Do you think it's necessary for WW to have the special effects and grandeur

[starlight25]

I'll take a low CG affair that makes back five times its budget over some high CGI affair like Mortal Engines and Transformers Last Knight which struggle to make bank due to how much money was poured into its production

We don't need a 300M budget plus the biggest production cost of all time. We just need better action and CGI than the first film. aq did great in that area. And i think is possible to do the same with Wonder Woman.

[WonderSpace]

So Themyscira looks like Normal 300 BC island with dilapidated buildings instead of a magical Island with pegasus and Kangaroos.

The Gods are relegated to painting instead of actually showing the battle between Ares and Gods

The final battle between Ares and Diana looked straight out of Ps2 video game.

Patty simply lacks the imagination unlike James Wann or Gunn or Ryan Coogler to bring the crazy world of Diana to screen like Aquaman or Marvel movies

Wonder Woman was created to universally appealing and wonderful not just for adults.

I am just going to disagree with the bold part.

Wann, Gunn and Coogler are not that imaginative, they are very good at playing with huge cgi set pieces, but ultimately it's very conventionnal...take a few shots of Aquaman and put them in Besson's Valerian, it's the same things. It's just that Patty is even less imaginative with this kind of stuff because she simply doesn't care. She is all about character interaction, which is good, but not for the kind of WW films we want to see.

I think Patty Jenkins would have been better for stories like "Who killed Myndi Mayer" or "The Hiketeia".

[starlight25]

I am just going to disagree with the bold part.

Wann, Gunn and Coogler are not that imaginative, they are very good at playing with huge cgi set pieces, but ultimately it's very conventionnal...take a few shots of Aquaman and put them in Besson's Valerian, it's the same things. It's just that Patty is even less imaginative with this kind of stuff because she simply doesn't care. She is all about character interaction, which is good, but not for the kind of WW films we want to see.

I think Patty Jenkins would have been better for stories like "Who killed Myndi Mayer" or "The Hiketeia".

Well if WW does make it into several films. More action and CGI will be needed. Who is to say that we will never see more than what we saw in the first movie? Who says we can't have character interactions and great CGI?

[kjn]

I am just going to disagree with the bold part.

Wann, Gunn and Coogler are not that imaginative, they are very good at playing with huge cgi set pieces, but ultimately it's very conventionnal...take a few shots of Aquaman and put them in Besson's Valerian, it's the same things. It's just that Patty is even less imaginative with this kind of stuff because she simply doesn't care. She is all about character interaction, which is good, but not for the kind of WW films we want to see.

I think Patty Jenkins would have been better for stories like "Who killed Myndi Mayer" or "The Hiketeia".

I have to disagree here. While it can be argued that Logan was the best superhero film that came out in 2017, the superhero film that left the most emotional and societal resonance, and had the scene that everyone talked about afterwards, was Wonder Woman. That scene—No Man's Land—was a drama scene without dialogue, and an action scene presented as drama, where everything was told slowly and deliberately.

As for the next movie, I want a good Wonder Woman story, and the core of Wonder Woman to me is compassion and being unfettered by the mores of our society. If that story requires lots of CGI or spectacle is rather irrelevant to that.

Though I think Hiketeia could serve as the basis for a splendid movie, though I'm not sure DC would like to see Batman put through the wringer like that.

[WonderSpace]

Well if WW does make it into several films. More action and CGI will be needed. Who is to say that we will never see more than what we saw in the first movie? Who says we can't have character interactions and great CGI?

Oh, but I completly agree with you...that's what I want to see, I just don't think Patty is the right director for that, I hope WW84 proves me wrong

[WonderSpace]

I have to disagree here. While it can be argued that Logan was the best superhero film that came out in 2017, the superhero film that left the most emotional and societal resonance, and had the scene that everyone talked about afterwards, was Wonder Woman. That scene—No Man's Land—was a drama scene without dialogue, and an action scene presented as drama, where everything was told slowly and deliberately.

As for the next movie, I want a good Wonder Woman story, and the core of Wonder Woman to me is compassion and being unfettered by the mores of our society. If that story requires lots of CGI or spectacle is rather irrelevant to that.

Though I think Hiketeia could serve as the basis for a splendid movie, though I'm not sure DC would like to see Batman put through the wringer like that.

Sorry, but I don't really understand what you disagree with. I also think that the no man' land scene is one of the best superhero scene ever.
My point is that just one scene is not enough, the fight with Ares was weak, the other action scene were okay, but not great, I expect a WW movie to have both a lot of heart (Patty nailed it) but also some visual grandeur (she can do much better).

Batfans would implode if Warner had Batman get rough up like he did in The Hiketeia

[kjn]

Sorry, but I don't really understand what you disagree with. I also think that the no man' land scene is one of the best superhero scene ever.
My point is that just one scene is not enough, the fight with Ares was weak, the other action scene were okay, but not great, I expect a WW movie to have both a lot of heart (Patty nailed it) but also some visual grandeur (she can do much better).

"She is all about character interaction, which is good, but not for the kind of WW films we want to see", in your previous post.

And No Man's Land proves that Patty Jenkins is far from imaginative when it comes to action stuff.

Personally, I first thought the final battle was the weakest part of the movie, but later on I changed my perception, as I analysed Wonder Woman as a coming-of-age tale (which is different from an origin story) and mythic arc. Then I realised that the the movie after the poisoning of Veld was a battle for Diana's soul, and viewed as that it works beautifully for me. To me, the weakest CGI parts are the fight in the town square; her jumping and use of the lasso there is the one that gives an old video fighting game vibe.

[Geraldofrivia]

I'll take a low CG affair that makes back five times its budget over some high CGI affair like Mortal Engines and Transformers Last Knight which struggle to make bank due to how much money was poured into its production

Both the movie failed because they are bad movies. Avatar made 2.7 billion because of its CGI.

