'Wonder Woman' Trilogy Planned as Gal Gadot Passes on 'Ben-Hur'

October 31, 2014
Source: Bleeding Cool

Wonder Woman

Earlier this month, Fast & Furious franchise star Gal Gadot was said to be circling a role in Paramount and MGM's remake of Ben-Hur. However, according to THR, it turns out the actress' previous commitment to become Wonder Woman in the imminently expanding DC Comcs cinematic universe will keep her from finalizing a deal due to scheduling not working out. In fact, it sounds like Gadot will be rather busy as the Amazonian superheroine because Bleeding Cool has learned that Warner Bros. has their sights set on making a Wonder Woman trilogy, and they even have rough details on the setting of each film. Read on!

Since the first Wonder Woman doesn't hit theaters until June 23rd, 2017, it's still somewhat early in development, so take this as rumor for now. But if the report is to be believed, that first film will take a cue from Captain America: The First Avenger and will be a period set origin story of sorts. The first half of the film will take place on Paradise Island with a war brewing between Amazon factions, vying for control of the land. But then the arrival of a man, it may or may not be Steve Trevor as in the comics, changes things and needs help. Our title hero is happy to oblige and accompanies this man back to his world…in the 1920s. And then we'll see that world, where woman just got the right to vote, from her perspective.

Wonder Woman

But if the first film (which is looking to land a female director behind the camera) is set in the 1920s, and Justice League is set in modern day, what has Wonder Woman been doing for nearly 100 years? Well, the second film in this rumored trilogy will follow her during World War II in the 1930s and 1940s. This territory was covered in the TV series in the 70s before moving to modern day. I'll be interested to see why a superhero like Wonder Woman hasn't been talked about more freely if she's been around for decades, but surely that will be explained as the DC Comics cinematic universe continues to expand.

Finally, the third film in the trilogy will bring us back to modern day, and there will be some dealings with Justice League. This is quite an ambitious timeline for Wonder Woman, especially since the second film in this franchise likely wouldn't arrive until 2020 at the earliest. Warner Bros. and DC Comics has already unveiled their release plans for the next five years, and there was no Wonder Woman sequel dated yet. In fact, most of these plans are probably contingent on how the first Wonder Woman film does at the box office. As a movie fan, I'm hoping that this DC Comics cinematic universe turns out to be just as huge as what Marvel has done so far, but we'll see how it all plays out soon enough. Thoughts?

Find more posts: DC Movies, Development, Movie News



This sounds tricky. When you do period piece "prequels" in superhero cinematic universes, I think things must be handled carefully. Marvel Studios really only did it once with Captain America: The First Avenger...and they went out of their way to make that movie feel like the retroactive 'beginning' of the shared universe. It planted seeds for EVERYTHING from SHIELD, to Hydra, to Iron Man, to Thor and the Infinity Stones, and even foreshadowed Hulk a bit. Is this 1920s Wonder Woman movie going to do the same thing? I have to say I much prefer the notion of Man of Steel being the true 'first' film in this DC saga, and it not retroactively beginning with Wonder Woman. If the plan for all of these solo characters is 'introduce them together, and then go do a prequel for each one' then I'm a little less enthused. WB seems to have too much cold feet about introducing characters in their own films like Marvel Studios did.... Introducing them together and spinning them off is a perfectly fine idea if the spin-offs are taking the franchise forward, but if you are introducing them in OTHER films first just to then go back and do origin stories...then it just feels so transparent. "We MUST put Wonder Woman in Batman v Superman, then people will actually give a crap about her origin!" They much be very careful in their approach.

Chris Groves on Oct 31, 2014


Well, it seems like it will be retroactively beginning at least with Batman anyway, isn't it ? I mean, it's my understanding that the Batman from the Man of Steel sequel is going to be more seasoned and all so he must have been the Dark Knight for longer than Clark has been Superman…

Motte Fraîche on Oct 31, 2014


Well, unless they do a Batman prequel that takes place prior to wouldn't be a retroactive beginning. I mean, Captain America: The First Avenger sort of replaces Iron Man as the 'first' MCU film, and is an origin film for almost everything major that has followed in the MCU. Just saying that Batman has been around for years and years isn't going to make MOS NOT the first film, but when you do a Wonder Woman prequel in the 1920s...that kind of does.

Chris Groves on Nov 1, 2014


Ok. I get what you're saying.

Motte Fraîche on Nov 2, 2014


I'm cool with it.

