Continuity mistake: When the flashback with Asteria is shown she's got hazel or green eyes. In the post credits scene when played by Lynda Carter she's got light blue eyes.
Bishop73
22nd Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It should be noted, Lynda Carter played both parts. Those are literally Lynda Carter's eyes we see in the flashback.
Still doesn't explain why they are green in the flashback. Lynda Carter has blue eyes. Probably caused by a color filter.
It could be a lighting issue or the way the armor made her eyes look different, but it's not a mistake since it's the same color eyes. (There are optical illusions that make some people see one color as two different colors based on the surrounding color).
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Stupidity: Diana and Steve are both characterized as heroes and highly moral individuals, but they both are perfectly fine, without giving any shadow of a second thought, with the fact that Steve is inhabiting the body of a real person, with a real job and friends, completely innocent and whose life has been taken. We don't ask for a movie to cover every possible nuance, but they make reference to his job, use his stuff, endanger the innocent body and use it 'for pleasure' too. They make a big deal of Cheetah losing her humanity, but what the heroes do is arguably worse.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While this is bad writing that makes them unsympathetic, it is not objectively a mistake. They endanger the man through Steve because the entire world is at stake. They have sex using his body because they, like the writers most likely, do not consider it rape because there's no indication that the man is conscious in Steve's body or that he'll ever find out (So closer to date-rape), and ultimately, Diana wanting Steve to stay in the man's body forever, while arguably out of character, is a character flaw they both realise she needs to overcome by the end of the movie.
Not objectively a mistake? Actually I agree! Stupidity entries are in a tab separate from the proper "mistakes" tab for a reason; all those behaviors that are not full plot holes but happen against logic and character, just because they are being a tool for the plot. The movie does not make them unsympathetic by design; that would be good writing, that wouldn't be stupid, it would be human. But no, their love antics are never characterized as problematic or inherently creepy. The choices they make and that are outlined in your comment are glossed over; the movie hides the face of the guy but they both see it when they 'rape' him and when they risk his wellbeing, When she gives up on him she does it to get her powers back, she is not overcoming a character flaw, since the presence of the "other guy" is not addressed even at that moment, even if they see him. (if Steve were in a new body, the scene would have played exactly the same). Nobody could act this blasè.
Everything you've said in the stupidity entry and comment is your opinion (well, probably the opinion of the one YouTube video we've all seen where the guy bashes the film and then others repeat his opinion). Wonder Woman sees Steve, not the man whose body Steve is in. Not to mention we don't hear all their conversations about the situation because it would become clunky dialog. And before she starts losing her powers, the two really had no idea what had happened to the man. But nothing in the film regarding this situation is out of character of the "good guys" because we've never seen them in this situation (nor has anyone actually been in this situation to claim "nobody would act this blasé).
I invite you to rewatch the actual movie and not any youtube video; she sees the guy, they both do; he's never Chris Pine, who is 'canonically' never in the movie as himself. Chris Pine is what we, the audience, see. Look back at the scene of the mirror. They explain it. She says "He's great, but all I see is you." Not meaning that she LITERALLY sees Steve, but that she knows it's Steve and so she thinks of him. He even says, about himself, when he tells her to look for other men, "What about this guy" and she says "I don't want this guy." What's in the movie is out of character for any human being who is not delusional to the point of actually seeing the face of someone else. Which is what the movie needs to turn us viewers into to make the plot work.
Nothing in the film suggested to me she sees the other man after Steve comes back. I was basing my comments on watching the film (the YouTube comment was because this mistake is the same rehashed comment found there). When the camera pans around and the audience sees Steve, I took it to mean Diana sees Steve. When she says "all I see is you", I took that to mean she literally sees Steve. The mirror scene was to show the world still sees the man, but not Diana. But I can understand if others' take away was Diana sees the other man but just knows inside her heart it's Steve.
