a genre as superhero films. (This is all your fault, Thor: The Dark World.) Vulture reports another source close to Jenkins that says that she’s viewing the film as “a stand-alone film in the same way that Indiana Jones or Bond films are, instead of one continuous story that requires many installments.” Which, okay, fair enough: We’re not sure how “Temple Of Doom is not a sequel to Raiders Of The Lost Ark” would hold up under the ol’ Lasso Of Truth, but it’s Jenkins’ movie; we’re going to be lined up to see it no matter what she ends up referring to it as.
86 Comments
Isn’t Temple of Doom famously a prequel to Raiders? I actually thought that was a perfect example of what Jenkins is trying to convey – a standalone narrative that stars the same character.
Yeah, and I think the James Bond analogy really brought it home.Also, on a side note, can I just say how confusingly happy I am right now, having read all the comments thus far and everybody referring to it as “Raiders”, and not you know, that ‘other title? Nice.
Instead of Temple of Doom her example should have been The Great Muppet Caper. Then everyone would have just said “Ahhhhh, I get it,” and this new story never would have existed and I’d be looking at porn right now.
As a practitioner of the fine art of pedantry, continuity-wise, Temple Of Doom is, indeed, not a sequel to Raiders Of The Lost Ark. It is a prequel.
I mean if you really want to get pedantic about it, Temple of Doom is a prequel, not a sequel, to Raiders
If we’re going to get pedantic, I’m looking up the precise definition of pedantic because I’ve never been sure about it.
If you really want to get pedantic, it’s both. “Sequel” is used to mean “a work (in a given sequence) produced after another work in that sequence” and “a work that takes place later in the same chronology as another work in that sequence.”Same problem with “prequel”: It can be either a movie produced later but taking place earlier, or a movie released earlier (and taking place whenever).Thus, Rogue One is both a sequel and prequel to A New Hope: it was produced after, making it a sequel, and it takes place before, making it a prequel. Conversely, A New Hope is both a sequel and prequel to Rogue One, but using the other meanings: it was produced earlier but takes place later.
If you want get not pedantic at all, Temple of Doom is just a movie, and not a particularly good one.
Temple of Doom is amazing! No star for you.
I like it but it does have some problematic depictions of Indian people
Better or worse than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?
Far better. I don’t believe Crystal Skull was ever made into a real movie. Though I did see a mock-up of a poster one time.
If we’re going to be pedantic, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I promise you whatever slack channel the AV Club uses is filled with other writers also pointing out that the Temple of Doom was a prequel.
Maybe. I sometimes wonder if anyone on staff ever reads anything after they hit post.
I’m not on staff, but I usually just read the title and scroll down to the comments to start a fight with someone.
I will beef with you right now, sir. Bring your beef, that I may partake of it.
Somewhere there’s a years-old post proclaiming Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure as the first time the world saw the Pee-Wee Herman character, so…no.
Did you guys know that Temple of Doom is actually a prequel to Raiders? I sure do! Nobody else did but I sure did!
Hold the god damn phone for a sec here… are you saying what I think you’re saying?… that Temple of Doom is not a sequel, but indeed a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Arc?
I did and it always drives me nuts when Indy is such a rational skeptic in Raiders, when according to chronology, he’s already seen the power of the Sankara stones, so why should he have any doubts about the power of the Ark? Mr. Spielberg I await your call to explain this glaring blunder.
Isn’t he also somewhat skeptical of the Grail legend at the start of Last Crusade? Or am I confusing that with his disdain for his father’s obsession with it?
I think it’s mostly his disdain for his father’s obsession. Indy does really seem to want to find the Grail later in the movie.
It’s disdain.
Talk to George and Larry.
Sigh, I already talked to them, and they said to talk to Steve. Why the runaround?
Cocaine.It seems a sure fire way to speed things up, when all it does is slow things down.
Ah, yes, words of wisdom from the Travelers of Blues.
I assume he hand-waved it away as a fluke, or maybe he was under the influence of mysterious drugs.
“I mean yes, I’ve seen a man live with his heart plucked out, and stones glowing with the powering of the gods when placed near one another, but I’m pretty sure that’s a fluke.”
