Gal Gadot to star in Wonder Woman II

[Soubhagya]

Then why were the villains in Wonder Woman so forgettable?

Because she choose to tell the story of Wonder Woman. Her character. Her journey. And villains were there as a challenge for her as every hero needs that. A conscious choice to put the spotlight on Wonder Woman at the expense of the villains. The villains weren't bad performances. Just not well developed to be memorable.

Acting isn't simply about performances. But it shall be able to bring the desired reaction in the audience. That part usually lies in the invisible hands of the director who is the puppet master of the show. The storyteller.

Now i am risking myself in coming across as a know-it-all. That can be annoying. That's not my intention. I am trying to show how Patty Jenkins is getting enhanced performances by posting two videos which on the surface is totally unrelated to the subject. But it actually is. First one is about 'Why Marlon Brando is considered the greatest actor ever?' These two videos are more academic in nature but i find them fascinating and relevant to the topic if anyone wants to dig deeper. Or else one may simply click the last link in the next post and be done with it.



That part about getting the reaction in the audience from an acting performance lies at the hands of the director who is the one telling the story.

[Soubhagya]

And the second one actually analyzes the 'Killing Sollozo scene' in Godfather. The restaurant scene. Al Pacino is rightly praised for his brilliant performance. But he got a certain leverage as any good director provides. Its not taking away his great talent. But the director enhances any performance by his invisible hands. The strings of the puppet master. (Oh and spoilers for Godfather. If anyone hasn't watched that film).




In Wonder Woman we don't feel any investment for the villains. And they gave serviceable performances. It worked for the film. But not bringing anything extra from the limited material they had.

I have a similar opinion for Killmonger. I don't think it was a great performance by Michael Jordan. It was good. But his narrative, his story, motives etc. made him such a villain that people are calling him one of the best MCU villains, who he is as there's not much competition. Some are even calling him the best. While i don't agree with everything its one of the best explanation of why WW did not have a memorable villain. Its similar to MCU's villain 'problem'. And i don't agree with even that such a problem exists. Wonder Woman as well as MCU films chose not to invest/highlight/focus as much on the villain as they did on the hero.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/wh.../1100-6457113/

[Korath]

Actually, the villain was forgettable because Wonder Woman is a movie of its time. When it was in production, massive CGI battles were basically a must for a superhero movie, especially one featuring such a powerful character. Therefore, Ares dropped the ball in the third act and devolved into armored generic villain. But before that, the film did great throwing us off our expectations about who Ares truly was, what he wanted and why, etc. I think that leaving the mustache below the armor was a poor choice, but what is done is done. Hopefully, WWII will expand on Diana's mythos and powers, while avoiding this pitfall (which may not be the case if Cheetah is involved, but then again, superhero movies can't really break their molds and be risky in their choices...).

[SiegePerilous02]

Then why were the villains in Wonder Woman so forgettable?

Most villains in CBMs are fairly forgettable lately (see practically every MCU film), because they focus mostly on the heroes. It's a little more understandable/forgivable in an origin film like this one because the main focus SHOULD be on Diana, and to a lesser extent Steve and the Amazons. The source material is also working against them, as villain!Ares tends to not be more than a generic evil overlord character who Diana has to overthrow in her first outing. He's also less complicated to set up than Circe or the Cheetah, and developing them would take focus away from Diana.

We're sort of in unknown territory here with Jenkins, as we cannot know how effectively she can deliver a memorable villain now that the origin stuff is out of the way. The main conflict seems poised to be between two women though, which is immediately more interesting than anything else we've encountered lately. It should also be noted that Nolan's Joker is arguably the most popular CBM villain ever, and Nolan's Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow didn't generate nearly as much buzz in the origin movie that preceded it.

[Jim Kelly]

Even though Patty Jenkins had more control than most, when she made WONDER WOMAN, I think she had to make a lot of concessions to the studio bosses for the film to get finished. The big CGI fight scene at the end seems like something the producers would have insisted on and it had to be in the movie (just like in every other movie), so Jenkins had to give them that to get the things she wanted. The downside of CGI heavy set pieces for most directors is they have no real control over those kind of shoots. It's the effects team and their boss who are really in control--Patty isn't talking to an algorithm and giving direction for its character in the scene.

I didn't mind the scene, because when I counted the CGI time on repeated viewings, it was relatively short. The third act has a lot of real person acting--especially with Steve. This is the part of the movie that makes you cry over and over again. So how can it be all wrong, when it's doing that? But ideally, in my version, Thewlis would be Thewlis throughout. The point being that the God of War really looks like this bureaucrat and not a beast. He might have the power to summon a beast to battle Wonder Woman, but Thewlis would remain looking exactly like Sir Patrick the whole time.