She sees that guy at the party, and only through Steve's words she then realises it's him, which the movie portrays from then on by showing Steve to us. The earlier part of the mirror scene is even more clear. He says; "Look at you. It's like not one day has passed." And she replies jokingly "I can't say the same thing about you." He does not look the same! And he in fact then goes to the mirror saying, "Right, right, right." and comments on the look of "He." So yes, I do firmly believe that it's what the movie says. If I may; the fact that some people on Youtube posted a video saying some things does not mean that anyone else supporting a specific idea - which does have a foundation in what the movie said, as I hope I clarified - did not reach the same conclusion and should be dismissed because they are lazily rehashing hersay. Glad you at least see where I come from, even if you may have not read the movie facts the same way I did.
16th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Corrected entry: The jocks who are recklessly driving their Trans-Am causing Wonder Woman to give them the Big Boot are also driving a car in Virginia without the required front license plate. (00:11:30)
Correction: That's not a mistake (factual or otherwise). Some people choose not to. One time I bought a new car that didn't have a front plate holder (the holes weren't drilled in) and the dealership told me when I get my plates I can come back and they'll install it for me. I never did and drove it for 10 years without front plates in a state that requires it.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Stupidity: Max is shown fulfilling the various wishes that people express to him, and never turn down any; it would not fit what he became anyway, which is a wishing stone. If people touch him, he has to comply. The wishes he can grant have seemingly no limit, and yet, in this predicament it takes a humongous level of suspension of disbelief to assume that in a climate of global war and chaos, NOBODY wishes for things to go better in any way and the nuclear war to be stopped. There are even in some street scenes "Ban nukes" signs; surely some of those guys must have wished for the madness to stop.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The Dreamstone was also created by the Duke of Deception to bring chaos into the world. It brought out people's selfish desires. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he was able to continue to manipulate people in wishing what they truly desired, wishing for more than than had. In the comics, Max Lord had the ability to telepathically alter people's minds after he became a metahuman, so it seems the film incorporated this power as well. It/He made people wish for selfish things. That was the purpose of Wonder Woman's monologue, to tell the people to become less selfish, so give up their wants, to be the hero to save the world by giving up their wish (and wish for a better world would have cost too much, so that wouldn't be an option).
"Cost too much" is not a rule established in the movie, since desires like the deportation of the Irish, "Wish I never met you" "want all the money in the world" someone says in background have astonishingly powerful ramifications. LIkewise why would it be an implication that he is the one who makes them wish only selfish things? The movie wants to say that there are no 'good' wishes when you take shortcuts to make them happen (or at least it tries to referencing the Monkey paw) but to do so shows only wishes that are rotten to begin with.
Suggested correction: With so many people wishing at the same time, it's logical a lot of people are wishing for the opposite. I'm sure the stone's power has some way of dealing with conflicting wishes. For example, someone could wish for the world to blow up or burn, whilst others wish that everybody will be happy and healthy. So, nothing much happens that threatens human existence (the stone would be worthless if all humans are dead) as those wishes cancel eachother out. But the nuclear war happened before Max started talking to everybody, so that is happily continuing.
Most people would have wished the nukes to disappear pretty instantly especially with the world falling into chaos and everyone panicking about it.
And others would have wished for them to hit and kill the "heathens" or "hateful." Cancellation.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Plot hole: The established rule of the wishing stone says that you get one wish, to the point that Max couldn't grant a second wish to the guy who wished a Porsche even if Max was really eager to get his help, and warned his son against wasting his, screaming disappointed when he did waste it. But all of a sudden, he can grant Cheetah a second wish because he's "feeling generous". Without rules, he'd be some omnipotent being who can do anything. The fun part is that there was no need at all for this mess, since Barbara's second wish by its nature (and even the way she formulates it) supersedes the first...but Max couldn't know that. (02:01:10)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Max is taking from whoever wishes, he choses what. What he takes, he gives to Barbara and himself. He takes the health, she gets the fury. That way he grants her wish without her actually wishing. Same with himself, taking what he wants. And yes, what she wishes does supersede her first wish, but e still holds those powers as well.