[Titan Theo]

Even a highly artistic movie with great fight scenes like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon only made under $300 million.

However, I DO AGREE, that I don't want WW just to have grandeur CGI just for the sake of having it; it needs to be story relevant. No matter how artistic the film is, you will lose a certain amount of the population of movie goers without it, so why settle for one when it is possible to have both?

Wonder Woman the first movie could have been a grand 3 part movie, starting with off with the gods, how the amazons became an advanced race, how our dear princess had to work her @@# off becoming WW; PI could have been a much more magical place with magical creatures; technology...and then she could have worked herself into man's world, all the way to 80s. To say the very least, if the portrayal of PI was a formidable place to be, Steppenwolf could have not just casually walked in there and slaughtered the amazons pretty much.

I am happy for Aquaman, though...it is just frustrating that they can take such risks with Aquaman and not WW.

TT

[starlight25]

Even a highly artistic movie with great fight scenes like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon only made under $300 million.

However, I DO AGREE, that I don't want WW just to have grandeur CGI just for the sake of having it; it needs to be story relevant. No matter how artistic the film is, you will lose a certain amount of the population of movie goers without it, so why settle for one when it is possible to have both?

Wonder Woman the first movie could have been a grand 3 part movie, starting with off with the gods, how the amazons became an advanced race, how our dear princess had to work her @@# off becoming WW; PI could have been a much more magical place with magical creatures; technology...and then she could have worked herself into man's world, all the way to 80s. To say the very least, if the portrayal of PI was a formidable place to be, Steppenwolf could have not just casually walked in there and slaughtered the amazons pretty much.

I am happy for Aquaman, though...it is just frustrating that they can take such risks with Aquaman and not WW.

TT

I hope things improve in future films starting with WW84. It possible to have great stories and great CGI.

[Koriand'r]

I want everything in her world that's supposed to be there, looking the way it's supposed to look. If it's comic book accurate they'll naturally be enough grandeur. Practical effects are fine but there needs to be a lot more of them. Action presentation is key.

[Agent 86]

There is no reason why we can't have a personal story and great CGI action as well. There should be a time and place for both.

I agree. I didn't intend to give the impression otherwise. For example, although I want Cheetah's final form to be achieved through prosthetics / make-up (as opposed to being a CGI creation), I really hope that they use special effects to clearly establish Cheetah's speed, strength and ferocity (again, instead of just using CGI models of Wonder Woman and Cheetah to create a video game cut-screen battle).

As another example, I thought the CGI used to create Themyscira was well done. Sure, it wasn't my ideal Themyscira, but it looked like a wonderful place to visit. I was, as perhaps indicated by my earlier comments, less than impressed with some of the later CGI work, especially that using the models of Wonder Woman and Ares in the final battle. There was nothing in the final battle which couldn't have been predominantly filmed using stunt doubles, wire work, etc and then improved upon with CGI.

[Jim Kelly]

Most Hollywood movies these days routinely use some computer generated imaging, you just don't notice it. I would guess that there was CGI throughout the first WONDER WOMAN. Sure it can be used for attention-getting special effects, but most of the time it's just used to dress a scene or make the actors look a bit better.

The whole Themyscira part of the movie was beautfiul to look at and immersed the audience in Diana's world. I think a lot of us were wishing the movie had stayed there for a little longer. Or that Diana could have returned to her home by the end of the movie.

I would hope that WONDER WOMAN 1984 would take Diana back to Themyscira for the bulk of the movie. Or that, at least, we get some exotic location (maybe Circe on the island of Aeaea) equal to what we saw in the first movie.

[Geraldofrivia]

Most Hollywood movies these days routinely use some computer generated imaging, you just don't notice it. I would guess that there was CGI throughout the first WONDER WOMAN. Sure it can be used for attention-getting special effects, but most of the time it's just used to dress a scene or make the actors look a bit better.

The whole Themyscira part of the movie was beautfiul to look at and immersed the audience in Diana's world. I think a lot of us were wishing the movie had stayed there for a little longer. Or that Diana could have returned to her home by the end of the movie.

I would hope that WONDER WOMAN 1984 would take Diana back to Themyscira for the bulk of the movie. Or that, at least, we get some exotic location (maybe Circe on the island of Aeaea) equal to what we saw in the first movie.

Themyscira was shot in some ruins in Italy. There is some fake Background CGI. Other than that everything is real or practical effect.
The only time the movie goes full CGI is final fight with Ares.

[Joao]

I am just going to disagree with the bold part.

Wann, Gunn and Coogler are not that imaginative, they are very good at playing with huge cgi set pieces, but ultimately it's very conventionnal...take a few shots of Aquaman and put them in Besson's Valerian, it's the same things. It's just that Patty is even less imaginative with this kind of stuff because she simply doesn't care. She is all about character interaction, which is good, but not for the kind of WW films we want to see.

I think Patty Jenkins would have been better for stories like "Who killed Myndi Mayer" or "The Hiketeia".

Wow, a Patty Jenkins version of The Hiketeia is something I didn't know I needed lol.

Well, I think WW84 can use better CGI and fight scenes. The most important is the fights and SFX to have an emotional meaning. A scene can be smaller and great, like the one in the WWI battlefield, but it also can be huge in scale and very personal. Like the airport battle in Civil War, Bucky vs Cap in Winter Soldier (my personal favorite) or the ones is Black Panther. What I noticed is that we didn't have a balance in the first movie, cause the huge battle scene in the end kinda lost its purpose and was a bit messy.

But they can and I believe will improve. They particularly need to get Cheetah right, and CGI will probably be a big part of that. Just as great elements were settled in Wonder Woman lore because of the first movie, a poor executed villain may not survive a poor depiction.