I can only speak for myself, but I definitely don't have any anti-DC slant. When I was a kid, I inherited a giant box of comic books from my brother - a big, moldering pile from the late 70s to early 80s. The person who assembled that collection has no bias, so neither did I growing up - i loved the X-men, I loved Batman, I loved Iron Man, I loved The Flash.
It does seem as though the studios have a different approach, though - like the MCU is proud of their work, and the DC movies, they just don't seem to get the source material as well.
So far as that last bit, I think I sort of understand what they mean. I watched the directors cut of BvsS and it felt like when you pack 4 hours of movie into 2.5 hours, you simultaneously get a movie which is too long, and has too much stuff packed into it so it wasn't long enough - the worst of both worlds.
I didn't think BvS was a great movie, but I didn't think it was terrible either - nowhere near as bad as the reviews were - so maybe this will be like that, lots of neat scenes thrown together poorly.
Still, I probably was looking forward to this more than probably any movie this year, so sad to see it's going to be possibly a big letdown.
I grew up a DC fan. I love Batman and Superman, but the recent DC movies have been quite hard for me, especially with Marvel consistently hitting it out the park.
I will give Suicide Squad a chance, but man has the new interpretations of Superman and Batman made me sad. Batman straight up murders some folks in BvS. Why is it so hard for the movies to follow the no killing rule for Batman? It's been a core part of his character for a good part of his history...With that out the way their is no reason for Joker to be alive.
I'm hoping that Will Smith can charm his way through this film and make it enjoyable.
I'm fine with them being flexible on the 'no killing' thing, but I also never felt it was a core part of his character either. He tries, sure, but it doesn't always work out that easily. It is part of what makes him interesting.
Alpharius wrote: There really does seem to be an anti-DC thing going on...maybe?
Or maybe it's because their movies just haven't been good?
Ouze wrote: So far as that last bit, I think I sort of understand what they mean. I watched the directors cut of BvsS and it felt like when you pack 4 hours of movie into 2.5 hours, you simultaneously get a movie which is too long, and has too much stuff packed into it so it wasn't long enough - the worst of both worlds.
I had high hopes for the director's cut of BvS and in the end, I was let down. It was too long, didn't really add anything of note, and the CGI blood splatters looked gakky.
I didn't think BvS was a great movie, but I didn't think it was terrible either - nowhere near as bad as the reviews were - so maybe this will be like that, lots of neat scenes thrown together poorly.
I'm in the same boat. I didn't hate the movie, but I certainly didn't love it either. There were some awesome parts (the warehouse brawl being the best) so I don't really feel like I wasted my money or time seeing it in the theater. The Honest Trailer pretty much summed up everything wrong with the movie.
If I can find the time to get to the theater I'll probably see Suicide Squad and hopefully I won't be too let down.
What annoyed me about the Ultimate cut was that it was sold as BvS Ultimate Cut 3D but on the back, near the bottom, in 2 point font it says the Ultimate Cut is only available in 2D and that the 3D version is the Theatrical cut.
Same sort of reaction as BvS? Excellent, I can tell I'm going to love this one! Especially after seeing the Ultimate Cut, I still rate BvS as my favourite comic book movie of all time, rivalled only by The Dark Knight and Man of Steel (and maybe X-men First Class), so if this is similar in tone and style then bring it all on! Everything we've seen from SS so far looks like it's going to be a hilarious, explosive, action-packed thrill ride, so I'm not surprised critics are bashing it, but it all looks awesome to me!
The only thing that could ruin this film for me is a mishandled Joker (by which I mean all that 'Joker is Robin' crap panning out or Leto's performance being flat). and that doesn't look at all likely from what we've seen/heard so far. Can't wait!
Was never intending to see it in theater anyway. Will wait for the extended directors cut to come out on dvd and will probably enjoy it, as Ultimate Edition of BvS is my favorite superhero movie.
So much happens in David Ayer's DC Comics adaptation Suicide Squad that by the end, it's as if you've seen nothing.
is one of the dumber things I've read - in a long time.
And remember, I have to Moderate the OT Forum here!
CNet's review may have explained it better when they said that the movie keeps bouncing from character to character and story to story so quickly, without spending enough time on each one, that it felt less of a movie and more of a really long movie trailer.
Alpharius wrote: There really does seem to be an anti-DC thing going on...maybe?
Or maybe it's because their movies just haven't been good?
In my experience, bad movies get bad reviews, and mediocre movies often get good reviews in spite of their mediocrity (50-60% range).
DC's recent movies have just plain sucked.
And Will Smith isn't that charming. Hollywood really needs to stop throwing him into every gakky script that it wants to pretend he can save, because the guy can't carry all that weight and his own
But, 'people' (ha!) seem to want there to be a 'comic book movie overload bubble collapse' - but at the same time, Marvel Movie Universe movies get what appears to be a pass.
DC Movies get a few extra kicks in the ribs.
Maybe?
I'll go see it and decide for myself - I mean, I did enjoy BvS...
I think the difference between Marvel and DC is that DC already had a huge cinematic/TV legacy to live up to. No matter how good Bale or Affleck may be, to an entire generation Adam West or even Michael Keaton (or Kevin Conroy!) is Batman. Christopher Reeve is Superman. Etc.
Yep. Can't tell if I'm happy or sad about this one bombing. Suicide Squad looked and sounded like a good movie, but between Harley's new age look, whatever the hell Joker Jared Leto is supposed to be, and Will Smith as Deadeye??, this is turning out to be a bomb.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I think the difference between Marvel and DC is that DC already had a huge cinematic/TV legacy to live up to. No matter how good Bale or Affleck may be, to an entire generation Adam West or even Michael Keaton (or Kevin Conroy!) is Batman. Christopher Reeve is Superman. Etc.
The difference from what I can see, as an "outsider"(ie, I watched a few cartoons with comicbook characters when I was young and I collected 2000AD and Dredd religiously for about two years, but I've never been big into comics or the whole "Marvel vs DC" thing), the main difference is Marvel don't seem to be halfway ashamed of themselves.
Marvel(in movie terms) is the middle-aged nerd who's long past caring what other people think of their hobbies and responds to sneering accusations of "childishness" etc with "Yes, and?".
DC(in movie terms) is the still-defensive and a touch angsty university-age nerd who'll wave a copy of Killing Joke or Watchmen at critics of the medium and demand it be taken seriously.
I've read reviews that said it needed to be lighter. Then on the other hand, Peter Travers called Ayer "limp-d*ck" for apparently compromising his hardcore nature. Underlining the nonsense going on, I also read a review that blamed Zack Snyder. How to make sense of this...?
Right now I'm convinced that both things are true -- 1) it's a flawed movie, and 2) there are critics that simply have a hate-on for the DC films. I get the value of brand equity -- I work in advertising -- and Marvel has clearly built theirs up with their films. But I'm convinced that if WB had released Age of Ultron, critics would have *BURIED* that movie.
It is what it is, and if the environment has become that toxic -- if critics and audiences have decided that the very narrow Marvel formula is the only acceptable one -- then WB should probably just lop this thing off after JL even if the films have been profitable and save themselves the heartburn. The DC films haven't been great -- although I think Man of Steel *IS* a good film that will be remembered better with time -- but I think WB has to be shocked by how they've been received, and especially by some of the nature of the criticism.
I mean, I've see so many complaints about BvS and now SS -- plenty of it from critics -- about "tone," as if there's only one possible correct one. It makes my head hurt. The tone is what it is, just like how one cop film is a zany buddy comedy and another is dark and brooding...just review the fething movie, you failed English major.
Ouze wrote: So far as that last bit, I think I sort of understand what they mean. I watched the directors cut of BvsS and it felt like when you pack 4 hours of movie into 2.5 hours, you simultaneously get a movie which is too long, and has too much stuff packed into it so it wasn't long enough - the worst of both worlds.
I had high hopes for the director's cut of BvS and in the end, I was let down. It was too long, didn't really add anything of note, and the CGI blood splatters looked gakky.
Well, if you had certain issues with the theatrical release, the ultimate cut didn't fix them. HOWEVER, it certainly cleaned up some story issues in the first half, from the Africa sequence, to Luthor's plan, to motivations including why Clark first confronts Bruce. I don't see how there could be any question that the story flows better and the movie breathes better in the ultimate cut. Three hours is long, but TBH it didn't feel any longer to me than the theatrical version.
I tend to have a real hatred and roll my eyes at conspiracy theories but... There does seem to be some kinda of thing out there that gives Marvel (or maybe it's Disney? Considering Apocalypse was considered 'free game') immunity, while DC has an open season from anyone that can claim some sort of authoritative opinion.
EG, the sheer amount of times I've seen people dismissing the Legends/Arrow/Flash/Supergirl as worthless because "everyone is too attractive looking in them."
Apparently the Killing Joke film is getting bashed as well (I don't know myself yet, it's not out here until the end of the month.)
Oh, I saw the Ultimate Edition of BvS yesterday and I enjoyed it. All of Gorgon's post there has pretty much nailed it on the head. The Ultimate cut doesn't change any of the characters actions or events (EG the Batmobile/Batwing still machine guns the heck out of people), but it makes a LOT of things that didn't make 'sense' in the film, or seemed contrived or unexplained, well, make sense.
Compel wrote: I tend to have a real hatred and roll my eyes at conspiracy theories but... There does seem to be some kinda of thing out there that gives Marvel (or maybe it's Disney? Considering Apocalypse was considered 'free game') immunity, while DC has an open season from anyone that can claim some sort of authoritative opinion.
Apocalypse is Fox, not Marvel/Disney.
It'd be a shame if SS is poor because I was really looking forward to it. I'm not a DC or a Marvel fan (Transformers is the only comic I have a long history with, and Michael Bay is busy stomping all over that ), I just find the DC ones only score well for me visually (apart from Doomsday).
That was my point. Apocalypse is free game for reviewers to go after because it's not Disney. (Indeed, rumours have it that Marvel/Disney are trying to torpedo the fanbases for it and Fantastic Four, by, for example, removing the licenses for making new Fantastic Four products.)
Marvel has a long history of making their heroes and villains very human.
DC has leaned more toward the "larger than life".
I think DC is not catching a break because they ARE trying to make the characters more human and that is not what they were known for.
I always felt that DC characters are known for being scary/formidable/fierce and anything more than passing attention to their emotional vulnerability seems contrary to their literary style.
If seems too much "me too" with Marvel.
I think Suicide Squad may be suffering from what the Star Trek Next Gen movies had issues with: too many main characters to fit in.
I have friends that HATE books or movies with multiple characters to jump around to: they like one storyline.
I would have to see if they felt obligated to give much of a back story for each of the characters: that would eat up a fair chunk of the movie if not done well.
I will go see the movie.
The cartoon the movie was based on was terrific fun so an ADHD live action extravaganza I would expect not too many issues unless the acting is really bad.
I read a few reviews and one complaint was that only Deadshot and Harley have any real focus on in the film. - Seems kinda a weird thing to complain about. In Assault On Arkham... Only Deadshot, Harley and the Joker (the villain) have any real focus on them...