That's just changing the established rule out of the blue and just for one person. Why would she get more than one wish when everyone else can't and earlier he was shown to have that limit and be frustrated by it?
It can also be pointed out that the original stone gave Barbara her wish. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he became something else. She never got a wish from him. When he says he was feeling generous, he wasn't saying he'll grant her a 2nd wish, he's saying he won't take anything from her.
Then he did not get what he wished for, since his wish was literally "I wish to be you, the Dreamstone itself." And him not taking anything from her is again a change of the rule.
And since he didn't turn into a crystal, he became something else. He had the power. And there was no "rule" something had to be taken, Max was taking something out of greed. The stone did have a natural consequence, which Barbara experienced by losing her humanity in order to become Cheetah. But that's noting to do with Max taking anything or the rules changing.
The conversation is shifting away from the original point; she gets 2 wishes and nobody else does, not even people he wants them to. It cannot be because they are considered separate entities, because then the previous stone is not considered in existence anymore and then Barbara and Diana's desires should have been nullified.
Technically you can't call this a mistake. The stone being absorbed by Max doesn't destroy the power the stone held, nor is there a president for this. So there is no telling what would change from the original powers and or ruleset of the stone. Max never granted a 2nd wish and stating he was feeling generous was just a means to get the wish spoken out. Max also offered Diana a wish even though she already had a wish happen by the original stone. The question is, did the stone restore?
It's all the same thing. The problem with a lot of these mistake entries is making false assumptions about what should or shouldn't happen and not understanding who the characters are and what's going on. Yes, the film has flaws, but this isn't a forum to express your personal thoughts about what you think is wrong with the film (some don't even sound like original ideas since they're word exactly like what you can find online everywhere).
Since it's not a forum, I shouldn't reply to something not pertaining to the entry itself, but thanks for saying that you can read this 'everywhere', means I am not the only one thinking this way and perhaps you should wonder why? But that aside he can't grant wishes to someone who already expressed them not take nothing away, until he just does. My original entry says who when why based on the movie itself. The movie being flawed or not is not really my point, I hope it's clear that whenever something about a movie is posted, it does not mean to just 'riff' on the movie or 'bash' it or anything per se. Enjoying a movie and its plot with its simplifications and sometimes metaphorical licenses has nothing to do with examining a plot point and read through the fine print.
Maybe instead of endless comments one should just wait with commenting until the suggested entry is actually liked enough and corrects your mistake. If people don't agree with the suggested correction, no need to discuss it.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Character mistake: Barbara mentions that Kush went extinct in 4 AD. Maybe the fourth century? In 4 AD the civilization was still alive and well, and the collapse happened around the 4th century. (01:27:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Barbara didn't say it went extinct in 4 AD. She says the stone appeared in Kush in 4 AD.
11th Jan 2021
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)
Plot hole: The plot specifies that the only way to defeat the evil god is destroying the stone or for everyone to renounce to their gifts. That second option is an impossibility, if you consider that people wished things like "a cup of coffee" that they can't take back in any fathomable way or didn't even realise it was a wish, and it's of course statistically impossible that everyone on the face of Earth was convinced by Wonder Woman's pep talk, or was reached by her message, that spreads through the TV.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not everyone had to renounce their wish. The point was that as Wonder Woman was convincing people to be better and rescind their selfish wishes, Max Lord began to lose power and regain his humanity enough to be convinced to rescind his wish. Once he did so, all wishes he granted were not only rescinded, but what he took from everyone was given back. And in a fantasy film, you can certainly "give back" the coffee you wished for. It simply becomes as if you never drank it and the coffee goes back into the pot it came from.
Max ultimately does rescind his wish, but the idea as Steve said was for "everyone to renounce their wish", which would have been impossible to begin with, and the movie shows only, constantly, people wishing for bad things, some of which were inherently transient and can't be reversed (such as the person who wished Max to have an audience with the President.: that can't be taken back). The supposed alternative method was impossible to fulfill. However I agree that that the impossible idea suggested was not what ultimately happened, which matters more.;-).
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.