Talk:Wonder Woman 1984/Archive 1

Archive 1

Marketing Section

The language is set in the future tense to describe an event which happened in July, 2018. More problematic is that the article above includes an image taken from the event, so obviously Wikipedians have access to material from something that happened over a month ago now. – 109.64.120.10 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Title

Gal Gadot just confirmed on Twitter that the film is, in fact, title "Wonder Woman 1984". --118.107.129.3 (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen it reported specifically anywhere but is the subtitle "1984" likely an allusion of some sort to George Orwell's novel of the same name? The promotional image of Wonder Woman in front of a wall of televisions would seem to potentially be an allusion to the monitoring of the populous key to that book. 128.2.149.7 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a weird choise. Maybe they didn't want it to be titled WW2, to not make it related to another world war. Future generations may think this film relesed in 1984 or about world war LXXXIV. הראש (talk) I believe people will simply call it Wonder Woman Two.

Wonder Woman vs Big Brother? הראש (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Poster

Another editor has repeatedly tried to change the poster in the infobox to one that not only does not look official (looks like a fan-made poster), but I can't find on Warner Bros's website. If you're going to change the poster, please provide direct evidence that it came from Warner Bros (and not some random person on Twitter, or some forum online). —Locke Cole • t • c 09:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Special Contributions:Locke Cole; The poster in question comes from a source that shared a still-image version of the official motion-poster shared by both director/co-writer/producer Patty Jenkins here and the film's star/producer Gal Gadot here. It's definitely not fan-made. The image currently on the article, appears to be more of a promotional artwork/poster. Is there a source to be provided that it comes from Warner Bros. Pictures?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I did not upload the current image, it's actually still the original filename, but @TriiipleThreat: uploaded a new version over it. The source for the current image is listed at File:Wonder_Woman_1984_poster.jpg, however I have not seen where it was officially shown on a Warner Bros website/official social media account. Perhaps they can shed some light on that. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The source comes from IMP Awards, probably the most reliable secondary source that specifically deals with film/television posters. They list B O N D as the creator, the same company that designed the film's other character posters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Plot

The movie has been released in theaters. It's no longer "spoiling" the movie to have a plot summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.49.157.251 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, whoever just edited the Plot section has a poor command of English grammar.136.49.157.251 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER plot should be included. It is strange that the UK gets an advance release every once in a while but it happens. However the version of the plot I saw[1] bore little resemblance to what actually happened in the film so I rewrote it. As someone who edits anonymously on principle I hate to see a locked article but this film has been released in the UK and will not be released in the US until December 25 so there are going to be too many jokers messing with the article. It needs to locked or at the very least set to allow only flagged edits. -- 109.78.200.110 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The plot section was poorly written but more accurate [2] before User:David_O._Johnson attempted to rewrite it, but somehow he still left in "The film begins" which is possibly the most pointless and redundant thing you could possibly write in a Plot section. I know I'm not the best the writer myself but to attempt to shorten a plot section and still leave "The film begins" shows a severe lack of understanding how to copyedit.

Even at the risk of this article being locked so I can't edit it either, let me be clear that this version [3][4] is simply not accurate, and it would probably be best if this article had at least some level of protection. -- 109.78.200.110 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why people so often think that only English-speaking countries, specifically the UK and US, are the only ones that seem to exist. One editor has a Korean-style name, so the movie is already available across many countries. You need to mature beyond your ethnocentrism.136.49.157.251 (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What's your point? My point, was this film is out already but because the US is getting it later people were adding messed up inaccurate plot sections to this article. If you don't have something to say that is actually about this article then you are commenting on the wrong page. Don't assume. -- 109.77.207.126 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You've proven my point.136.49.157.251 (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an American film. This is English language Wikipedia. It would be wrong not to focus on the US and UK releases.