Fans would still grumble about that, I'm sure. But that way Jenkins would have more control on set. She could talk to Thewlis and Gadot and show them what she wants in this scene and they could act it--without the CGI experts having any control over the performance.

Since she's an actor's director--got Theron that Oscar--the more she can give those scenes her touch, the better. If Cheetah (or Circe) are rendered as CGI creatures, Patty Jenkins won't be able to do what she does best.

[Agent 86]

Then why were the villains in Wonder Woman so forgettable?

I know I'm in the minority, but I really like Dr Poison. I wish she'd had a slightly larger role. I didn't mind Ludendorff either.

Ares, once revealed (which was pretty much the only time he was openly "Ares") was pretty forgettable. The design was pretty uninspired and the CGI was a little OTT to take the character seriously.

[VonHammersmark]

I don't think you'd want Cheetah to be a naked woman with a paint job, the best makeup artists in the world couldn't pull that off, I mean fur is a lot harder than say reptilian skin, they will use motion capture I'm telling you now. And that's nothing to be afraid of, as with everything else in the film industry, there's good CGI and bad CGI, a bad script or a bad performance by an actor can make or break a movie too, CGI is not the boogeyman. Maybe just get a better creative team. Also bear in mind Jenkins had no experience filming with green screen, she does now

[Punisher007]

I expect Cheetah to probably be CGI/mo-cap. Think Caesar in the new Planet of the Apes films, or the aliens from Avatar, as opposed to a woman in a cheetah costume, or just with a paint/make-up job.

Especially with how powerful the first movie set up Diana as being.

[Barbatos666]

CGI monster villains are either crap or serviceable. I expect Cheetah to attain the heights of TASM Lizard at best and the worst position is still open because you can always go lower haha. Good luck to WW 2.

[BlackClaw]

CGI monster villains are either crap or serviceable. I expect Cheetah to attain the heights of TASM Lizard at best and the worst position is still open because you can always go lower haha. Good luck to WW 2.

Dude have you not seen any of the recent planet of the apes movies? Those prove that cgi characters can look phenomenal if you have a team that knows what they’re doing.

[Punisher007]

Heck go all the way back to Gollum in LOTR for further proof of that. Also people seem to mostly love Mark Ruffalo's Hulk despite the later being CGI/mo-cap.

[Soubhagya]

Dude have you not seen any of the recent planet of the apes movies? Those prove that cgi characters can look phenomenal if you have a team that knows what they’re doing.

Maybe cast Serkis as Cheetah. Lol. I would love to see that. Simply don't kill off Cheetah midway between the movie.

Jokes aside its certainly possible. Those Lord of The Rings films and Planet of The Apes were under Warner Bros. banner. That does not mean anything. But if they put the effort it can work. MCU manages to pull off Hulk. Cheetah could definitely be made good.

But then we don't know the mind of Jenkins. Maybe re-invent her as a more brainy character or something along those lines. Or be in her human form for most of the movie. We can simply wait.

[SiegePerilous02]

Even though Patty Jenkins had more control than most, when she made WONDER WOMAN, I think she had to make a lot of concessions to the studio bosses for the film to get finished. The big CGI fight scene at the end seems like something the producers would have insisted on and it had to be in the movie (just like in every other movie), so Jenkins had to give them that to get the things she wanted. The downside of CGI heavy set pieces for most directors is they have no real control over those kind of shoots. It's the effects team and their boss who are really in control--Patty isn't talking to an algorithm and giving direction for its character in the scene..

Jenkins should hopefully have even more control now after the success of the first film. She pretty much has WB by the balls now; she is thus far the only successful director in their DCEU project and she will have more weight to throw around. If she doesn't want a big dumb CGI fest in the finale, we probably won't get one.

CGI monster villains are either crap or serviceable. I expect Cheetah to attain the heights of TASM Lizard at best and the worst position is still open because you can always go lower haha. Good luck to WW 2.

Gollum and Caesar beg to differ. There are also circumstances you're not considering, like how far into the movie she's cursed, how much intelligence she retains in that state (compared to the Lizard), if it's going to be all CGI or a mixture of it and make up, and whether or not she can transform back and forth. WW2 might very not need any luck.

[Barbatos666]

Dude have you not seen any of the recent planet of the apes movies? Those prove that cgi characters can look phenomenal if you have a team that knows what they’re doing.

I was referring to CBMs. Abomination, Doomsday, Lizard, Electro,Incubus all subpar. When it comes to modern CBMs the villains most highly regarded are

Joker
Loki
Killmonger
Bane
Vulture
Magneto

None of them wear absurd make up or are CGI creations. Odds just aren't good for Cheetah.

The Reeves Apes films are on a different level entirely and frankly they make most CBMs even the good ones look like mediocrity. I wouldn't compare CBMs to them.

[marhawkman]

I was looking around and found a character I REALLY want to see: http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Eirene