Like someone touched on earlier, I think it's DC's and Marvel's approach to the tones. DC is trying very hard after the success of Dark Knight to recapture the dark and gritty feel of superhero movies.
Counter that with the smash hits of the Avengers and Captain America, with the mix of comedy, drama, and action. Guess which is harder to pull off?
@Compel: Indeed. Regardless of what iteration of the Squad you're talking about, it's always one or two headliners (in this case, Harley, Deadshot and maybe Boomerang) and then an assortment of random villains that will have a 'cool thing about them', contribute a few different ways to kill people in fight scenes, and one to get 'suicided' early on to demonstrate what happens when they step out of line.
On the subject of critics and the DC vs Marvel thing, I do think a lot of it is that there are certain types of reviewers that don't rate comic book movies at all, and need a way to rant about them; Marvel kind of snuck in under the radar with Iron Man and Thor and all of a sudden comic book movies were mainstream... now, Marvel are untouchable, so DC and Fox with the X-men become the targets, hence BvS getting panned, Apocalypse getting mixed reviews at best and Civil War getting wall to wall praise despite being (in my opinion) the least engaging of the three (which isn't to say I didn't love it, but Apocalypse and BvS had much more to them, I think).
Of course, SS could just be getting poor reviews because it's poor, but I seriously doubt that given what we've seen so far.
Compel wrote: I tend to have a real hatred and roll my eyes at conspiracy theories but... There does seem to be some kinda of thing out there that gives Marvel (or maybe it's Disney? Considering Apocalypse was considered 'free game') immunity, while DC has an open season from anyone that can claim some sort of authoritative opinion.
I don't think there's a conspiracy, just because how the heck would that even work? I just think WB is caught in this zeitgeist thing going on with superhero films. Yes, Deadpool from Fox was "different," but that movie is still about the laughs. The WB films are asking serious questions about their heroes at a time when a good chunk of the audience doesn't want those questions asked. They really just want superheroics and some laughs.
SS probably also has its problems. I just can't trust critics right now to know if those problems are mountains or molehills.
jreilly89 wrote: Like someone touched on earlier, I think it's DC's and Marvel's approach to the tones. DC is trying very hard after the success of Dark Knight to recapture the dark and gritty feel of superhero movies.
I think WB saw that as the natural next step coming off the success of the DK films, and a differentiator to the Marvel offerings. That's why I think they were probably blindsided by people turning on them so harshly over "tone."
Remember that MoS was never meant to be part of a DCEU. Nolan and Goyer came up with an idea of how to do a Superman film while working on the Batman films. Nolan had other stuff going on and didn't want to direct it, so Snyder got the job while Nolan produced. Nolan's fingerprints are all over that one, though. After MoS, WB wanted Nolan to be their DC 'godfather' once they caught the bug for the extended universe, but he declined and stepped away from it all. So Snyder kinda moved into that role, although it wasn't what he originally signed on for. BvS was only supposed to be MoS 2, and not the launch of a 'universe'.
So it would probably be fair to say that these shifting plans -- and changing cast of characters -- hasn't exactly helped the DCEU. There's also a growing sense that WB is behaving in a reactionary fashion to the criticism, which it doesn't give you a strong sense that WB has their eye on the ball.
I feel a little bad for Snyder, honestly. He's kept his mouth shut, played the company man, executed a plan that wasn't really his and dealt with what seems to be an increasingly involved studio, and now people act like he's the devil incarnate.
jreilly89 wrote: Like someone touched on earlier, I think it's DC's and Marvel's approach to the tones. DC is trying very hard after the success of Dark Knight to recapture the dark and gritty feel of superhero movies.
I think WB saw that as the natural next step coming off the success of the DK films, and a differentiator to the Marvel offerings. That's why I think they were probably blindsided by people turning on them so harshly over "tone."
Remember that MoS was never meant to be part of a DCEU. Nolan and Goyer came up with an idea of how to do a Superman film while working on the Batman films. Nolan had other stuff going on and didn't want to direct it, so Snyder got the job while Nolan produced. Nolan's fingerprints are all over that one, though. After MoS, WB wanted Nolan to be their DC 'godfather' once they caught the bug for the extended universe, but he declined and stepped away from it all. So Snyder kinda moved into that role, although it wasn't what he originally signed on for. BvS was only supposed to be MoS 2, and not the launch of a 'universe'.
So it would probably be fair to say that these shifting plans -- and changing cast of characters -- hasn't exactly helped the DCEU. There's also a growing sense that WB is behaving in a reactionary fashion to the criticism, which it doesn't give you a strong sense that WB has their eye on the ball.
I feel a little bad for Snyder, honestly. He's kept his mouth shut, played the company man, executed a plan that wasn't really his and dealt with what seems to be an increasingly involved studio, and now people act like he's the devil incarnate.
That's interesting, and actually makes a lot of sense. I would've been interested to see MoS directed by Nolan and see how they differ.
Ill end up going to see it, I saw BvS in theaters inspite of the bad reviews. And I ended up liking it for the most part. Heck, Batfleck has easily become my favorite Live Action Batman and Bruce Wayne (before it was divided between two actors) and my second favorite Batman over all behind Kevin Conroy.
I think this one *might* see a bigger divide between critics and audiences, but only time will tell. Sifting through the reviews, it seems like there's humor and action, and good performances by Robbie and Smith. So it could ultimately be more crowdpleasing than BvS was even if it's a flawed film.
Ouze wrote: When I posted this, it was 38% on RT. That has since slipped to 33%, which... well, I guess it doesn't matter, bad is bad.
I'm still going to see it tomorrow, dammit.
Just because a movie is bad doesn't mean you won't enjoy it
Movie critics and movie goers look for different things in their entertainment. Critics love technical precision and well paced concise plotting (which is why JJ Abrams and even Michael Bay can get rave reviews, because they're both very good at technical precision and compelling plotting). I find most movie goers (myself included) are less concerned with technical precision, and more concerned with coherence than anything, and being thrilled.
jreilly89 wrote: Like someone touched on earlier, I think it's DC's and Marvel's approach to the tones. DC is trying very hard after the success of Dark Knight to recapture the dark and gritty feel of superhero movies.
Certainly, "tone" is an important thing, and your comment regarding the Dark Knight also ties in with my earlier point regarding legacy. There were pretty much no preconceived notions by the general public when the Marvel films first started. About all anyone might remember is the old Incredible Hulk TV series or Ang Lee's Hulk, but as the Hulk didn't even appear right away, things like Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America largely got to be completely fresh and new. DC has to deal with getting people to know the new Batman and the new Superman, as those characters have already appeared multiple times over the years in other movies and TV shows, with different actors and styles. No matter how good Cavill and Affleck might be, they will still suffer from being compared to Reeve and West/Keaton/etc.
Ouze wrote: When I posted this, it was 38% on RT. That has since slipped to 33%, which... well, I guess it doesn't matter, bad is bad.
I'm still going to see it tomorrow, dammit.
Just because a movie is bad doesn't mean you won't enjoy it
Movie critics and movie goers look for different things in their entertainment. Critics love technical precision and well paced concise plotting (which is why JJ Abrams and even Michael Bay can get rave reviews, because they're both very good at technical precision and compelling plotting). I find most movie goers (myself included) are less concerned with technical precision, and more concerned with coherence than anything, and being thrilled.
JJ Abrams is not good at pacing. Not even a little bit. Pacing was one of the biggest problems in STIP and SWTFA.
The criticism of BVS was fair. It really was a crappy movie. It's just that it delivered some great Batman and Wonder Woman scenes for people who like comic book movies...which turn out to be the intended audience. It's kind of like rating all the old Godzilla Versus ____ movies as terrible, because they were, without respecting that some really deliver the goods the fans want while others don't. The Marvel movies tend to have a bit wider appeal and tend to fuse genres, giving them more hooks with which to engage the general audience.
Avengers 2 may have been a worse movie than BVS, but it made people laugh and advanced the story for characters people already love. It's like a bad episode of a good TV show.
BVS may have been better in many respects, but the audience felt bored and embarrassed for the writer, director and Jesse Eisenberg while watching it so they remember the discomfort rather than the good parts.
X-Men Apocalypse had a lot--a lot--going for it in terms of emotional beats and action, but the plot had issues and the resolution would not have been as satisfying for casual fans or general audiences who don't have the same connection to the characters or mythology. For non X-Men fans, I imagine the ending is a bit of head scratcher. I enjoyed XMA more than Civil War, but I wouldn't say it was a better movie.
There's different kinds of pacing. Movie critics in my experience (at least the typical ones), like the story to always be going forward, especially in action oriented films.They like films that cut to the chase so to speak (which JJ Abrams is quite effective at). Audiences tend to more value having time to breath.
Compare to Zack Snyder, who's recent DC films have had very slow pacing, spending copious amounts of time getting anywhere. It's not a style of pacing critics like (and honestly audiences generally don't like it either ime, but some people obviously do enjoy BvS and MoS or weren't turned off by its pacing).
So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him. Following that was Civil War, then BvS, then X-Men, then TMNT. I'm a huge X-nut, and they have been my favorite growing up. I recognize how weak the movie was. I'm actually nervous to see SS now. If the reviews are worse than FF (which was an abomination to man), and make GL look good (I found it okay; nothing memorable, not anywhere near as bad as FF), then I fear for its success.
LordofHats wrote: There's different kinds of pacing. Movie critics in my experience (at least the typical ones), like the story to always be going forward, especially in action oriented films.They like films that cut to the chase so to speak (which JJ Abrams is quite effective at). Audiences tend to more value having time to breath.
Compare to Zack Snyder, who's recent DC films have had very slow pacing, spending copious amounts of time getting anywhere. It's not a style of pacing critics like (and honestly audiences generally don't like it either ime, but some people obviously do enjoy BvS and MoS or weren't turned off by its pacing).
I think this comes back again to the idea that, like with 'tone', there is a perceived 'right way' to handle it, which in the mind of most critics is The Marvel Formula. In most Marvel movies (IM1 and maybe Cap 1 aside), things are blowing up, being shot at and tossed around within about half an hour, followed by a lull towards the end of the second act before the big finale. BvS and MoS on the other hand are deliberately slow to get going, the first hour at least is building plots, getting things into position and to me that wait and the subsequent pay-off in the third act is one of the best things about that approach. BvS goes along fairly slowly for the first two thirds, interspersed with the odd action sequence like the Batmobile chase or the Africa scene, but the last hour or so is just so intense by contrast, it doesn't let up from the moment the Batsignal lights up over Gotham and I love that!
I think a lot of the drubbing BvS got comes from the fact that audiences and critics alike were expecting it to just be 'The Other Avengers', same setup, same story and same feel, and felt short-changed when they didn't get that. But the issue there is not with the film itself, just with the expectations and preconceptions. Had it been released in an MCUless world, the reception would've been very different indeed, I think. DC in both film and comic form take a different approach to telling stories, and the perception has come about that it's somehow the 'wrong' way to do it on screen.