Quanah on Oct 31, 2014


Wonder Woman

Mac Spilsbury on Nov 1, 2014


Seems a bit too much, but hey, all I have to do is just wait and watch.

mooreworthy on Oct 31, 2014


Can a DC expert tell me if she gets into a lot of romantic crap in her series? If she doesn't usually, I bet they'll put it in there anyway. If they just manage to make a good film without her chasing after hunky boys it should be fine.

OfficialJab on Oct 31, 2014


She doesn't. In her solo series, she might have had one or two, but those never really lasted longer than a writer. For the most part, her stories are about her, her friends, her family, and any mythological adventures she gets into.

Kat on Oct 31, 2014


Good to know. There'll probably be a shower scene, an empty love interest and a kissy ending though.

OfficialJab on Oct 31, 2014


I hardly care about anything DC is doing.

Brian Sleider on Oct 31, 2014


what a bad idea, DC.. considering everything else you're doing, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising to me.

ColtNoir on Oct 31, 2014


Wonder Woman movie should've been made a long time ago. I don't know how DC made Green Lantern (Horrible smh) over Flash, Wonder Woman, or even Aqua Man. If they mess these movies up, we always have the DC Animation flicks.

TyeFighterPilot on Oct 31, 2014


so, so correct. They are trying to play catch up and going about it with all the least like heroes or playing it like a teen emotional stunt

shama144 on Jan 18, 2015


1920s "where woman just got the right to vote, from her perspective" That sounds like a terrible idea, it'll end up being girl power and 'weren't people in the past sexist'. Shoving girl power and feminism to the centre is one of the major reasons people are wary about female superheroes, it gets dull.

Rhiannon Jones on Oct 31, 2014


I think that WB/DC are really cocky with their plan. It seems to me that they want to show off, act like that they don't even notice the huge gap existing between the already well establish MCU and their own. I get that they must show that they trust their plan but come on… Let's face it. They are five years and seven movies behind Marvel and deploy the same massive plan. One of the first next movies is Suicide Squad witch looks like a very risky move to me as very few people know what they are (myself not included). Their idea of filling Batman v Superman with other superheroes is like a cry for attention. They seem to rush things because they're so far behind. Besides, didn't people thought that there was too much villains in Spider-Man 3 or Amazing Spider-Man 2 ? How is it cool to have at least three other superheroes in this film ? I know it probably won't be much more than a cameo but still… Calm down, DC. But the thing that is the most "frightening" to me is that, unlike their rival, they're constantly backlashed by fans on almost every decisions they make. The first MCU movie was Iron-Man and everyone (so to speak) thought it was a good movie. Their first one is Man of Steel which split the movie goers and fans right down the middle. That's not a good start… After that, they cast Affleck as Batman (-> backlash), Eseinberg as Luthor (-> backlash). I see a ton of negative comments about DC, their plan, their decisions… I rarely saw that about Marvel, never heard that Evans as Captain America was a terrible idea or things like that… Marvel has the creative, professional and cool Whedon, they have Snyder who is not really a good director. And when they face bad reactions, they almost act like fans are dumb, don't know any better. Again, that's not a good start… Also, am I the only one who has a bit of a problem with the casting of very famous actor in the role of a superhero ? I wanna see Batman, I wanna see Black Widow… I don't think I'll be able to see anything but Ben Affleck in a Batman costume. I think this kind of characters is much more believable when they are played by actors you didn't see in fifty other movies before.

Motte Fraîche on Nov 1, 2014


Cool. Get IT Gadot! She is fun. Banking her career on this character is a great gamble.

DAVIDPD on Nov 1, 2014


I am not even gonna try and remember this article, 'cause I first wanna see the BvS movie and the JL movie and how WW performs in them in order to make up my mind on whether to invest in this universe.

lezboyd on Nov 1, 2014


The Wonder Woman animated movie from a few years ago with Keri Russell voicing Diana was excellent. The screenwriter should definitely give that movie a look.

scooter2407 on Nov 1, 2014


i'm going to have to see how they pull off batman v. superman and the justice league. i still don't have faith in WB/DC, but if they can somehow manage those movies, i'll be willing to get my hopes up.

Einlanzer on Nov 1, 2014


"where woman just got the right to vote, from her perspective." The plural for woman is "women". Like how man becomes men. Not sure why this spelling error is so common. A bit over a year ago, WB said Wonder Woman would be too difficult to handle. Now they're going to try 3 times? Good luck...

ThrashyTrends on Nov 2, 2014


When referring to all womankind, I believe "woman" in that context is still acceptable. (though, a bit of a misnomer, as they're referring to the U.S.A. alone, and not all women)

avconsumer2 on Nov 2, 2014


Hm. You may be right in that context. Sounds weird.

ThrashyTrends on Nov 2, 2014

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram