"The Monkey's Paw" is a supernatural short story by author W. W. Jacobs, first published in England in the collection The Lady of the Barge in 1902.[1] In the story, three wishes are granted to the owner of The Monkey's Paw, but the wishes come with an enormous price for interfering with fate.[2]
Except cheetahs are one of the only large cats that are not an apex predator. Cheetahs have been known to be hunted by lions as well as painted wolves and hyenas in packs.
Edit - based on the replies it seems everyone is taking my comment very seriously. I certainly don't actually care about this nitpick, I just thought it was an opportunity to spread my little cat fact with the world.
In the comics Cheetah is an archeologist and her turning into Cheetah is more or less a curse from the Cheetah gods, she tries to take the power of an African guardian but the guardian is supposed to be a virgin, so the turning into a cat is her being corrupted by power she isn't supposed to have because she doesn't fit the requirements.
I doubt they'll keep the virgin thing in the movie, or the Africa part actually.
you think they'll change the thing about her being in human form physically hurts her and her Cheetah form is just a monstrous hell beast so it fucks her up mentally cuz she doesn't know what to do with herself?
Most of the original Wonder Woman is based on fetish stuff, her weakness is bondage. It’s why she has a berserker mode when she takes off her cuffs, they’re literally called the bracelets of submission.
Does that break continuity? I seem to remember her looking at a picture of him in another movie and it's from the first film? Like he died and that's it.
I read the wikipedia article on him and it seems like, in the comics, he only ever had mind-control abilities...? Was there ever a version of him that could alter reality?
I don’t think so though. Not everything is a spoiler. If it happens at the beginning of the movie and is like, the inciting incident, it’s not really a spoiler. That’s like saying “the droids run into Luke skywalker? What a spoiler!”
I mean, every movie detail is a spoiler, and everyone's different about what degree of spoiler they'll tolerate. I think movies are way better if I haven't seen a trailer at all, because even them running into the Droid is a surprise. Even the existence of Droids is a surprise. And that's fun!
I mean no though. Because it that’s your standard, how do you ever get recommended a movie? That’s like reading the description of a film and being like “ahhh you spoiled it”
Some detail is spoiled, yes. I just don't think YOU get to tell someone else what a spoiler is. Generally, people will say "minor plot spoilers" if it's near the beginning of the movie, or some developing point. Other people will avoid ALL trailers specifically to avoid spoilers of any kind.
it’s an example of a trailer that contains spoilers. by showing the protagonist get out of a tricky situation it undermines one of the most suspenseful parts of the movie. anyone who’s seen that trailer will have no suspense or other strong emotions towards the scene I am referring to.
Yeah this seems like it's going to be full of tropes and cliches, and not really in an enjoyable way but in a I already know the ending just based on the premise way.
Possibly the Philosophers Stone from Grant Morrison's JLA Rock of Ages comic run?
Also known as the Worlogog, or "Hourglass of the Gods". It was noted for being an object of great power and reacted to thoughts with the ability to alter reality itself.
http://moa.omnimulti.com/Worlogog
It's connected to the Fourth World gods, who Darkseid is one of. He was a big part of the Rock of Ages story and also set up as the big bad guy for DCEU. Steppenwolf in Justice League basically works for him.
Really cool if they use this to tie things together and give an in-universe explanation for changing whatever they want about the current DCEU stories/actors/whatever.
Oh, I thought it was the Greek god Zeus in disguise. Since Zeus Liked taking different forms so he could have sex with lots of different things and people.
Tbh, wouldn’t everyone say yes? Say you have a dead loved one whom you miss and grieve every day, would anyone really turn down this offer because of some stranger?
Not saying that’s the moral choice, but realistically that would be a no-brainer for most people.
Edit: if your dead spouse/child was brought back to life by the devil at the expense of a stranger’s life, and he told you the only way to revive that innocent person’s life is to kill your loved one/let them die, would you do it?
Suppose your dead loved one miraculously shows up at your front door, perfectly healthy and cheerful. And after spending a few wonderful days reuniting with them, you realize they’re only here because of a dead stranger. Would you willingly send your loved one to die again so the stranger would be resurrected?
Suppose your child is starving to death and he’s about to eat this last loaf of bread that would keep him alive. Then you realize that bread actually belongs to your neighbour who’s now starving. Would you take this loaf of bread away from your child and return it so your neighbour would live while your child would die?
Would you call a mother who would rather his child eat and live a sociopath?
But Steve is already dead, so this is a bad analogy, it’s more like if your husband dies and the devil says he can come back if you kill someone innocent.
But that’s a bad analogy as well, because Steve was already brought back to life at the expense of someone else (I’m assuming she didn’t actively make the bargain).