Compel wrote: That was my point. Apocalypse is free game for reviewers to go after because it's not Disney. (Indeed, rumours have it that Marvel/Disney are trying to torpedo the fanbases for it and Fantastic Four, by, for example, removing the licenses for making new Fantastic Four products.)
Couple of things to get straight:
1. Reviewers don't give Disney a free ride. There is no conspiracy. Don't believe the hype. 2. Marvel comics, and Marvel proper, under the leadership of perennial tight-ass and elusive mystery man Ike Perlmutter, has asked the writers to de-emphasise the X-Men, push the Inhumans forward, and cancelled the F4 book completely. He's the one that caused the pissing contest with Fox. Marvel Studios, independent of Marvel proper (and even Marvel Television), has nothing to do with him any more.
Paradigm wrote:I think a lot of the drubbing BvS got comes from the fact that audiences and critics alike were expecting it to just be 'The Other Avengers', same setup, same story and same feel, and felt short-changed when they didn't get that.
I'm pretty sure it had more to do with the fact that it wasn't very good. It was a highlights reel of a much longer and more cohesive film. I've seen people who can't stand the theatrical release of BvS say how much they like the extended version because it evens out the pacing, re-orders scenes, gives itself time to breathe, has establishing shots and generally comes together far better than the hot and hopeless mess was BvS in the cinemas.
I think I can agree that DC has had to struggle a lot with preconceived expectations, but I still stand by the opinion; DC's recent movies are bad. Even when they're being enjoyable, its usually towards the end of a 2 hours plus experience that has mostly been jarringly self indulgent with some really absurd moralizing, and building on odd characterization.
I can't remember where I heard it, but Snyder's treatment of Superman in particular fits it very well; "For some reason DC has become obsessed with asking "does the world need a Superman" which might be a good question save for the invasion of alien robots confirming that yes we do need a superman, and continuing to ask the question just becomes an empty facade of intellectualism."
It was something like that anyway.
And yes. The whole Doomsday bit was stupid. Honest Trailers was right. They burned through 4-5 movies worth of good material in a single film (about 30 minutes of a single film at that), and the single film came out a mess for it.
WB seems to be really gun shy with their films. They're reactionary ("Change everything!") whenever they think something isn't working, or if something is working well (to change everything to be like it) and have no confidence in what they're doing.
I mean when we heard BvS was a heavily cut down version of a much larger film, it made sense, because it felt like chunks were missing. Now we hear that Suicide Squad has the same issue, likely a direct result of the backlack against BvS.
I fear for Wonder Woman, another film with fantastic looking trailers, and what WB is going to do it with the reaction to Suicide Squad.
The jokes about "And here's Marvel with their talking tree movie!" might be old, but they're no less true. Marvel is taking risks and doing weird stuff. WB is afraid of its own shadow sometimes, and needs to get out of its own way.
All that said: Still jazzed to see Suicide Squad on Saturday.
H.B.M.C. wrote: WB seems to be really gun shy with their films. They're reactionary ("Change everything!") whenever they think something isn't working, or if something is working well (to change everything to be like it) and have no confidence in what they're doing.
Well, you have to consider that the DCEU films have had very big budgets (early Marvel film budgets were much more modest), and they didn't exercise the same kind of control over their filmmakers like Marvel did over theirs. That tends to lead to change (i.e. management involvement) when things get bumpy. Not saying it's a good way to handle things, just that it's kind of a natural response in most businesses.
Regarding other recent points, I agree that there's no critic conspiracy. I do think there's been a ton of negativity in the media toward the DCEU, and I suspect the only real reason is because those articles get a lot of clicks. The IGNs of the world bashed BvS from its announcement all the way through. But it wasn't about malice, it was about money. At least I think so.
And regarding Doomsday, its inclusion in BvS had a lot to do with Wonder Woman and setting up her film. Marvel does that stuff all the time, but perhaps it wasn't handled as well as it could have been in BvS. One thing that I think the DCEU should embrace as a best practice from Marvel is the mid/post-credit sequence. Overall, I think they're a very trite thing...but they make some sense as a means to do some cinematic universe building without clogging your movie.
For instance, it wouldn't have been hard to move the heroes video sequence in BvS to mid-credits. You show Bruce finding the files (and symbols) during the movie, but then cut away. Then have him back in the Batcave at mid-credits, opening them up. Now, simply moving the "Knightmare" sequence there would remove Bruce's main motivation for forming the JL, but that just requires a writing fix. You can get there plenty of other ways.
Oh, and Doomsday has never been and will never be a great villain. It's actually a rather absurd villain, which is why they used it as a throwaway. I have not one single issue with that, and quite frankly Spadertron bothered me exponentially more than Doomsday did.
timetowaste85 wrote: So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him.
You know, I typically do not post here and I only read the very occasional thread that spikes me interest, but after reading your nonsensical gakstorm of a post I felt obliged to reply.
Spoiler:
It is stupefying to me how much utterly inane these two lines of text are...first you pronounce the following your favorite comic films of the year and then proclaim "Deadpool was best! FACT!!!"...an opinion is not a fact. Oh, and of course anyone who disagrees is biased or has "blinders on." In a single fell swoop you denounced every Deadpool detractor as either dumb or in denial. Wow.
Yeah...so apparently the fact my opinion is that a movie with an unlikable lead that has all the wit of a middle school edgelord telling genital jokes during lunch hour is not only a far cry from being the best comic film of the year, but is also essentially limited to being mediocre at absolute best courtesy of its puerile sense of humor, forgettable antagonists, underachieving fight scenes, and horribly dull plot indicates that I am an ignorant sheep porker. Well great. I am glad I learned something new about myself.
On topic, I am not remotely surprised that Suicide Squad is getting slammed. Mildly disappointed, yes, but not surprised. My only concern is that the film will probably need to clear the $400-500 mark in order to be profitable and the fact it lacks a lead character on par with Batman/Superman makes me doubt this will happen...
timetowaste85 wrote: So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him.
You know, I typically do not post here and I only read the very occasional thread that spikes me interest, but after reading your nonsensical gakstorm of a post I felt obliged to reply.
Spoiler:
It is stupefying to me how much utterly inane these two lines of text are...first you pronounce the following your favorite comic films of the year and then proclaim "Deadpool was best! FACT!!!"...an opinion is not a fact. Oh, and of course anyone who disagrees is biased or has "blinders on." In a single fell swoop you denounced every Deadpool detractor as either dumb or in denial. Wow.
Yeah...so apparently the fact my opinion is that a movie with an unlikable lead that has all the wit of a middle school edgelord telling genital jokes during lunch hour is not only a far cry from being the best comic film of the year, but is also essentially limited to being mediocre at absolute best courtesy of its puerile sense of humor, forgettable antagonists, underachieving fight scenes, and horribly dull plot indicates that I am an ignorant sheep porker. Well great. I am glad I learned something new about myself.
On topic, I am not remotely surprised that Suicide Squad is getting slammed. Mildly disappointed, yes, but not surprised. My only concern is that the film will probably need to clear the $400-500 mark in order to be profitable and the fact it lacks a lead character on par with Batman/Superman makes me doubt this will happen...
So, where the hell does the DCEU go from here?
Just gonna reference the second to last paragraph. They mentioned a Ben Affleck Batman solo film, which I think would actually do well. He seems semi competent, and given a good director, I'm sure it'd be just as good as the 90's Batman's were, although I doubt it'd be as rememberable as Dark Knight or as good/awful as the Batman Forever/Batman & Robin.
As for a possible anti-DC/Warner Bros slant, I doubt it ... DC is certainly my favorite of the Big Two and I think most critics were too lenient about the spectacle of absurdity that was Batman vs Superman. And critics were, if anything, slavishly kind to Dark Knight Rises. I do think critics and audiences alike were too precious about make pretend violence when it comes to Man of Steel, however. If there is a bias, I think it is against Superman.
Just gonna reference the second to last paragraph. They mentioned a Ben Affleck Batman solo film, which I think would actually do well. He seems semi competent, and given a good director, I'm sure it'd be just as good as the 90's Batman's were, although I doubt it'd be as rememberable as Dark Knight or as good/awful as the Batman Forever/Batman & Robin.
Yeah, if I had to bet on which movies actually get made after JL, Affleck's Batman film is the only one I'd put money on. People accuse WB of being Batman fanboys, but the flip side to that argument is that Batman is the only character they've had that's delivered for them in a big way.
Manchu wrote: I do think critics and audiences alike were too precious about make pretend violence when it comes to Man of Steel, however. If there is a bias, I think it is against Superman.
I agree on this point. Although note that Superman Returns scores well, and MUCH higher than Man of Steel on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. This is simply astonishing to me, FYI.
George Miller has been linked to a possible MoS sequel. I think that *IF* the other films get cancelled, and *IF* Miller is on board, it's possible WB greenlights that one.
It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...
Manchu wrote: It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...
Keep an eye on the second series of Supergirl, they've added Superman to the cast for a few episodes and that show definitely captures the light, hopeful tone of 'traditional' Superman stuff. To be honest, I reckon there is ample room for both interpretations; the more complex, self-examining, deconstructed Supes from the film universe and the more classic, Silver Age-esque version. Both will work in their respective settings, I think, and ultimately don't even need comparing.
Manchu wrote: It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...
DC Comics can't figure out the character either. What's going on with Superman right now in comics is just baffling. Some loud, whiny fans liked the post-Crisis Supes better than New 52 Supes, so they killed N52 Supes in order to bring back PC Supes. But isn't it *ALL* Superman? If they felt they needed to make some adjustments to Superman, then just write it that way and show some evolution by the N52 character, right...?
But then of course there are all kinds of mysteries going on, like a powerless Clark Kent (who apparently *isn't* a resurrected N52 Superman) that emerged out of nowhere. So it's also possible that nothing is as it seems and maybe none of them are Superman at all! Or something. I dunno. I'm good with the building out of the "Superman family," but I don't understand what they're trying to do with Kal-El himself.
Oh...and they killed off Krypto too, after the New 52 restored that character. Man o man.
Getting this back more on topic, it feels like the entire DC enterprise is somewhat rudderless and has become very reactionary in both their comics and films. To be fair, Marvel comics seem like an absolute mess too, even as their film business chugs along.
Paradigm wrote: To be honest, I reckon there is ample room for both interpretations; the more complex, self-examining, deconstructed Supes from the film universe and the more classic, Silver Age-esque version. Both will work in their respective settings, I think, and ultimately don't even need comparing.
I think this is a fine statement. To be fair, the "Superdude" version has been around for a long time. The post-Crisis take emphasized that Clark Kent is his true self, and that Superman is a suit he puts on. Meanwhile, the "Supergod" Silver Age version (which the Reeve films took cues from) have the bumbling, dorky Clark Kent as the disguise, and Superman as his true self.
This may be one of those 'had to cut it for theatrical release' so seems muddled up. I'm more fond of the Ultimate Edition of BvS, when important plot details/background wasn't left out.
I've heard Margot Robbie did brilliantly as Harley Quinn. So glad to hear that, since the comic book counterpart is interesting to read. I was concerned they would just use her as a sex icon while the men filled the screen.
Is Will Smith good as Deadshot? He didn't really stand out to me as an ideal Deadshot in the trailers and was only there because he's A-list material to attract viewers.
Manchu wrote: I am so glad I gave up on comics. I have never forgiven Alan Moore for killing Krypto.
Oh, Krypto's death this time is a complete throwaway too. The Eradicator just snuffs him. I guess they just wanted to be rid of the character to reset the post-Crisis status quo? It's always possible Krypto is resurrected, but then I think the Superman universe needs to get over this cycle of deaths and resurrections, no matter how many Jesus Christ allusions there are with the character.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozocrone wrote: This may be one of those 'had to cut it for theatrical release' so seems muddled up. I'm more fond of the Ultimate Edition of BvS, when important plot details/background wasn't left out.
I've heard Margot Robbie did brilliantly as Harley Quinn. So glad to hear that, since the comic book counterpart is interesting to read. I was concerned they would just use her as a sex icon while the men filled the screen.
Is Will Smith good as Deadshot? He didn't really stand out to me as an ideal Deadshot in the trailers and was only there because he's A-list material to attract viewers.
I've seen reviews saying Smith is good and this could help inject some new life into his career. But then I've also read reviews saying Robbie isn't a scene-stealer and all her jokes fall flat (even as others say otherwise). Who the @$% knows?
I don't mind a complex, reflective Superman ... but I don't think that's how the character should begin. Let's have a movie that opens with Superman saving the day for the first time. The movie should be told from Lois's POV, as she covers the story and tries to figure out who this Superman is. You could drive the plot from action set piece to action set piece with the dramatic irony of Lois and Clark having a playful relationship; him the buttoned-up nerd reporter and her the vivacious take-no-hostages journalist. The theme would emerge over the course of their interactions that, although she comes no closer to understanding Superman's personality, she does get to know Clark, his worries about his parents back in Kansas, his struggle to figure out what is right when things are not clearly black and white.
Manchu wrote: It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...
And yet Captain America. A swirling inhuman lump of American Dreaming and saccharine idealism, an anti-bullying PSA come to life, a being so obnoxiously perfect that even Jesus would hate him just a little bit, yet Marvel managed to do two-and-a-half movies about him, one a WW2 war movie and one a conspiracy thriller, managing to walk the line without delving too far into either po-faced moralizing or mythos-destroying growly-voiced antiheroism, and do it while endearing a character who almost literally walks around draped in the American flag to a global audience.
At some point WB are going to have to stop blaming the current tone of pop culture, audience tastes, or sabotage operations by invisible Moon Nazis and just accept that either their plan or the people they're choosing to execute it don't work for the character.
They're just too content riding on the coattails of the IP. "It's a DC movie, people will come no matter what, just get it out into theaters once it is halfway decent. Make sure there are plenty of awesome scenes to put into trailers. Get the best art department you can. For every dollar we spend on advertising, that's at least $10 we will get back in return, so pump out the ad's as quick as possible".
As opposed to "Hey guys, guess what? We get to make a DC movie...let's make the most !@#$ing kick-ass comic book movie of all time. The hell with the cost, if we do it right fans will pay through the nose to see it time and again before it even leaves the theaters! Let's get a proven team together that has the skill and track-record to knock it out of the park".
Am I going to see it? Yes, but I'm not paying to do so, and I wouldn't see it otherwise. Just grinds my gears...
Manchu wrote: It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...
And yet Captain America. A swirling inhuman lump of American Dreaming and saccharine idealism, an anti-bullying PSA come to life, a being so obnoxiously perfect that even Jesus would hate him just a little bit, yet Marvel managed to do two-and-a-half movies about him, one a WW2 war movie and one a conspiracy thriller, managing to walk the line without delving too far into either po-faced moralizing or mythos-destroying growly-voiced antiheroism, and do it while endearing a character who almost literally walks around draped in the American flag to a global audience.
At some point WB are going to have to stop blaming the current tone of pop culture, audience tastes, or sabotage operations by invisible Moon Nazis and just accept that either their plan or the people they're choosing to execute it don't work for the character.
It's almost as if they had some competent writers and used Captain America's perfectness/morals against him to create complex situations
I don't think you need to tear down Supes to make him interesting. Just let him be mysterious by writing someone else as the audience vehicle character; namely, Lois Lane ... you know, so she doesn't feel utterly superfluous.
Just finished watching it. It's nowhere near as bad as the views are giving it. It did fall apart in the second half a bit but I still really liked it. If you'd like the trailers, I think you're going to like the movie.
It's not great, but it's definitely not bad, let alone terrible. I liked it quite a bit, actually. I'd give it maybe a 7/10. I'f have given BvS a 4 if that helps at all.
Margot Robbie stole every scene she was in, obviously.
Will Smith did OK. There was no scene-breaking comedy shoehorned in where it didn't belong like I was afraid of.
Cara Delevingne's character effects looked terrific. I liked her character.
Katana had absolutely no character development and truthfully could have been cut from the film without losing anything.
I'm going to talk about the Joker a bit, so very minor spoilers in terms of his performance, not the plot:
Spoiler:
The Joker isn't a cameo or walk-on as described, more of a minor character - he's not tied into the main plot though. Jared Leto was an OK Joker, but definitely not at all the best one. TBH I think it's going to be very, very difficult to one-up Heath Ledger and he didn't really try, he took him in more of a different direction - think Jack Nicholson's Jack Napier pre-transformation; a gangster who is also a lunatic.
There are parts of the movie that are pretty dark, visually, so I think you might want to avoid this in 3D. In my anecdotal experience, movies not shot in 3d and then converted have a tendency to be too dark; the theater is supposed to adjust this but rarely does.
The worst part is really about 3/4ths through - they try to add in a beat where "all hope seems lost, but our heroes look inside themselves to find the strength to carry on". This makes pretty much no sense because the circumstances immediately prior to this hadn't really changed at all. That felt shoehorned in and not organic at all - if you want to do organic team-building onscreen, do it better.
Killer Croc was a little underwhelming, but I guess the Arkham video games sort of spoiled me on what Killer Croc could be. He did not get as much screentime or character development as I think he warranted.
Definitely was a clear part of the DCU, lots of little cameos. The villains with ties to specific villains, you know who, are just as tired in this as they are in the comics.
No ragrets, probably won't see it in theaters again but will almost certainly watch again at some point.
My wife liked it more than I did, she said she'd go 8/10. She is not a comic book person and wanted to know why Enchantress wasn't still being played by Elizabeth Olsen*. So, if you take someone who doesn't follow comics but likes the trailers, I guess they'll like it too? Based on my sample size of 1 person.
My biggest problem with this movie is that I kept mixing up Harley and Britta from Community.
I liked Leto's Joker and the interactions with Harley. I think Leto works with the grittiness of the DC films lately (I still like Ledger/Hamill more though).
As for the rest:
Spoiler:
It felt like BvS again. Too many characters and a lot of potential, just a lot of bits missing. It made me miss Arrow's Deadshot and Amanda Waller a lot though.
You know...I liked BvS. It has it's problems obviously. I can see why it got a lower rating on RT (obviously I disagree with it being that low...)...
1) Redesign of Lex Luthor was almost universally hated, especially by DC comic fans...didn't bother me too much
2) The Tale of Two Marthas (this bothered me...it could have been better written)
3) Underwhelming acting/writing for Lois Lane and Clark/Superman
4) Leaps in character logic and decision making
5) Very poor...I mean this is the #1 issue my brother and I had with it, final act
On the other hand it had
1) Excellent fight scenes (Batman v Goons > Batman v Supes > Doomsday Fight)
2) Best Batman yet (at the very least he was best combination of the Batman and Bruce Wayne identities into a single character)
3) Very solid Wonder Woman
So...going so far as to say it's anything worse than an average film seems to be a stretch. To me it was nowhere near as bad as the abomination that was Iron Man 3, better than Thor 2 (bored me half to death), far better than X3 and at least on par with Iron Man 2/Age of Apocalypse/X-Men (first film) for a mid tier(ish) DC/Marvel flick.
So that said...I have no idea what fething planet the people slamming Suicide Squad are from...I see two actual issues with it.
1) Uninteresting/underdeveloped big bad
2) Underwhelming fight scenes
On 1, the ultimate "big bad" was still better, imo, than the big screen iterations of Phoenix, Doomsday, Apocalypse, Red Skull, The Dark Elf king/emperor (sorry, I don't know his name), the horrible flaming shitstorm of the Mandarin, and probably the main bad from X-Men: First Class as well. Yeah, the big bad didn't have a lot of time to be developed, but I got the key elements from the movie alone
Spoiler:
She's an ancient, feral (perfect description), magical being that possessed the ground leader of Suicide Squad's love interest and is bent on establishing herself and her brother back as 'gods' over mankind)
On 2, this bothered me until I thought about it...no one in the movie that is NOT a metahuman/on par with one has anywhere near the HtH skills of Batman. Not even close.
Spoiler:
FFS, he one hit KOed Harley Quinn in a flashback
. The metahuman/equivalents aren't suggested to have the combat skills of Superman or Wonder Woman...
Spoiler:
well maybe, the Enchantress could go toe to toe in HtH with Wonder Woman or beat Superman with magic, but she is a bad case of evil dumb/arrogant.
I didn't see an issue with the overall plot, dialogue was decent to good, some characters in the squad were underdeveloped (namely everyone EXCEPT Harley, Deadshot, and Diablo).
The Joker obviously annoyed some people, but I liked him. He didn't steal any scenes like Ledger did, but this wasn't a Joker movie. Overall, he came across as very weird, but also much more evil than any big screen iteration of the Joker I've seen before.
Harley was good. Will Smith was surprisingly good. I really liked Diablo's character arc and he really is the dark horse of the film.
Honestly, I have a hard time saying this film is anything less than a 7/10...to me it's in between Avengers and Age of Ultron in quality. But lacks the spectacle of both films and the big bad is weaker than in either films.
I think it suffered badly from being overhyped and people are wanting a film, that quite frankly, would be well beyond any comic book adaption we've seen yet...it's a bit insane to me to expect a team of second class villains to show up Avengers, Civil War, Winter Soldier, or Watchman...
Ouze wrote: Just finished watching it. It's nowhere near as bad as the views are giving it. It did fall apart in the second half a bit but I still really liked it. If you'd like the trailers, I think you're going to like the movie.
is there a lot of Harley in it? Thats why the daughter and I are gong-we couldn't give a gak about the rest of them.
Ouze wrote: Just finished watching it. It's nowhere near as bad as the views are giving it. It did fall apart in the second half a bit but I still really liked it. If you'd like the trailers, I think you're going to like the movie.
is there a lot of Harley in it? Thats why the daughter and I are gong-we couldn't give a gak about the rest of them.
She gets a significant percentage of screentime, probably about as much as Deadshot, and they both get more time than any other characters.
I can't wait for what I imagine is the inevitable Harley spinoff. Even the worst of bad reviews liked Margot Robbie.
The Joker isn't a cameo or walk-on as described, more of a minor character - he's not tied into the main plot though. Jared Leto was an OK Joker, but definitely not at all the best one. TBH I think it's going to be very, very difficult to one-up Heath Ledger and he didn't really try, he took him in more of a different direction - think Jack Nicholson's Jack Napier pre-transformation; a gangster who is also a lunatic.
The only thing I really want to touch on here. As much as I love Heath Ledger's Joker, I think Jack Nicholson's doesn't get enough plug. I mean he played a great Joker, funny, offbeat, more of a gangster but still crazy, and I think it fit perfectly. It always bothers me that it's either Hamill or Ledger's Joker, never Nicholson's.
From what I've seen, admittedly only trailers and clips, it looks passable and I'll catch it on disc at some point
I suspect however much like the first X-Men movie, cramming in a lot of new characters, especially ones that are kind of niche even by comic book standards was always going to create a movie that's a hard sell
But then again what do I know about comic book movies, I like the Affleck Daredevil...
When the ghostbusters remake came out, the internet said it was worse than cancer, though critics gave it a decent rating.
And that same internet voice, by and large, have been excited by suicide squad for months now, and critics are saying it's awful.
You generally don't see disparities that large outside of video game reviews, seems like.
Suicide Squad, even if it's garbage, is still a "by the numbers" comic book movie. None of the characters were gender swapped, there were no real mistakes or risky moves barring Leto's Joker, and that has been picked apart by everyone.
Ghostbusters however was built up on the idea of a gender swapped team and thus attracted way more buzz/infamy.
Ouze wrote: Just finished watching it. It's nowhere near as bad as the views are giving it. It did fall apart in the second half a bit but I still really liked it. If you'd like the trailers, I think you're going to like the movie.
is there a lot of Harley in it? Thats why the daughter and I are gong-we couldn't give a gak about the rest of them.
She gets a significant percentage of screentime, probably about as much as Deadshot, and they both get more time than any other characters.
I can't wait for what I imagine is the inevitable Harley spinoff. Even the worst of bad reviews liked Margot Robbie.
I think they already greenlit one, actually.
Thanks for the review! That got my hopes back up that it'd be passable - I don't need it to be great any more, just better than Batman vs. Superman. Glad to know Margot Robbie did a good job, Harley's one of my favorite comic characters.
The general consensus from the reviews In read is that it tried to hard to be deadpool and fell flat...
Tim Burton's first Batman is still the high water mark for me. He got Gotham, the look, the feel, and the cathedral scenes at the end were inspired IMO
Trying to make comic book films 'realistic' for me never works...
timetowaste85 wrote: So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him.
You know, I typically do not post here and I only read the very occasional thread that spikes me interest, but after reading your nonsensical gakstorm of a post I felt obliged to reply.
Spoiler:
It is stupefying to me how much utterly inane these two lines of text are...first you pronounce the following your favorite comic films of the year and then proclaim "Deadpool was best! FACT!!!"...an opinion is not a fact. Oh, and of course anyone who disagrees is biased or has "blinders on." In a single fell swoop you denounced every Deadpool detractor as either dumb or in denial. Wow.
Yeah...so apparently the fact my opinion is that a movie with an unlikable lead that has all the wit of a middle school edgelord telling genital jokes during lunch hour is not only a far cry from being the best comic film of the year, but is also essentially limited to being mediocre at absolute best courtesy of its puerile sense of humor, forgettable antagonists, underachieving fight scenes, and horribly dull plot indicates that I am an ignorant sheep porker. Well great. I am glad I learned something new about myself.
On topic, I am not remotely surprised that Suicide Squad is getting slammed. Mildly disappointed, yes, but not surprised. My only concern is that the film will probably need to clear the $400-500 mark in order to be profitable and the fact it lacks a lead character on par with Batman/Superman makes me doubt this will happen...
So, where the hell does the DCEU go from here?
Just to poke a hole about what the issue you had in my post; Deadpool broke numerous box office records, took theaters by storm, wrecked February release numbers, R-rated numbers, and was one of the highest grossing super hero movies so far. So it is actually a fact that it was superior to the rest, according to the numbers. I happen to agree, and think it was the strongest so far. Sorry if you didn't like it; but from what you disliked about it, well, that's who the character has always been; sounds like you hated the character already, and fell into the biased category I listed; you disliked it because you dislike the character. That isn't the movie's fault.
Also where the heck did I say biased or blinders on against the movie made you ignorant or a sheep porker? Those are your words, and nowhere even close to what I said. If you want lodge insults at yourself, go for it, but don't put your words in my mouth.
On topic, hearing reviews on here that SS doesn't deserve the rating and hating it's getting, maybe I'll swing out this weekend to see it. Or maybe Tuesday.
timetowaste85 wrote: So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him.
You know, I typically do not post here and I only read the very occasional thread that spikes me interest, but after reading your nonsensical gakstorm of a post I felt obliged to reply.
Spoiler:
It is stupefying to me how much utterly inane these two lines of text are...first you pronounce the following your favorite comic films of the year and then proclaim "Deadpool was best! FACT!!!"...an opinion is not a fact. Oh, and of course anyone who disagrees is biased or has "blinders on." In a single fell swoop you denounced every Deadpool detractor as either dumb or in denial. Wow.
Yeah...so apparently the fact my opinion is that a movie with an unlikable lead that has all the wit of a middle school edgelord telling genital jokes during lunch hour is not only a far cry from being the best comic film of the year, but is also essentially limited to being mediocre at absolute best courtesy of its puerile sense of humor, forgettable antagonists, underachieving fight scenes, and horribly dull plot indicates that I am an ignorant sheep porker. Well great. I am glad I learned something new about myself.
On topic, I am not remotely surprised that Suicide Squad is getting slammed. Mildly disappointed, yes, but not surprised. My only concern is that the film will probably need to clear the $400-500 mark in order to be profitable and the fact it lacks a lead character on par with Batman/Superman makes me doubt this will happen...
So, where the hell does the DCEU go from here?
Just to poke a hole about what the issue you had in my post; Deadpool broke numerous box office records, took theaters by storm, wrecked February release numbers, R-rated numbers, and was one of the highest grossing super hero movies so far. So it is actually a fact that it was superior to the rest, according to the numbers. I happen to agree, and think it was the strongest so far. Sorry if you didn't like it; but from what you disliked about it, well, that's who the character has always been; sounds like you hated the character already, and fell into the biased category I listed; you disliked it because you dislike the character. That isn't the movie's fault.
On topic, hearing reviews on here that SS doesn't deserve the rating and hating it's getting, maybe I'll swing out this weekend to see it. Or maybe Tuesday.
Deadpool was quite a success, but it didn't even clear the Top 10. It's at 11, right behind Iron Man. It's the highest grossing R-rated Superhero movie, but I also think that's one of it's selling points. I loved Deadpool, but I kind of have to agree with Trexmeyer in that Deadpool is a total "edgelord" comic book character. Yeah he's zany and wacky, and that's fun for about 15 minutes, but there's not much depth to him. Hell, I got more of a kick out of Colossus and Nega Sonic.
To wrap up, Deadpool was a success and a fun movie, but not the be all end all of comic book movies. It was gold place in a pool of losers.
So regarding my earlier points about how certain media outlets are reporting on this film and DC films in general, here's the headline that shows up on the main page of IGN:
However, when you read the article, the headline changes, and it's only about the film not getting approved for release in China. Which isn't a good thing for the box office, but doesn't quite justify the doommongering headline, especially considering this article from Yahoo:
The comic book film pulled in a healthy $8.1 million from seven international markets, including a hefty $2.9 million in its opening day in South Korea and a sizable $2.7 million from its launch in France. The results outpace other hits such as “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Deadpool.”
“Suicide Squad” is expected to open to more than $100 million overseas this weekend when it rolls out across 57 markets, including such major territories as the U.K. and Mexico. The film opens Thursday in Russia, Australia, and Brazil. Domestically, “Suicide Squad” is on track to open to more than $125 million, setting a new record for an August debut.
So yeah, I think spreading DCEU misery must be good for business.
gorgon wrote: So regarding my earlier points about how certain media outlets are reporting on this film and DC films in general, here's the headline that shows up on the main page of IGN:
However, when you read the article, the headline changes, and it's only about the film not getting approved for release in China. Which isn't a good thing for the box office, but doesn't quite justify the doommongering headline, especially considering this article from Yahoo:
The comic book film pulled in a healthy $8.1 million from seven international markets, including a hefty $2.9 million in its opening day in South Korea and a sizable $2.7 million from its launch in France. The results outpace other hits such as “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Deadpool.”
“Suicide Squad” is expected to open to more than $100 million overseas this weekend when it rolls out across 57 markets, including such major territories as the U.K. and Mexico. The film opens Thursday in Russia, Australia, and Brazil. Domestically, “Suicide Squad” is on track to open to more than $125 million, setting a new record for an August debut.
So yeah, I think spreading DCEU misery must be good for business.
I wouldn't say it's entirely aimed at DCEU. Clickbait sells articles/clicks, so doom and gloom is the way to go.
I feel as a culture we are too hung-up on "reviews".
It is an industry of it's own that is not lacking in controversy (gamergate was a nightmare unto itself).
I feel it is at it's best saving us from the quick "cash grab" movies we used to have.
You swear they figured they would get the money they need from the poor saps on the first week of release.
We pretty much get to know before the first movie ended what it is all about these days.
If you like that genre of movie, you will go see that darn movie "27%" or not.
I do admit I find RT pretty accurate for me on their scoring so I am ready to "brace for impact" on this one.
The good thing is I can go in without huge expectations, possibly be pleasantly surprised.
I am curious to see what particular elements would be good and what bits bad.
Gaming all day tomorrow so not sure when I will get to see this... gosh-darn.
Talizvar wrote: I feel as a culture we are too hung-up on "reviews".
It is an industry of it's own that is not lacking in controversy (gamergate was a nightmare unto itself).
I feel it is at it's best saving us from the quick "cash grab" movies we used to have.
You swear they figured they would get the money they need from the poor saps on the first week of release.
We pretty much get to know before the first movie ended what it is all about these days.
If you like that genre of movie, you will go see that darn movie "27%" or not.
I do admit I find RT pretty accurate for me on their scoring so I am ready to "brace for impact" on this one.
The good thing is I can go in without huge expectations, possibly be pleasantly surprised.
I am curious to see what particular elements would be good and what bits bad.
Gaming all day tomorrow so not sure when I will get to see this... gosh-darn.
I disagree. In an age where free time i being ever more sold, having reviews ahead of time saves people the burns of buying/seeing something gakky at full price. Anymore, anytime reviews are restricted until day of is usually a sign it's going to suck. Same goes for movies, games, music.
I saw it today. It has some moments of brilliance shatter shot throughout a uneven mediocre story. I felt the villain of the movie was uninteresting. And Unfortunately I was disappointed with Harley and Waller.
I did like Katana and Captain Boomerang. Deadshot was pretty good as well.
Not really sure about how I feel about Jared Leto's Joker. He definitely gave it his all. I just don't know whether I liked it or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just realized the two characters I liked the most had the least screen time. lol
Nothing wrong with liking characters with little screen time like... Bobba Fett.
Anyone playing the tabletop Batman game would still treat this as a "must see" I am sure.
Saw it last night. Had a blast. Like BvS it's not without it's problems, but at least it was a fun ride. Loved the casting of every character. I usually hate Jai Courtenay, but he played a pretty hilarious bogan.
My fiancee loved Letos Joker, but complained it focused too much on Deadshot. But, when you've got that many characters, someone needs to be the focus.
Standard caveat: I am not a comics nerd. I know a little about the various differences between DC and Marvel, but for the most part, I'm the in-betweener - I have friends who ARE, and I end up knowing more than I care to because of them.
I saw it last night. (Wife wanted to see it - our anniversary, so I let her choose the movie and there really wasn't much fare we both would bother watching). I was just there to look at Margot Robbie almost wearing some spangly hotpants. I liked those shorts.
Wife seemed to enjoy herself. It passed the time, but I doubt we'll see it again before it goes to cable. I give it a 4 (out of 10)
But BvS got a 3.5 from me (and 3 of those points were for Wonder Woman's brief scenes). Civil war got a 4 also.
Ouze wrote: Suicide Squad is now at 26% on Rotten Tomatoes, thus making it officially rated worse than Batman vs Superman.
Which doesn't make any sense to me. Batman v Superman, the theatrical release, was a bad film. It was overly grim, and overly slow, and disjointed to the point of insanity. And it wasn't any fun. And Cave Troll Doomsday was stupid.
This movie is disjointed, clearly has more than Enchantress' heart cut out of it (most of Joker's scenes were cut, whole bits from the trailers just aren't there), has a bad villain, is terribly edited (not as bad as Batman v Establishing Shots)... but it's fun. The characters are great, their interacting is great, the jokes mostly land (Boomerang was fantastic), and the action scenes were good (even if they are fighting Power Ranger Putties for most of the film).
So to preface this, BVS is one of my favourite films. However that it's very much a case of a favourite despite its flaws, of which it has many.
Overall I would say that Suicide Squad has very few flaws as a film. That's not to say that it's the greatest film ever but it doesn't screw stuff up.
I can't say I noticed any editing issues. The plot is straightforward, nothing to get confused about. They go from A to B via X, Y and Z, simples.
Any 'plot holes' aren't really plot holes, they could be explained by either magic or ' it's irrelevant to the action' or 'it's mutha frakking character X'
Overall, iit's a Suicide Squad film. , Not a Deadpool film or a Guardians of the Galaxy film. A bunch of insane bad guys fight worse bad guys, fire a whole load of bullets and make big explosions.
That's what it is, basically take it or leave it.
To try for a checklist:
Doesn't dislike Will Smith
Likes bad guys
Likes gun fights
Likes explosions
Doesn't dislike classic magical stuff in modern films (EG Enchantress is a witch / sorceress in a very much DND style sense)
If you're ok with all of them, you'l be fine with the film.
Ahtman wrote: Seems to be one of the films where audiences love it but critics hate it.
That is to be expected right now, as the overwhelming majority of the audience is composed of presales who bought their tickets based on marketing alone, rather than critical review and/or word of mouth. This is the DC fanboy crowd, and they love the fact that DC characters are brought to life at all. The critics, OTOH, are bound to want things like coherent storytelling and sensible plotting. Something that DC apparently fails to do effectively, due to an excess of listening to their fans, and not investing in writing.
Tomorrow and next weekend is where we'll see whether the movie has legs and transcends the initial critica reviews, or whether it withers and dies like BvS.
Re bad reviews, my favorite quote is this one:
Suicide Squad is worse than Batman v Superman. No, we didn't think it was possible either.
Suicide Squad is a slog of a movie. It’s the same piano key being struck at exactly the same volume, and exactly the same rhythm, for two hours
Loved it! Loved the music. I was just fine with the pacing.
Joker spoiler
Spoiler:
Loved the Joker's pursuit of his woman through the movie
Really liked the writing for Harley and the actress. Daughter is a major Harley fan and loved the characterization. Other than Harley I knew none of these characters before the movie started but still liked them.
Watched it today with friends. Have to say I was disappointed and while I wouldn't be quite as harsh as the rotten tomatoes aggregate score, it still was barely a pass for me. Pacing IMO was off, having to sync in and out of backstories. The bar scene in particular seemed to be really out of place, I understand that as enslaved convicts there's not much motivation to keep going with the mission but at the same time it doesn't really give much reason IMO to propel them back into the action either. It opened up relatively strong and just kind of ran out of steam at the end. The enchantress angle, while unexpected, didn't draw me in much and I feel that if they had gone along a more "Assault on Arkham" route with a less supernatural villain that it'd feel like more of the squad would be useful, given that bullets did jack all. There was a lot of bloat as well in terms of some unnecessary characters like Katana, who I feel was kinda tacked on as a token character.
Will Smith was great as usual, and I kind of feel bad for the cast given that the script was kind of meh, specially for Margot Robbie who was given some cringy one-liners.
I think that the reviews are potentially more entertaining than the movie, and serve a useful service of lowering expectations. Prior to the reviews coming out, I was hoping that, this time, it'll be different because SS is a vastly lower stakes property than Batman or Superman, so maybe, just maybe, DC can be more "hands off" like Deadpool, and just let the director tell a great story. However, I've since learned that this is a mega-budget project with Will Smith and that DC needs it to perform really big, so the suits have gotten involved in a very big way. I've also learned that DC may have done a poor job matching the director to the project.
OTOH, as Sucktastic Four taught me, lowered expectations can only go so far, and sometimes, a movie is simply bad for a number of highly visible reasons. Jason Bourne was rather disappointing with Damon suddenly being a lot bulkier and ripped, the CIA being far less technically capable than before, the fighting itself being poorly choreographed, the shakey-camera being overdone, and the ultimate car chase being far stupider than anyone might have expected.
Anyhow, I'm hopeful to possibly catch SS in the theater, but definitely not at full ticket price.
I have yet to see this film, but I have good expectations.
When comparing the Marvel and DC movies I have noticed some things.
The Marvel universe tends to have a better story (unless you watched Thor: The Dark World). However, I think that a lot more thought went into the subliminal messages in the DC movies. There are A LOT of things in the background for the "thinking man" to digest. In BvsS for example, in the party scene where Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent, look in the background. A rather obvious (and large) painting by an artist that specializes in the themes of this movie. Those themes include Power corrupting, today's heroes are tomorrow's villains, the powerless are often defenseless, and the obliviousness of those in positions of power.
cuda1179 wrote: I have yet to see this film, but I have good expectations.
When comparing the Marvel and DC movies I have noticed some things.
The Marvel universe tends to have a better story (unless you watched Thor: The Dark World). However, I think that a lot more thought went into the subliminal messages in the DC movies. There are A LOT of things in the background for the "thinking man" to digest. In BvsS for example, in the party scene where Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent, look in the background. A rather obvious (and large) painting by an artist that specializes in the themes of this movie. Those themes include Power corrupting, today's heroes are tomorrow's villains, the powerless are often defenseless, and the obliviousness of those in positions of power.
Yeah, I do think BvS really is a masterpiece in shot composition and directing. There's so many little things in every scene that are so easy to miss, but once you get into the habit of spotting them, elevates the film to something a lot more complex. Every shot is in there for a reason, every line has a weight to it.
I think one of the best examples of that is in the ultimate edition, after the bombing at the hearing, there's a 30-second shot of Alfred, standing in silence watching that on the TV. He doesn't need to say a word, you just know from the way the scene's put together exactly what's going through his head, then you realise it's the same thing that's going through yours, in this instance wondering if Batman really is going too far, or if he's right and Supes is a danger to everyone around him just by existing. That is good directing.
I can't really think of any comparable shot in a Marvel film, but that's fine, they're not setting out to make that kind of movie, but it does illustrate the difference in approach and in end product.
Yodhrin wrote: In that the Marvel movies are broadly entertaining and the DC ones are a chore to watch but have easter eggs for people who care about art?
No, in that Marvel films are fantastic, colourful fun but ultimately very one-dimensional, even the 'deeper' ones like Winter Soldier (which I do consider one of the best films ever made, it is pretty much perfect) have everything at surface level and there's not a lot to read into. DC, on the other hand, place much more of a focus on layering different levels, incorporating imagery and metaphor and such into their films to provide something much more complex and that you can get a lot more from if you watch closely.
Yes, you can watch BvS as a superhero action movie like you would Avengers Assemble, but then you might as well skip the first two hours and just watch the third act. What people seem to dismiss as an opening two thirds in which nothing happens, I consider to be an expertly done buildup of tension, of providing a context and a narrative beyond 'here's two guys, now they're punching, now they're friends'. It sets up everything for the third act explosion while also being well put together, complex and multi-layered narrative exploration of these characters. I appreciate I'm in the minority, but I reckon BvS is more than worthy of being called a masterpiece.
Yodhrin wrote: In that the Marvel movies are broadly entertaining and the DC ones are a chore to watch but have easter eggs for people who care about art?
I wouldn't call the recent (post-Nolan) DC films artful, in fact I would say most Marvel movies are better at it while not coming across as pretentious either.
Yodhrin wrote: In that the Marvel movies are broadly entertaining and the DC ones are a chore to watch but have easter eggs for people who care about art?
I wouldn't call them that entertaining actually. Avengers was meh, Thor sucked balls (both movies), IM3 with extremely meh, and the second Avengers I saw on cable and it was work to watch the whole thing.
I liked X Men: Magneto (the first movie because...Fassbender) and we loved Deadpool, but we've skipped a bunch or have been less than impressed.
Paradigm wrote: Yes, you can watch BvS as a superhero action movie like you would Avengers Assemble, but then you might as well skip the first two hours and just watch the third act. What people seem to dismiss as an opening two thirds in which nothing happens, I consider to be an expertly done buildup of tension, of providing a context and a narrative beyond 'here's two guys, now they're punching, now they're friends'. It sets up everything for the third act explosion while also being well put together, complex and multi-layered narrative exploration of these characters. I appreciate I'm in the minority, but I reckon BvS is more than worthy of being called a masterpiece.
I agree that the DC movies are like this gradual build-up gaining momentum until it hits that "juggernaut of destruction" stage.
It can happen twice like when say the hero suffers a smack-down, survives, plans a better way and we have our second big showdown.
The beginning of these movies is like a slide show or mini stories: look at his cool stuff, look at the things this guy does, here is the state of the city...
I would say if you have followed the characters BvsS would still be an amazing movie, for the casual person it would be strange leading to an "ok" to confusing outcome.
Marvel movies can be a tiny bit frustrating to those into the characters: they are always willing to engage in a bit of back history for the uninitiated while the rest of us are "Get moving to the good stuff!". They do seem more willing to flesh-out the behavior of the character without getting too deep as mentioned.
Could we say that the Marvel characters are more approachable than DC?
You could almost offer a beer to Tony Stark and be ok with it vs say Bruce Wayne.
Well in their defense, Bruce Wayne is a mentally F'd up vigilante just this side of a Brazilian death squad. He also tends to deal with people who are mixtures of cartels and Charles Manson.
Deadpool was a success because it never tried to be anything it wasn't. It was simply a good-time, shoot'em up, raunchy, R-rated action-comedy. People think the marvel films are better because there are so many marvel movies and they remember a number of good ones. Unfortunately, they tend to forget that there were a TON of stinkers too. There just aren't as many DC movies out there, so you are more likely to remember the bad ones.
Just off the top of my head from the last 10 years or so:
Fantastic 4 (original) a okay movie at best
Fantastic 4, Silver Surfer, complete trash
Fantastic 4 (new) complete trash
Punisher, Pretty good and Tom Jane is underrated
Punisher Warzone, garbage
Hulk, ridiculous trash
Incredible Hulk, much better than previous hulk movie. I prefer Edward Norton over Mark Ruffalo
X-men, Pretty good actually
X-men 2, okay-ish if you saw the first one.
x-men 3 the Last stand. A couple great scenes, which made up for a bulk of the movie being bad.
X-men first class, actually pretty good
X-men Days of Futures Past, pretty good and kept the franchise going
Wolverine, a disappointing origin story
The Wolverine, Even more disappointing epilog movie
Ghost Rider, sub-par at best
Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengence, Possibly the worst movie in the list. It can't even keep it's own backstory strait.
Spider Man, Actually pretty good, despite major over acting from William Defoe
Spider Man 2, Decent but nothing to write home about
Spiderman 3, killed the franchise. Enough said
Amazing Spiderman, Decent enough reboot
Amazing Spiderman 2, Not good
Iron Man, Great movie and my favorite on the list.
Iron Man 2, stretched the plot too much, kind of uninteresting
Iron Man 3, crap
Thor, okay, but not great
Thor the Dark World, bad, but not total crap
Captain America, pretty good
Captain America Winter soldier, still pretty good and probably the best sequel
Captain America Civil War, Great fight scenes, decent plot, but had too much going on.
Avengers, Good movie, but not great
Avengers Age of Ultron, not as good as it could have been
Daredevil, not great but had its moments
Electra, total pile of poo
On the DC side we have:
Batman Begins, Truly great reboot and imagery
Dark Knight, near perfection
Dark Knight Rises, they dropped the ball here. Not bad, but not good either.
Green Lantern, What the heck was that pile of poo?
Green Hornet, okay, a Seth Rogen movie. Not great but it did have its moments.
Superman Returns, a little contrived, not good, but watchable on TV
Man of Steel, better than previous superman movie. massive improvements in background placement and deep meanings.
Batman vs Superman, too much going on and trying to set up Justice League. It still had emotion and great filming and directing.
Frazzled wrote: Well in their defense, Bruce Wayne is a mentally F'd up vigilante just this side of a Brazilian death squad. He also tends to deal with people who are mixtures of cartels and Charles Manson.
I forgot also that Tony Stark was an alcoholic at a few points in the comic books so "offering a beer" is an unfair method of social interaction comparison.
So I guess with that cheery group, Batman punching them in the face rather than hear them talk makes sense?
When people refer to "Marvel movies" they generally refer to the ones actually made by Marvel Studios, not all the ones made from Marvel comic IP. Most of the poor ones were not made by Marvel Studios and don't form part of the MCU.
That's a funny quote, but not in the way the reviewer meant it. Because he/she could simply said that it was a *one-note* film. Instead he/she wrote that little "zinger" obviously thinking it was an original concept. And there's nothing like writing an excruciatingly long description of a simple expression in a review of a movie he/she thought was excruciating.
Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.
Could we say that the Marvel characters are more approachable than DC?
You could almost offer a beer to Tony Stark and be ok with it vs say Bruce Wayne.
Actually I prefer Bruce Wayne. Sure, he's harder to approach, but once you're there you're there for life. With Tony Stark every day is a crapshoot. He's great to party with, but you never know when he's going to crap on you. Not to mention that Batman had his tragedy forced on him. Ironman was at least half responsible for his own life shortcomings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baragash wrote: When people refer to "Marvel movies" they generally refer to the ones actually made by Marvel Studios, not all the ones made from Marvel comic IP. Most of the poor ones were not made by Marvel Studios and don't form part of the MCU.
If we are only counting the MCU, then the same must be done for DC. Only Man of Steel, BvS, and Suicide Squad are counted.
I thought all the Superman and Batman movies were DC.
We should remember, the Tim Burton batman really restarted the superhero movie which was pretty dead in the water after the Supreman movies flamed out, and of course IIRC but Superman was the first real superhero movie that was successful.
And of course the 1966 Batman was truly the greatest superhero movie of all time. Pow! BANG! THWAPP! HOLY BAD ACTING BATMAN!
Frazzled wrote: And of course the 1966 Batman was truly the greatest superhero movie of all time. Pow! BANG! THWAPP! HOLY BAD ACTING BATMAN!
I grew up on those. When I was a kid, my grandmother babysat me a lot, and that was in pretty heavy rotation. I'm not really sure why I liked it so much.
And of course the 1966 Batman was truly the greatest superhero movie of all time. Pow! BANG! THWAPP! HOLY BAD ACTING BATMAN!
I have an unholy love for the 60's batman, and I of course totally disagree about the bad acting. They knew just how to ham/camp it up without going too far. That is a tough line to walk.
cuda1179 wrote: I think that a lot more thought went into the subliminal messages in the DC movies. There are A LOT of things in the background for the "thinking man" to digest. In BvsS for example, in the party scene where Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent, look in the background. A rather obvious (and large) painting by an artist that specializes in the themes of this movie. Those themes include Power corrupting, today's heroes are tomorrow's villains, the powerless are often defenseless, and the obliviousness of those in positions of power.
TBH, that is typical Snyder. If you watch Sucker Punch, his magnum opus, Snyder has these beautifully-crafted shots and scenes, and they're all laid out with Chekov's Armory and so forth so that there aren't any surprises or confusion. As a director, Snyder is uniquely gifted, and I enjoy his work immensely. Technically speaking, he probably does the best short scenes of all the comic book movie directors. And the work he puts into building up to a panel-perfect shot is incredible.
The problem with DC's movies comes down to writing. We saw that in spades with BvS, and we're seeing it here with SS. Someone needs to hire someone who can do a better job with the story and screenplay. Where DC falls short is in the connective tissue. DC has these great scenes and moments, but they're not linked together in a way that has familiarity and connection.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: There just aren't as many DC movies out there, so you are more likely to remember the bad ones.
In theory, if there are fewer movies, who ever is in charge can spend more time on each, to ensure a higher-quality product.
The problem for DC is that they don't really have anyone in charge of things to ensure that the movies work well alone and/or as a group. Instead, we have what appears to be a lot of executive meddling to force a DCEU before it's ready.
Yodhrin wrote: In that the Marvel movies are broadly entertaining and the DC ones are a chore to watch but have easter eggs for people who care about art?
I wouldn't call them that entertaining actually. Avengers was meh, Thor sucked balls (both movies), IM3 with extremely meh, and the second Avengers I saw on cable and it was work to watch the whole thing.
I liked X Men: Magneto (the first movie because...Fassbender) and we loved Deadpool, but we've skipped a bunch or have been less than impressed.
That's your opinion of them, not their intent. As far as I can tell the Marvel movies are aiming for mass entertainment with an occasional twist that revels in the silliness of the source material, and in that they succeed whether any particular individual likes them or not, while the DC films are intent on being super-serial edgelord-fests that spend their time tearing down their own source material to prove they're proper adult movies with artwork easter eggs and everything not silly kid comic stuff and Killing Joke was literature damnit take me seeerrriously!
They're like a three-hour(inevitable director's cut) version of that PvP Online "My parents are DEAD" comic, it's exactly the same kind of guff that turned me off comics in the 90's.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the recent ones, ie Dark Night Rises and on. Begins was pretty good, and while Dark Knight took itself entirely too seriously that version of Joker was so good it gets a pass. After that point though the DC movie project disappeared right up its own backside IMO.
Yes I liked the new joker. Daughter couldn't stand him. I think she just has something against men who occasionally try to kill their girl friends. Pff wimminz these days.
That's a funny quote, but not in the way the reviewer meant it. Because he/she could simply said that it was a *one-note* film. Instead he/she wrote that little "zinger" obviously thinking it was an original concept.
I don't know how you got that impression at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.
No, let parents raise hipster movie bloggers, movie criticism, analysis, commentary, etc is a useful contribution to society and if someone releases something gakky it should be crapped on. It's not about making a name for yourself it's about being honest about how you feel (maybe with a
bit of heightening for entertainment purposes). Also I love how you how your criticism of film criticism involves you resorting to personal attacks, truly a bastion of insightful analysis and a real class act.
To move away from the complaining. I had a few thoughts.
Overall, the scenes with Batman in the film are all rather, well heroic. Alfreds point about the feeling of helplessness and good men turning cruel is all very evident as being something very much about BVS and the specific situation in BVSa and not Batfleck as a whole.
Additionally one of the earliest 'leaked' images of the film was Dick Greystone gravestone which very much ended up NOT being in the film and NOT in BVS Ultimate. Sure it could be one of the many cut Joker scenes of maybe it was either a fake... or they changed their minds and the hope for Jason Todd being the Robin is still possible...
I don't really understand the harsh reviews. I thought it was a very good movie, I was entertained the whole time and loved the characters. Granted, I never read a single comic of Suicide Squad and I didn't know all of the characters in there (I had no idea who was Cpt. Boomerang, El Diablo, Enchantress and the female japanese Punisher, Katana) so maybe that's why I'm so forgiving.
Loved the new Joker, dude was scary as f*ck!
Actually, the movie worked TOO well for me: I bought the Vol 1 of both the Suicide Squad and New Suicide Squad. Pretty damn good cool comics, I'll have to get the rest.
Compel wrote:
Additionally one of the earliest 'leaked' images of the film was Dick Greystone gravestone which very much ended up NOT being in the film and NOT in BVS Ultimate. Sure it could be one of the many cut Joker scenes of maybe it was either a fake... or they changed their minds and the hope for Jason Todd being the Robin is still possible...
It's been confirmed, I think, that Jason Todd is the Robin whose suit is in the cave in BvS. I believe there was a set tour or something where it was mentioned offhand that 'you all know how that happened' or similar.
TheDraconicLord wrote:
Actually, the movie worked TOO well for me: I bought the Vol 1 of both the Suicide Squad and New Suicide Squad. Pretty damn good cool comics, I'll have to get the rest.
If you want more Squad action, check out the animated film Batman: Assault on Arkham, it's fantastic. Hilarious script, great action sequences and some excellent Batman/Joker stuff as well.
Cheesecat wrote: I don't know how you got that impression at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.
No, let parents raise hipster movie bloggers, movie criticism, analysis, commentary, etc is a useful contribution to society and if someone releases something gakky it should be crapped on. It's not about making a name for yourself it's about being honest about how you feel (maybe with a bit of heightening for entertainment purposes). Also I love how you how your criticism of film criticism involves you resorting to personal attacks, truly a bastion of insightful analysis and a real class act.