If you have sources that say other countries releases are somehow notable in this case then quit whining and show your sources. -- 109.77.207.126 (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What's special about movies being released in the UK? Plenty of "American" or English-language movies get released in East Asia before they're released in the UK or the US. In fact, they usually are because of time zones, lmao.136.49.157.251 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

User:Nyxaros has some very specific ideas about how Rotten Tomatoes should be written. Without any evidence Nyxaros claimed "vandals" had changed the wording[5] and once more changed the wording to his preferred version despite the fact that the wording was following exactly what WP:MOSFILM recommends. ("As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10.") Nyxaros previously complained that a different generic wording was somehow "making the readers' eyes bleed"[6] and changed a perfectly reasonable wording to his preferred version. Despite his complaints about various wordings I don't see how his personal preferred wording is better than any other version of the wording (and it has the disadvantage of being different and inconsistent with what many older articles do) and it doesn't follow the the wording WP:MOSFILM recommends after their discussion and consensus. -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Restored again. User:Samurai_Kung_fu_Cowboy changed the wording with no explanation,[7] (including several punctuation errors that other edits made good faith efforts to fix). -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You can fix any punctuation mistakes without changing the format. The format is consistent throughout Wikipedia. You can look at other film pages for reference. If you start an account you can personally message editors for clarification. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The format is not consistent throughout Wikipedia. Not even close. Many older articles do use similar formatting but they are far from consistent. (The essay WP:RTMC tried to help but ended but it ended up being yet another inconsistency.) WP:MOSFILM was updated this year to recommend using "AS OF" but they've been recommending a wording that only a few editors accept for longer than that. It is weird that WP:MOSFILM recommends a wording that is inconsistent with and bears little resemblance to what most articles actually do.

The version Nyxaros keeps changing articles too is not even consistent with the guidelines and also not consistent with the version Samurai is using, but the version Samurai is using is at least consistent with what many older articles were doing. (I don't mind the older version too much but I don't think it is correct to write "On the review aggregator website", and it would be better to write either "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes" or a "On review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes" or just "On Rotten Tomatoes".)

What Samurai has written is close enough to what most older articles actually use, and I'm willing to go along with that if Nyxaros doesn't mess with it again. Editors should either follow what the guidelines recommend or at least follow what most older articles do. -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how an anonymous user (probably a banned editor before?) is supposed to follow and know all the discussions about films, but we've reached a long time ago that something closer to MOS:FILM should be used instead of "approval rating" and "assigned" (and if I remember correctly these were added for the first time by User:TropicAces??). While not a counsensus, some editors including me think that using "As of December 2020" is unnecessary. By the way, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST shouldn't be a reason. It's also odd to accuse others of "messing" when clearly you've been violating WP:BRD. nyxærös 18:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nyxaros, can have a different opinion but that is very different from crying "vandals" when someone does follow the guidelines. There's no need to add yet another inconsistent wording of your own, if you aren't going to follow the guidelines then at least try and follow the wording that is consistent with older articles, more like Samurai and TropicAces. -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Metacritic, assigned the film a weighted average score of 59 out of 100, based on..." and now "Nyxaros, can have a different opinion". Inconsistent with English language indeed. Everyone is free to copy/paste in the end. Oh, and you described yourself very well. nyxærös 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nyxaros is making arguments ad hominem. Nyxaros has not explained why he cried "vandals". Nyxaros has not explained why a phrasing he disliked somehow amounted to "making readers eyes bleed", that's an overreaction. As for WP:BRD I could have made less reverts sure, but this is the WP:DISCUSS part of BRD.

We should probably follow the guidelines, they were decided based on consensus. Failing that we could at least follow the way older articles do things like the way Samurai and TropicAces do, which is more or less what the article has ended up with at the moment. -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm following Tropic Aces example and personally I don't agree with you. You speak of consensus, yet you continually make unilaterall changes anonymously, without any consensus or agreement. They go against all other Wikipedia film pages including recent ones. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The consensus I was speaking about was the consensus that the Project film guidelines represent. They are based on many long boring discussions, some of which I've read. (The essay WP:RTMC represents many more failed discussions and attempts at consensus.) It is weird that the Project Film guidelines so badly fail to reflect what most film articles do.