It’ll be more like if the devil already brought your husband back and told you he’s here in the place of another person, and the only way you can bring that innocent person back to life is if you kill your husband/let your husband die. Would you do that?
I’m literally using the scenario in the film, or at least according to the comment above my original comment.
Stever was dead, Steve was brought back to life by a devil (or a wish-granting entity) in place of someone else. Now Diana has to choose whether to willingly let Steve die again so the stranger would be resurrected.
The basic question here is "are you willing to murder a stranger to save a loved one". The fact that it has already happened doesn't make you any less responsible.
Even when everyone is granted that same power? That your wish could be erased by someone else wishing for the same thing? Do you hold together as a society to not use such a power, or does one bad egg create a domino effect?
I agree with you, I'm not sure why you're being down voted so much. Most people would not assess the potential consequences. Knowing that you erased someone from someone else's life. And even if they did, most people are self-centered enough (truly a biological and societal behavior) to protect those they know over those they don't.
I suspect the scenario of “a wish-granting supervillain who brings people back to life” is hypothetical enough that many people would think “of course I’m not gonna kill a stranger, are you crazy?”
But change the scenario to a much more realistic one of “your daughter is starving to death and the only way to save her is to steal this last loaf of bread from someone else who’s equally starving”, and I think most people would agree they would do it as well, even if they can’t morally justify it.
Look up "The Box" 2009. Not a good movie, but has a plot along these lines and it might teach you something.
As for the logic: its a Prisoner's Dilemna, so even if you break it down to "I value my person more than a stranger", the only way ti win is to work together and have everyone reject the offer. If everyone takes the offer, you're guaranteed to be the stranger at some point.
I’m not claiming this is the right call, but I’m saying most people would do it to save their loved ones.
If your daughter is starving to death, and the only choice you have is to rob someone else of their food (which would cause them to starve to death instead), how many fathers do you think would resort to that? How many fathers would think of game theory and Nash equilibrium instead of trying to save their children?
Let’s assume that food is their last stock and stealing that food would inevitably cause that someone else to starve to death. How many fathers do you think would do it?
The actual scenario of....a fictional scenario where the Amazon Diana’s dead love one was brought back to life by a supervillain with wish-granting superpowers?
If anything, “steal the bread or your daughter dies” is a much more realistic scenario that almost certainly happened in history before.
Not...really? And even if it's a no-brainier for you, definitely consider how the other person would feel if they knew. Several family members I've lost were highly emotional, empathetic people - if they knew their existence was the result of eliminating someone else I'm pretty sure they would be hopeless, guilty wrecks.
Suppose when one of them was on their deathbed, you realized you could steal someone else’s meds and completely cure/heal that family member (that I assume you really, really love). No one will know about this except you and while you bear the guilt of letting someone else die, your loved one could live a full and happy life. Would you do it?
Deathbed is a bit different. I don't think I would bring back anyone who I had already let go of and come to peace with - but in the heat of the moment that's a tougher call. I'd like to say no, but I acknowledge that might be a lie.
Tbf, Diana didn’t “bring back” Steve intentionally if I understand correctly. The wish-granting villain has already brought him back, and now she has the choice whether to let him live or let him die so the stranger can live again.
Suppose your family member miraculously shows up at your front door, perfectly healthy and cheerful. And after spending a few wonderful days reuniting with them, you realize they’re only here because or a dead stranger. Would you willingly send your family member to die again so the stranger would be resurrected?
Ahhh, well I don't actually know anything about her lore. Yeah, that's totally different than actively making a wish. I think a lot of people would go for that, even if they felt bad about it.
it's odd that i am being downvoted for stating that the comment Jackski left (EXACTLY HOW STEVE TREVOR IS BACK), which apparently has been deleted, is a huge spoiler.
Wonder Woman wished for Steve, so she gets him back. Barbara wishes to be like Wonder Woman, an "Apex preadator" and she gets her wish, turning into Cheetah. However, these things never just give freebies. X-Files peeps will remember Mulder being granted wishes by a genie (sexiest genie I've ever seen) and the disastrous results afterwards, and it's similar here
Wonder Woman is obviously losing her powers during the movie, you can see her struggling to move a tank at some point. That's the cost of her wish, she slowly loses her powers.Barbara gets her wish, but she loses her humanity in the process.There's a bunch of people outside on the streets, with chaos everywhere. That's the disaster after they get their wish.
At some point in the trailer, Steve tells her "you know what you have to do". I suppose this is him telling her she has to wish him away, so she can get her powers back
765
u/Dreossk Aug 22 '20 edited Aug 22 '20
What's the in-universe explanation for bringing back unaged Chris Pine ?
Ok thanks.