Sounds fake.

Just saw this myself, he didn't list source so I question it as well.

*screams in terror*

I just googled WW and not one news article on it. I did like what someone said about how this would use the Women's right history to the stories advantage. But I still think it's fake

If this is real, I will piss on Snyder's pet cats.

Why would anyone like this idea?

Oh no. That would be horrible...

Why would this be horrible? Could make for an interesting set piece. We don't get many comic book movies these days that take place in earlier days. You'll get Wonder Woman in modern times in BvS, Justice League 1 and Justice League 2. Then you'll get her her in the 1920s-40s where she started. This is all assume the rumor is true, nothing has been confirmed yet.

To be honest, all I started thinking of when I read this was:

• Redoing the Captain America movie
• A really desperate attempt to make a modern feature length film out of the Lynda Carter show

And if theres anything in my mind that needs to stay dead and buried, it's the Carter take on Wonder Woman.

The only thing you need to know in order to automatically know it's fake is that bleeding cool is the only site reporting on it.

All the people waiting on Wonder Woman 77 would disagree with your dumb@ss opinion.

@scorpio_cassadine: And perhaps you've noticed I dont give a damn about yours?

@outside_85: @scorpio_cassadine: *grabs popcorn*

@zhurong: psst pass the popcorn

@darknightspideyfanboy: Did anyone bring something to drink?

@mpfly88: Then why was MOS not in the 30s? It would make sense, right?

Bleedingcool is becoming the new Latino Review.

BTW I voted for "horrible"

Linda Carter is WW. I'd be fine with this.

Well, because Diana is immortal and Kal is not. :)

that's not necessarily true across continuity ... we've seen plenty of versions of WW as mortal and SM as living for centuries or at least aging at a very slow pace

@csg_cl: You mean you've seen the COIE Earth-2 Wonder Woman and the Kingdom Come Superman. :)

still counts ... and if you look at JL Beyond you'll see that WW ages at about the same rate as SM too ... and Diana was not immortal in Post-Crisis Earth 1 either ... until she became Goddess of Truth for a while anyway.

Not if you are citing in-continuety stories :) What little I have seen of her, she looked like she always did, only broader shouldered. Considering her age was never given, she was never shown to age and her mother and sisters were all, with no exception, 3000+ years old, I dont think Diana would die of old age.

it's inconclusive in continuity for certain ... but that wasn't my original point anyway ... the point is that both SM and WW have been depicted as at least having vast longevity ... by your argument Clark is also immortal in Post COIE continuity as he was never shown to age either. Hell, even Bruce doesn't really age!

@csg_cl: Having vastly longer lifespans is not the same as being 'ageless' or being immortal. Hippolyta for instance is ageless, as is Vandal Savage and Mordu, KC Superman however is still a mortal even if he will end up in the 31st Century and looking like Ghandi. Post Crisis Superman was still shown to age, even if only slowly, in the few cases where a jump forwards in time happened to meet him.

And in Diana's case, there is no reason why she should be mortal when her sisters are not. She never sacrificed that part of herself to be with Steve and have kids with him (as was the case of the Earth-2 WW), there wasn't anything about the Amazons loosing the immortality if they left the island or a man set foot on it. There is infact more speaking for Diana to be ageless, than there is speaking against her in the post-Crisis DCU.

And now on Earth-2 it appeared to be even more the case as Diana is set to appear as an adult to protect Clark and Bruce while they are kids.

You are making a lot of assumptions based on what isn't happening, but in any case what I'm saying is that your premise that SM wasn't set in the 1930's because he's NOT 'immortal' is faulty. Largely because you are drawing a conclusion that the DCCU is in anyway consistent with main continuity. Diana may well be fully mortal or fully immortal in the DCCU as could Clark... they've both been shown to be essentially both mortal and immortal in various alternate continuities, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Main continuity is pretty much irrelevant since we're inherently speaking of an alternate reality in the DCCU.

As for main continuity it's still inconclusive. Vandal Savage and Pandora and other such entities are truly "immortal" rather than simply unaging. They do not actually die and that is a different thing than not aging. Diana and Hippolyta and the other Amazons can and have died and are thus "mortal" regardless of their aging process. SM is also clearly "mortal" as he has also died. He just as clearly ages at a retarded rate ... how slowly is unknown just as it is with Diana.

I am sorry, but the only story where Superman became immortal was in Morrisons JLA run that predates his All-Star, and even then it was only because Superman spent 863000 years inside the sun to keep it going. There however is nothing to suggest Diana is not as immortal as the people she came from. And let me follow that up with the KC Superman and the Beyond Superman showed considerable signs of age when they reached their 70-80'ties.

Thank you, I thought I was the only person that actually made the distinction between an immortal and someone who's just stopped aging. But still, the only Diana I have ever seen show signs of age, was the old Earth-2 one, who deliberately sacrificed that gift. The KC WW for instance only curled her hair and lost a bit of trim in the long period she was 'retired' before she managed to dig Superman out of his VR simulator.

(And in regards to KC... I dont really like that story for the part Diana plays in it, which is very similar to the one she plays in Injustice. Also I dont like the idea that she would just fade away because Superman did. Then again, it was more of a Superman/Batman story, so go figure.)

What difference does it make how often he's been shown as immortal or ageless ... the fact remains we're talking about a universe in which he *could* be ageless/slow aging or immortal. Same holds true of Diana ... we've seen her as mortal and ageless and potentially immortal ... but none of the historical points matter in the least when looking at the cinematic universe ... it's separate and unique and up to the interpretation of the writers.

Funny ... I assumed everyone thought there was a clear difference between immortal and ageless! Seems sort of obvious IMO :) I tend to not love the role of WW in most SM led storylines ... she always seems to get relegated to "trophy" or "first henchman" or ends up the person who has to kill SM if something goes wrong ... all roles that rail against her actual nature.

That may be, but considering that all comicbook movies are adaptation of existing characters and occasionally stories, there is a vested interest in not changing things too much when dealing with one as old and established as Wonder Woman.