Samurai, I'm okay with the version of the page as you most recently edited it[8] (and nice catch fixing the Metacritic misquote too). Can we agree on that much and leave it there? -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Metacritic wasn't a misquote. The rating changed and then quote did too. It was a simple update. Pinging@TropicAces: as well for input, as the editor has been mentioned on here. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't wish to leave it at this because if there's something I'm not fully understanding about policy I want to. This can be a learning experience for all involved. However, based on current pages and recent ones I can't just go with an anonymous editor's interpretation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page my disagreement was not really with Samurai Kung fu Cowboy at all. It was the over the top reactions by Nyxaros and some of his wording choices that prompted this. Unfortunately past discussions on Project Film (and as a result the guidelines) only managed to come up with yet another phrasing that editors don't seem to want to use. -- 109.79.180.72 (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nyxaros ignored all that and rewrote the wording to his preferred version again.[9] -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While I support Samurai Kung fu Cowboy and TropicAces' rationale regarding the critical reception, I've asked User:Erik, an uninvolved user and expert at WP:FILM, for his thoughts on what the lead's reception summary should be, since I have reverted three times (a fourth will be a violation of WP:3RR) and edit warring is forbidden. Using Thor: The Dark World (a GA) as a model, I think we should do something like this: "The film received praise for its performances (particularly those of Gadot) and settings, but was criticized for its clichés". Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What? My edit was entirely unrelated to the above discussion. I restored the intro to an older version because various edits have been ignoring WP:FILMLEAD, which I clearly explained. I was restoring the WP:STATUSQUO.

Sjones23 reverted that change without explanation. I thought at first this was an oversight and that Sjones23 had unintentionally knocked out my edit while reverting other edits, but he did it again, still no explanation. Sjones23 still hasn't explained why he reverted, or if there is some part of WP:FILMLEAD that disagrees with.

Various editors have been making a mess of the intro. Only a little earlier TropicAces made some effort to "trim the shopping list"[10] as he put it, but that wasn't enough. The intro made claims that the performances were praised but the article body does not support any such summary. The Critical response only has 1 critic (the Guardian) praising Gadot and Wiig, and zero critics praising Pascal. The intro should not generalize based on only one example and it should definitely not claim there was praise for Pascal when the article body does not (yet) include any such praise. Editors need to expand the Critical response section before they expand the intro, see WP:FILMLEAD. -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sjones23 edited his earlier above comment to include an explanation. I'm not going to edit mine, I will only reiterate WP:FILMLEAD and say again that so long as anything summarized in the intro is actually covered by the Critical response section then there's no problem at all. -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

NOT Ronald Reagan

• "Was the President in ‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Supposed to Be Reagan?" TheWrap.com [11]
• "Milligan doesn’t officially play Reagan in the film"
• Jenkins denied character-specific influences across the board. “We even have the president in this movie, and I’ve gone out of my way not to make it look like Ronald Reagan,” she said. (quoted by theWrap.com) original source People.com [12]
• The character is credited only as POTUS

On December 26, an anon ipv6 user added the claim that it was Reagan to the plot section[13] I removed it because it was wrong (and not sourced). On December 28 User:DisneyMetalhead added the claim that it was Ronald Reagan to the Cast section.[14] This edit included Screenrant as a source[15] Screenrant claims "Milligan's role in Wonder Woman 1984 is officially credited as POTUS. Regardless, there's no denying that it is indeed Ronald Reagan." This directly contradicts the statements from Jenkins.[16] The intentions of the author are not absolute but I think it needs further discussion before we ignore what the director has said based on the opinion of Screenrant. -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That paragraph already included a reference to Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle [17] who wrote: "it’s not Reagan. It’s some guy played by Stuart Milligan. He has the Reagan hair, but he’s shorter and looks nothing like him" ... go to the source and read the whole paragraph, which provides more context and says it in some ways it is but in other more important ways it is not Reagan.

An encyclopedia should not claim it was Reagan, although it might be possible to mention that some viewers interpreted it as Reagan anyway (such as in the context of Critical response or academic analysis) but I would need first be made clear that the character is credited only as POTUS and that Jenkins herself did not intend the character to be Reagan. -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Special:Contributions/109.79.76.202: There are various sources out there that have stated (besides Screen Rant), that the character has to be Ronald Reagan. They cite the time period, the historical elements of the film (as well as the first film). Jenkins' quote seems to indicate that she tried to avoid typifying Ronald Reagan (as some Hollywood depictions are negative). My question to you would be, if it isn't Ronald Reagan -- who else would it be?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The character is not credited as Reagan and the director has said clearly stated she deliberately didn't make him like Reagan. It is a movie, it is not real. He is a fictional character for a film set in the DC Universe, like many other fictional presidents in film before him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_who_played_the_president_of_the_United_States#Male_actors_who_played_fictional_presidents

If editors really want to say "according to the Screenrant" he had to be Reagan you possibly still do that, but editors should not misleadingly presenting opinions of a reviewer as facts, like DisneyMetalhead did in his edit.[18] -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Dreamstone

So, lemme get this straight. You think the Dreamstone, a magical gemstone capable of altering reality, is not a reference to the comics Dreamstone, a magical gemstone capable of altering reality. In this movie which is full of DC comics references, and which is intended as a springboard for any number of other media projects in a shared setting, this particular plot point is just a coincidence and not worth linking. Do I have that right? --Rosicrucian^Talk 02:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to cite a reliable source stating that rather than canvassing the opinions of editors. DonQuixote (talk) 03:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If you find suitable sources you could mention the DC background of the Dreamstone in the Production/Development section of the article instead, but as TheWrap.com writes "the movie version of the Dreamstone doesn’t have a ton in common with the comics version."[19]

While it is interesting that in the comics there is a character called Doctor Destiny who possesses the "Materioptikon" a magical gemstone capable of altering reality that is also called the Dreamstone, the problem was including it as link in the Plot section of this article was not helpful. See WP:EGG (which was already included in the edit summary when the wiki link was removed). -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear if User:DisneyMetalhead saw this discussion or not but anyway he added a wiki link to Doctor Destiny,[20] and again it is not a good idea but at least this time it was not the Plot section but the Cast section, in the long description of Maxwell Lord.

I encourage other editors to remove the wiki link (or extensively rewrite the Doctor Destiny article so that it is more coherent and the link at least makes some sense). -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert another (anon IP) user adding Doctor Destiny link in the plot section.[21] -- 109.79.76.202 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rosicrucian: I too find it interesting, that in a film based on DC Comics and all of its obscure references and characters, etc -- that the "Dreamstone" which is clearly an adaptation of the "Dreamstone" from the comics -- is being debated in the talk page. I agree that a better description of the Dreamstone on the Doctor Destiny article would be helpful, or even an article purely based on the Dreamstone (as it was also a part of the Sandman comics). I do not see however, why the direct link is being removed. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

"I do not see however, why the direct link is being removed." Have you read and understood WP:EGG? If you think WP:EGG does not apply here then say so, but it is not clear that you understand that guideline.

Think about readers of an encyclopedia who are not already familiar with the comics, who click on a the linked text Dreamstone wanting to learn more about the object in the film but instead get sent to an article about a character from comics. It is not clear why the link took them to that page, they then have to read through article to figure out that it has only a vague connection to an object that is sort of similar but not really related to the film version. That there is some connection to the comics version of the Dreamstone in the Doctor Destiny article does not necessarily make it good idea to link to that page in the Plot section (it is about as helpful as linking word "kryptonite" in a Superman film article to the page for the comics character Jimmy Olsen). -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also better to have secondary sources to back you up. DonQuixote (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Do you think the linking "Dreamstone" to Doctor Destiny in the cast section is acceptable? (The edit by DisneyMetalhead[22] specifically. I think it also fails WP:EGG, and it might be too much Plot in the cast section but that's a whole other question). -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch. DonQuixote (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.[23] -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Besides, sources have speculated before and after the film's release that it's a reference to the Chaos Shard anyways. Probably should wait for a definitive source (or for sources commonly and consistently) stating that it's one thing or another. DonQuixote (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Poster 2

Hi. It looks like there will be more posters to come, and they just released another new poster. Which one do you think we should use in the infobox? These are the two most used that I've seen: [24] [25]. nyxærös 09:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally like the second poster that you posted Nyxaros to be used in the info box, but the first one seems to be the one most widely used. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

All I can say on this matter is that currently when you open the page on mobile the poster only shows Gadot from hip to neck, at least until you click on it. It looks a bit odd to be honest. I'll leave it up to you to decide if this is a problem, but I think it might speak for the second poster.VonFuzzius (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't find the rule (maybe it was only past discussions) but if I recall correctly we're supposed to use whichever poster was the official Theatrical release poster, (definitely not teaser posters) it is not supposed to be a subjective choice or something that that needs discussion and voting but even then it still is not always clear which poster is actually the official one.

I checked Template:Infobox_film it only says " Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used." WP:MOSFILM does't actually say to try and use the official theatrical release poster like I thought it did. In any case I think it would probably be better to leave the poster as it is, unless there's a particularly good reason to do so.

I tested on mobile (android) and I'm not seeing any kind of loading error like VonFuzzius described. -- 109.79.66.241 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reword Critical response?

In the lede and the top of Critical response, the summary of reviews is using citations from right after the embargo, when Rotten Tomatoes was at 87% and reviews cited as mostly positive. Since the score has plummeted to 61% (and “mixed or average reviews” on Metacritic). Should we find more relevant/recent review roundups to form the review summaries? TropicAces (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting that Rotten Tomatoes changed their consensus summary for this film.[26]

Early reviews were more positive but the reviews were always mixed. Even if the score does drop 59% and Rotten Tomatoes officially changes their summary to from "fresh" to "rotten" (negative) mixed would continue to be a fair description of the reviews overall. The scales have tilted and the weight of the summary has changed but the substance of the summary is as good (or bad) as it was before. If you want to change something then trim it back, remove the summary (which are always based on whichever small selection the writer chooses to look at and summarize) and leave the aggregator scores and the reviews to speak for themselves. -- 109.79.78.214 (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

This movie is not set in 2020 - it is set in 1984. It was released in 2020. Please remove the category tag: Category:Films set in 2020 Seannerd (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wonder Woman – rapist?

Some media call 1984 Wonder Woman a rapist, and the allegations are all over Reddit. Shouldn’t this criticism be included in the article? Men’s consent is an important issue, too.

• https://cosmicbook.news/gal-gadot-wonder-woman-rapist
• https://bleedingfool.com/blogs/did-wonder-woman-really-rape-that-guy-and-other-awkward-questions-about-ww84/
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/12/26/the-warped-morality-of-wonder-woman-1984/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/klg8o3/cmv_wonder_womans_boyfriend_cannot_consent_to_sex/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.192.69 (talk • contribs)

If enough reliable sourcess cover the topic, then yes. However, blogs and forums aren't considered reliable (or more importantly notable) sources, and I'm not sure about comicbook.news. Having said that, we'd probably need at least five sources on the level of notability as forbes (probably even ten) before even considering this as a topic to be mentioned in a tertiary source, such as wikipedia. DonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I already added that [[27]] at 21:26, 3 January 2021‎ with the edit summary (→‎Reception: Wonder Woman basically raped a man, here are a couple of reliable sources criticizing that). Forbes article was one of the two references I added. Dream Focus 03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, we cannot use Forbes contributors articles, they are considered unreliable. (see WP:RS/P). Not that there aren't substitutions for that The Mary Sue, Daily Dot. --Masem (t) 01:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Mention the criticism briefly in the Critical response section but this does not merit a separate "Controversy" subsection, WP:OVERSECTION, WP:UNDUE. A defender pointed to the tropes of body swap films, and Jenkins replied in the affirmative.[28][29] Keep calm, carry on. -- 109.77.211.31 (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Their excuse for this was that others had done in previously, so that made it OK in their minds. Ridiculous. It should be in a separate section for controversy, it has gotten enough coverage. Dream Focus 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
        • To be fair, while there is definitely RS coverage to include this concern, its not as great or expansive as you think there should be if you follow just social media's critical take on the issue. Its one of those things that can be these moral outrage with produced works; sometimes they are clearly wrong while other times may be something that is fringe within user groups but not in the professional criticism area. Again, there's enough to cover it but finding further sourcing that's usable at this point is not that easy. --Masem (t) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot excess and unsourced opinion

Adding things by saying they're the moral are opinion. Please provide reliable sources stating this and not just original research. Otherwise it seems unnecessary. I see no reason why it's needed to explain the basic plot. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think its rather obvious that the line at the end of the intro scene is what makes that scene relate to the ultimate conclusion of the film without any OR, and if anything, why she was disqualified from the race. --Masem (t) 18:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't but it appears that's just me so I added it back. We should still keep this discussion open for any future or other current issues. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to clarify. Yes it's obvious. However, I think without it, it's obvious she was disqualified for the shortcut and I don't think it's needed for the overall theme of moral of the film to be clear. Perhaps for the movie but certainly not for a short synopsis. The ending's moral is still crystal clear with out it. I hope this better explains my position. However, I've re added it anyway as perhaps it's not as clear for some or most without it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: @Masem: Samurai, I don't understand why you continually object to my clarifications of scenes by wholesale reverting them rather than coming here and discussing it with me. I have given my reasons in the summaries, and it's not like I've gone into Every. Single. DETAIL. I've even given way on some, such as Barbara's helping Max out of gratitude (although it's stated in the film). There are still two points of contention I have:

1. Diana's anonymity at the beginning -- she's clearly trying to stay hidden (albeit unsuccessfully -- that's on P.J.). The word "secretly" isn't excessive detail.

2. Diana's encounter with the man Steve possessed. Just saying "It happens" in a summary is awkward and meaningless without describing the consequences of it. It does give Diana some degree of closure, which is quite evident in the film.

We are getting dangerously close to an edit war, Samurai, which I don't want (I don't think you do, either). Let's keep the debate over this here rather than on the page for now, OK?

Thanks for hearing me out. Ooznoz (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Ooznoz

@Ooznoz:I clearly started this page to discuss our disagreement and not engage in an edit war. It's also why I mentioned it to you on your talk page and invited you to discuss. If that wasn't already clear to you I'm sure it is now. As far as her trying to keep her identity a secret, that's generally something that happens in superhero stories. I don't think it's unique to this film. More importantly, it's not needed to convey a short synopsis that goes over major details. The major detail is her foiling the crime. Not her attempting to hide her identity. And as far as your second point, if it's meaningless remove it. It is not said to give her closure and it makes it appear as though you're adding text not represented in the plot. I'd like to point out to you I'm not the last editor who removed that part. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

However, you have continued edit warring since knowing about this and so clearly you're being a hypocrite. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Saying things like result of reduced powers is excessive by definition. We don't need extra words. Think of saying things with as few words as possible please. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: @Masem: You are clearly hostile to those whose opinions or actions are contrary to your own. Therefore, I've undone my previous two edits (unrelated to our discussion and not done maliciously), and I hereby withdraw from any more edits to this page. I will not subject myself to name-calling or abuse. The field is yours. Ooznoz (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Ooznoz

@Ooznoz:Ok. Take care. I would just like to point out that what you did was hypocritical by definition. It wasn't name calling. You presented yourself as someone who wished to discuss this rather than edit war, while simultaneously edit warring. The time of the edits of when I alerted you of this discussion, your edits on the article's page, and your edits here will confirm that. Also, I had started and invited you to the discussion by saying we should avoid an edit war and then you twisted that while at the same time reverting my edits. I don't believe I was the one being hostile. However, if it truly appeared that way I apologize as well for any miscommunication but at this point I don't know what you ever really intended here. You continued to revert my edits and edit how you saw fit, while also saying that wasn't your intention and your last comment stated that you don't intend to have a discussion, so you just continued to revert. But also based on your last statement it seems clear that it can be cleaned up now. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I see you reverted your own edits which I appreciate. I'll leave it as is now too. However, you are welcome to fully explain exactly why you feel so many descriptive words are necessary. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)