“Gentlemen, the Ark of the Covenant is a myth. My firsthand experiences in India have fully convinced me that Hinduism is true, and I therefore evaluate the claims of monotheistic religions with appropriate skepticism.”
The next Indiana Jones film should have him going to Japan and encountering all the Shinto spirits living in rocks and trees and stuff.
HALLUCINATING ON DRUGS I SAY
Clearly because he was shown that Hinduism is the true religion, so he’s sceptical about the Judeo-Christian myths. That retcon would have been fun to work with…
That always annoyed me about Indy films – which religion is right? So, we’ve got the Ark, so Christianity right? But than the Stones? Oh, and aliens.
The Ark is Judaism; the Grail, Christianity; the Stones, rock’n’roll.
Temple of Doom was George Lucas’ idea. Steven Speilberg is always careful to point that out. Which may have something to do with Temple of Doom’s weaker story.
I also knew this.
Please. A *true* pedant would point out that there is no such thing as a “prequel”, as a sequel isn’t defined by when the work takes place temporally, only that it contains characters and/or other identifiable original elements of a prior work.
(takes bong hit) What if all stories take place at the same time, man?
like Back to the Future? Still sequels.
Then they are *all* sequels, grasshopper.
“I’d also like to point out that Temple of Doom is a prequel, if you’ll listen! … Oh boy. That monkey is going to pay.”
This is exactly what I came here to post. Glad you had it under control…
You’re all doing this wrong!
“We’re not sure how “Temple Of Doom is not a sequel to Raiders Of The Lost Ark”
Yes AV Club, the longtime readership is here is all too painfully aware that you are not sure about how Temple of Doom is not a sequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Much like when you said they were directed by Stephen Spielberg.And to address what she’s actually saying, maybe it’s really not a sequel. Remember when Chris Pine was confirmed for the cast, and people were all, “What up, yo? He dead,” (Is that right? I haven’t seen the movie.) Maybe this explains that. They’re literally making another Wonder Woman story, where they are different characters with different backstories in a different time. That would certainly be a pretty novel and bold choice.
Remember when Chris Pine was confirmed for the cast, and people were
all, “What up, yo? He dead,” (Is that right? I haven’t seen the movie.)
Yes, he dies in the movie. The best theory that I’ve heard is that Pine in WW84 turns out to be Martian Manhunter (he can shapeshift). That would be awesome.
In Wonder Woman, I saw Steve punch out two flightcrew wearing parachutes…..
Look, if you’re really REALLY interested in wallowing in the muck of pedantry, Indiana Jones featuring The Temple From Doom is actually a prequel to Rayders with The Lost Arc.
If this really isn’t a sequel, and it will be another stand alone movie, a la James Bond, that has to mean that the DCEU is officially dead. Because if The Flash or Aquaman shows up in this, there’s no way you can call it it’s own thing.
Points deducted because you’re the only one in here who didn’t mention Temple of Doom (which, if you didn’t know, was actually a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark).
‘Of course, as many others here have pointed out, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a prequel, not a sequel. The Last Crusade is the only sequel to Raiders.’‘But what about the Kingdom of the Cr…..’‘I SAID LAST CRUSADE IS THE ONLY FUCKING SEQUEL TO RAIDERS AND I MEANT IT!’
“We’re not sure how “Temple Of Doom is not a sequel to Raiders Of The Lost Ark” My inhaler is having an asthma attack.
Frankenstein was the creator, not the monster!Wrong nitpick, you say?
But wasn’t Frankenstein the real monster?Makes you think, huh?
They’re clearly both monsters!
I keep things clear by always referring to “Frankenstein the Monster” and “Frankenstein the Monster’s Monster.”
You could just abbreviate the second one to “grandmonster.”
So good
Monsters Frankenstein, if you will.
Not really. Shelley is pretty clear in her work that Frankenstein was the real inhuman one, playing God for his own shits and giggles.
I agree, but I try not to let nuance get in the way of a joke.
To boldly Frankenstein is also wrong, because you shouldn’t split an infinitive.I think we’ve covered everything now.
Sadly, this comment will be in the greys, and thus you’ll never be told that Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders, not a sequel.
But DID YOU KNOW that Temple of Doom was prequel not a sequel?
Is it a flash sideways? Is it actually an episode of Lost? IS STEVE THE SMOKE MONSTER?!
