• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Wonder Woman sequel Budget

What Budget for the Wonder Woman sequel?

  • 150M$

  • 160M$

  • 170M$

  • 180M$

  • 190M$

  • 200M$

  • 200M+


Results are only viewable after voting.

valmont

Civilian
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
558
Reaction score
42
Points
38
With the huge success of Wonder Woman, the sequel will certainly benefit from a bigger production budget.

The first film had a 149/150 million$ budget, while it did the job, I think a few more millions could have helped improve the CGI.

Some of the budget of the WW was used to create everything related to the time period, being set in the 80's, the second film should require less in that departement.

There's also the main crew paychecks: Patty got a bump, and Gal more likely negociated one too. The other actors that we know of are not "A listers", so I don't think they will ask for much.

I personally think that a 175-180m$ should be enough.

What do you guys think the budget of the Wonder Woman sequel will be?
 
I think the budget Will be around 160m, they will shoot in places with financial benefits for movies like Canary Island plus the cast is not expensive (an A actress like Jennifer Lawrence cost about 20m for a movie)
 
$190M?? $200M??

What kind of nonsense is this? War for the Planet of the Apes had a production budget of $150M and looks better than most VFX heavy comic book films. I see no reason for the WW sequel to cost more than $160M and even that is a lot. It's time to control the budgets on these films.
 
I think a lot will depend on what they do with Cheetah. Practical effects Cheetah means longer hours in makeup but no post production. VFX Cheetah is easier to create and animate but would probably mean more post production work.
 
The bigger the budget, the more the WB execs will meddle in the project.

Price it low enough so the execs don't start getting hands on.

I'm afraid it's priced high, and Patty is being a little too creative with the new 80's tone, and the execs are going to rein in her vision when they see the first cut. They won't replace her, because of the publicity and the politics, but they will draw the film closer to the tone of the first, and it will be a Frankenstein, pleasing neither her, nor them, nor the viewers.

The first film had a much lower budget and much lower expectations by the execs (no one expected a female led film to make money) so Patty was able to win her battles under the radar with little interference from the execs. But this time around, with higher expectations, a higher budget, and Patty's higher paycheck, she will find she has been hired to fulfill the vision of the execs, and not the other way around.

She will find the final stages of the movie making process to be quite challenging, with alot of resistance from above. She's been hired to repeat herself, and if she is trying to not repeat herself, there will be conflict. And every director who has conflicted with WB knows how that goes.
 
Last edited:
a few more millions could have helped improve the CGI.
A sequel will typically have better CGI and less heart. It's called Lame Sequel syndrome.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"