Steve Trevor’s resurrection is extremely problematic

(Warning: there are some gigantic “Wonder Woman 1984” spoilers below)

It was no secret that Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) would appear in “Wonder Woman 1984”, even though he died at the end of the last film. Cara was a key part of the film’s marketing, appearing wearing a jacket and a pouch – we just didn’t know why he would return, or by what means. But the direction that Patty Jenkins and co. went with was quite surprising.

Now that we’ve seen “Wonder Woman 1984” and we know how Steve came back to life, we have a lot of new questions. Most of them are about the fact that Wonder Woman has never considered the immense ethical problem of having Steve steal some guy’s body forever.

Let’s recap the basics. Steve is brought back to life by Dreamstone, which is a magical stone that grants wishes, in the “monkey paw” style. That is, it gives you what you asked for, but it also takes something away. So Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) wishes Steve was alive again, and it works! But in the course of the film, the stone’s magic slowly destroys its Amazonian superpowers.

Steve’s resurrection is a little more complicated than we are used to in this type of situation in movies and TV shows. Your physical body is not revived. He is not simply conjured. No, it is only your soul that has returned – in another man’s body.

Eventually, Wonder Woman is forced to renounce her desire to get her powers back and save the world. And when she does and Steve leaves again, I think this guy regains consciousness right in the middle of the chaos of the film’s climax, having no idea what’s going on.

“Wonder Woman 1984” never stops to reflect on the strangeness of this situation. In fact, he covers it up by making us look at Chris Pine’s face all the time, instead of Kristoffer Polaha, the actor who plays the person whose body Steve is possessing.

But this is certainly strange. For several days, this nameless guy loses control of his body while Steve and Diana have their harrowing adventures. He wakes up with at least a lot of extra scratches and bruises. Diana had sex with him at least once without his consent. Throughout the film, they were risking this man’s life, without letting him choose to get involved.

Steve had no choice here either, at least when it came to living in this guy’s body. But Diana did. And when she finally gave up her desire in the third act, it was not out of any concern for that guy, but because she knew she had to do this to save the world. If the world hadn’t gone into chaos, she would have been happy if Steve had taken control of that guy’s existence until he died.

It is frustrating that “Wonder Woman 1984” is not really concerned about any of this, that a character who is a kind of bright star and the pulsating heart of the DCEU completely ignores the many ethical complications of Steve’s return from the grave.

The strange thing about this whole situation is that they could have simply made Steve manifest in a new body instead of doing this possession thing. You would think that the only reason they would do it this way would be to invite them into the ethics conversation I am having here. Dreamstone is just magic and has no rules, except those defined by the writers.

I’m assuming, then, that at some point there was a version of this movie in which Wonder Woman ponders Steve’s ethical ramifications of owning this random guy. It could be that this complicating factor in Steve’s resurrection was the result of the perversion of Dreamstone’s wishes. As a kind of thing “you can get it back, but in a way that is ethically unsustainable for a true superhero”.

This, to me, is much more interesting than “you can get Steve back, but you will lose your powers”. This would have been a real ethical dilemma, without any global risk. Diana giving up on Steve to save the world is boring. Diana giving up on Steve to save someone is a much more convincing point of discussion.

Instead, the version of “Wonder Woman 1984” that we ended up with is simply not concerned with this problem. This is a shame and, honestly, a very strange moral lapse for the character.

Source