“sequel”, dictionary.com: “a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.” WW1984 presumably qualifies on at least the latter criterion, and probably the former, too.
Don’t be so pretentious, lady. Just call it a sequel.
“It’s not a sequel, it’s an equal!” – Tagline of ‘Fierce Creatures’, the vastly inferior follow-up to ‘A Fish Called Wanda’.
‘A Fish Called Wanda’ remains brightly funny and silly.
The sexual politics were a little problematic when I first saw it 20 years ago and haven’t gotten better, but my God, are the performances a delight.
I sincerely scarcely get your complaint. That “Wanda” was “problematic” and objectionable.? I just found it a very funny film that has held up well, it’s still funny. I don’t remember- oh wait, it this about stuttering or stammering? That’s the “problematic” part? Well, you have my full sympathy. It’s still a very funny movie. Even 30 years later , it holds up.
I was thinking of the JLC character in her entirety.Yes, it’s still funny, and the Otto character unfortunately only got more and more relevant from 2001 to 2009 and from 2017 to the present, but I can’t say I’m not just a little uncomfortable watching JLC hump a rope because John Cleese is speaking Russian.
I, ah, would also like to express my fondness for, ah, pointing out that Temple of Doom is a sequel to Raiders.[Everyone boos]
Okay. I just feel horribly, terrifically old that Wonder Woman 1984 and the current Captain Marvel set in the mid-90s are like, period pieces. Ancient yore from so long ago. Oh well.I only pray that in Wonder Woman 1984, Diana will exclaim, “I ain’t ‘fraid of no ghosts!” and maybe do a lot of drugs in downtown NYC nightclubs. With great music.
The 1980s as a period piece doesn’t make me feel old but the 90s as one does.
Ugh, hate all this it’s not a sequel, it’s not a remake, it’s not a horror movie. Films are like kids, every filmmaker thinks theirs is a true original but when you look back you realise they’re all just the same with a slightly different haircut.
I’ll clear all this up for everyone. Patty Jenkins actually said it’s not a “squeakquel” because she wanted to squash any rumors of an Alvin and the Chipmunks crossover.
(Notices the pedan-trap you left at the end of the article)(Keeps walking)
I though Wonder Woman was almost unwatchable.One good scene between the two leads in the cave.the action was dragged down by cheesy slow motion and gobblygook CGI.felt like a bad Snyder movie.
We’re not sure how “Temple Of Doom is not a sequel to Raiders Of The Lost Ark” would hold up under the ol’ Lasso Of Truth
Temple of Doom takes place before Raiders of the Lost Ark, so your argument fails on multiple levels, because Raiders is not a sequel to Temple and Last Crusade isn’t a sequel to Raiders.Jenkins is correct, it’s not a sequel, not in the way that the vast majority of people think of as a sequel. It doesn’t continue the story from the previous movie. It stands alone and just tells another story. Bond is really the only franchise that gets this (pre-Craig). They did it a few years ago with the new Jumanji movie (completely standalone), but now we’re getting a sequel to that one, so they didn’t learn any lessons.
Not to be pendantic, but there are a couple of references to Robin Williams’ character in the new Jumanji.
Not to be pendantic, but there are a couple of references to Robin Williams’ character in the new Jumanji.
Congratulations on missing the entire point. Yes, it’s referenced in two blink-&-you’ll-miss-it throwaway lines and then the movie moves on! The original Jumanji has no bearing whatsoever on the new one from a few years ago. Nothing that happens in the first movie matters to what happens in the second. That’s how you do a franchise. Bond is still the only franchise that’s figured this out. 20 movies about the same character that aren’t sequels to each other.
I don’t know what you saw, but Wonder Woman was…not. good. That shit couldnt have dragged harder for the middle 60% of it no matter how good Gal looked and despite having a favorite actor of mine along side her
Thor: The Dark World is one of the very best movies in the MCU and I’m going to fucking die along on this hill.
Ignoring the obvious continuity from film to film (the references to Tracy Bond in post-On Her Majesty’s Secret Service films, Bond running into J.W. Pepper in The Man with the Golden Gun and Pepper remembering him from Live and Let Die), I think you’d be hard-pressed to argue that, at minimum, all of the post-Casino Royale Daniel Craig Bond films are sequels.