Actually, you're right. That line might not have been written out of sheer ignorance. The other possibility is that the writer thought it sounded snarkier and more tweet-worthy compared to simply stating the case in a professional manner. Either way, he/she was trying too hard.
I thought the rest of your post was satire at first, because I've never seen that crowd positioned as noble public servants before. Well, they aren't that. Bloggers and clickbait website writers can be the least professional and least knowledgeable people around. So when I see them getting snarky, mean, and tearing down the work of *genuine creative professionals*, yeah, it rubs me the wrong way.
Any simpleton doofus can throw stones in the form of snarky lines and 140 character turd nuggets. Now, it's entirely possible that simpletons throwing turds defines this era of humanity. Just look at the candidacy of Donald Trump. But that doesn't make it right or appropriate. One can be HIGHLY critical, but also keep it respectful and clinical.
But oh, the hypocrisy! How can I throw mild pejoratives their way while asking them to more professional, less destructive, and less self-promotional? Well, that's because this is a message board posting, and not something passing itself off as a professional critical review. Ta-da.
Cheesecat wrote: I don't know how you got that impression at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: Mommies don't let your babies grown up to be hipster doofii movie bloggers. There *are* writing jobs out there for people with talent that don't involve crapping all over other people's genuinely creative work in order to make a name for yourself.
No, let parents raise hipster movie bloggers, movie criticism, analysis, commentary, etc is a useful contribution to society and if someone releases something gakky it should be crapped on. It's not about making a name for yourself it's about being honest about how you feel (maybe with a bit of heightening for entertainment purposes). Also I love how you how your criticism of film criticism involves you resorting to personal attacks, truly a bastion of insightful analysis and a real class act.
Actually, you're right. That line might not have been written out of sheer ignorance. The other possibility is that the writer thought it sounded snarkier and more tweet-worthy compared to simply stating the case in a professional manner. Either way, he/she was trying too hard.
I thought the rest of your post was satire at first, because I've never seen that crowd positioned as noble public servants before. Well, they aren't that. Bloggers and clickbait website writers can be the least professional and least knowledgeable people around. So when I see them getting snarky, mean, and tearing down the work of *genuine creative professionals*, yeah, it rubs me the wrong way.
Any simpleton doofus can throw stones in the form of snarky lines and 140 character turd nuggets. Now, it's entirely possible that simpletons throwing turds defines this era of humanity. Just look at the candidacy of Donald Trump. But that doesn't make it right or appropriate. One can be HIGHLY critical, but also keep it respectful and clinical.
But oh, the hypocrisy! How can I throw mild pejoratives their way while asking them to more professional, less destructive, and less self-promotional? Well, that's because this is a message board posting, and not something passing itself off as a professional critical review. Ta-da.
Alright, I have to chime in here. Gorgon, I agree with you that most critics qualifications are anyone who can hold a pen, but that doesn't mean they don't have valid opinions. Second, don't get so high and mighty about "genuine creative professionals", because, let's be honest here, the guy did it to make money. This wasn't some self funded film, the guy did it because people paid him to. Besides, guess what? If you put something out for public sale, expect it to be critiqued to hell and back. That's the price you pay for being allowed to make something and sell it.
jreilly89 wrote: That's the price you pay for being allowed to make something and sell it.
I find critics like to think of themselves as a form of entertainment as well. (Sounds like some strange meme "Who are the critics of the critics?")
Like the news, controversy sells.
You cannot just say "I found it an entertaining film worth seeing.".
"Helpful" criticism is to point out the good and the bad to consumer types:
"If you are an active comic book fan this movie is for you."
"If you dislike a movie shifting between multiple character perspectives, you may want to give this a pass."
I remember "Pulp Fiction" blew my friend's mind because the timeline jumped around... he HATED it.
I remember going into "Leaving Las Vegas" being told it was a comedy (big lie there)... funny how your expectations can kill a movie.
Yodhrin wrote: it's exactly the same kind of guff that turned me off comics in the 90's
All spurred on by Alan Moore and Frank Miller. You raise a good point. Marvel is happy living in the present ("Marvel NOW") while DC, always the more conservative brand, clings to the Dark Age.
Avengers is a good action flick, but it feels very cartoony and there's a significant lack of tension with the action scenes.
It's good, and enjoyable, but I would agree that it's not a great movie. Especially since it made other movies just a glorified commercial for that movie.
Talizvar wrote: "Helpful" criticism is to point out the good and the bad to consumer types:
Conceiving of criticism as a mechanism of market efficiency reduces it to marketing. On the other side of a thin line, criticism is about reflecting upon and understanding a movie, its themes and the artistic and technical means by which they are achieved. Most of what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic aggregate tends toward the former, in my experience. Imagine if GEICO and Allstate relied upon quasi-independent third parties to make their insurance commercials; that's what passes for film criticism, all of which is further strained by another third party into a universally applicable (?) percentage score. Efficiency!
There's an F-bomb in there in case your workplace is sensitive about such things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: Alright, I have to chime in here. Gorgon, I agree with you that most critics qualifications are anyone who can hold a pen, but that doesn't mean they don't have valid opinions. Second, don't get so high and mighty about "genuine creative professionals", because, let's be honest here, the guy did it to make money. This wasn't some self funded film, the guy did it because people paid him to. Besides, guess what? If you put something out for public sale, expect it to be critiqued to hell and back. That's the price you pay for being allowed to make something and sell it.
Pay has nothing to do with it.
What's the creative process for a movie reviewer? What creative ideas do they generate when writing a review? What inspiration is found? What original thing is created?
The answer is none, because that's not the nature of their work. Their job is focused on discussing the creative works of others, and not on being a generator of new ideas. Just like reporters aren't artists. Don't assume that someone is a creative professional because they're writing, lest we start equating medical textbook writers with William Shakespeare.
The scene in Birdman is very angry, yet somewhat relevant.
Just got back from watching it, went with my girlfriend and we both agreed that it was an utter piece of crap:
- The characters' backstory is well developed, but as soon as their roles' established the film rushes into the main story with the speed of an American at a buffet. It's almost as if the producers forgot about the plot and just tried to shoe-horn one in somewhere in the middle. Especially towards the end where the commander just realises "Guys, I totally forgot I placed a bomb exactly under the bad guys ages ago, I just didn't bother to tell you all until now", like what the hell?
- Cinematography was all over the place. Most of the combat takes place in the dark, with the occasional flash of gunfire or sparks. I could barely keep track of who was fighting who.
- The entire concept of Suicide Squad seems to focus solely on Deadshot and Harley. Diablo(?) does absolutely jack until the very end when suddenly he can transform into some sort of daemon, Mr. Croc for no reason decides to attack his own team-mates. Captain Boomerang just reinforces the aged Aussie stereotype and again, has minimal role in the storyline. Don't know where the hell Katana and Slipknot came from but as soon as they introduced Slipknot so quickly I knew he was just going to be killed off.
- Joker was a waste: They could remove all of his scenes from the film and nothing would change. The whole "kidnapping Harley" bit in the middle had no relevance to the plot at all and just seemed like filler material.
I think the main problem with this particular film was the producers had trouble finding the balance to appeal towards those who have minimal comic book/superhero knowledge (like myself) and die-hard fans.
What's the creative process for a movie reviewer? What creative ideas do they generate when writing a review? What inspiration is found? What original thing is created?
The answer is none, because that's not the nature of their work. Their job is focused on discussing the creative works of others, and not on being a generator of new ideas. Just like reporters aren't artists. Don't assume that someone is a creative professional because they're writing, lest we start equating medical textbook writers with William Shakespeare.
That depends entirely on the style of the review. Plenty of reviewers these days create and edit their own video reviews. Some write critique in a comedic style, riffing on their own criticisms. Are documentary filmmakers not artists in your mind?
I know it suits "creatives" and those who idolize them to believe they're super-special-snowflakes adding something magical to the human experience and critics(and anyone else they decide to define as not being a "creative", using criteria that seems to morph from moment to moment like goalposts equipped with their own site-to-site transporter) are just nasty, pointless meanies who try to tear people down, but the reality is "art" is a collective hallucination or in some cases a wilful self-delusion driven by ego, the result of the same process of the application of skill and iterative creativity that most people use everyday.
The history of art is a history of fads and fashions, of arbitrary distinctions between the worthy and the supposedly-mundane being made by people entirely too convinced of their own magnificence.
If something can through the application of skill generate a product that elicits enjoyment, why is that not art, while an empty white room in a gallery with static being played into it is? Which of course just illustrates how meaningless the term is in the end.
I definitely think movie reviewers can be creative in and of their own. I own a lot of Roger Ebert's books, and they're all very good reads; even for movies I have not seen and that I know I will never watch, because they are a pleasure to read. He would never write a run-on sentence like I just did, for example.
Obviously there is a bit of a span between a Pulitzer price winning writer and a neckbeard mouthbreathing into a mic on YouTube, but there definitely is a top end where they do generate creative ideas - their ideas about the filmmaking process, if nothing else.
My brother (who is a lawyer) and I are going to sue WB and DC for false advertising, misleading visual images and gaining a profit from us and millions others due to these acts. Our case has been accepted. We begin 11.08.16
When Predators came out, I sent an email to Regal Cinemas asking for a refund for $8.80. My basis for calculating this was that in the trailer there was a scene showing 15 predator lasers on Adrian Brody, and the movie only featured 4 Predators. As the ticket was $12, I worked that out as 80 cents per Predator, and so the film had failed to deliver on an advertised $8.80 of Predators.
I got 2 free passes. So maybe these guys should try out of court first, if they can give some metrics.
I saw this Monday night. I liked most of the characters in it, Will Smith and Margot Robbie were really good, and Viola Davis was excellent. And there were lots of good laughs and some great looking sets.
Ultimately though, this was a film that was very plodding, when its characters and very nature needed it to be free wheeling, almost chaotic. The team got assembled in some stylish but repetitive introductions, then they walked to their objective, then when that didn't go to plan they walked to go fight the big bad guys exactly like we knew they would from the beginning. This film needed to be way more chaotic and unpredictable. It would have given it a sense of fun that just wasn't there.
I mean, don't get me wrong, the film was funny and had plenty of good one liners, but it wasn't that much fun.
I don't think the movie deserves the very negative critical scores it's been getting. It misses the mark, but it isn't terrible and has many good elements. It's more disappointing and kind of okay, more than actually bad.
The only thing that left a bad taste in my mouth was the Joker. A lot of people have criticised Leto, but I'm not sure it was his fault. The character on the page simply wasn't anywhere near the previous film versions. There was no greater philosophy behind the character, there was nothing truly subversive about him, he was just a particularly violent gangster with some loud fashion. Hopefully they'll do something better with the character in later movies, but given the mess they've made of Zod and Luthor, there seems to be a pattern forming.
Critics sure are standing up the strawmen. The question isn't whether the movie has problems, it's whether the problems are as great as they claim, and whether there are films equally or more flawed that were received much better by critics. You can poke holes in Oscar-winning films if you want to.
I don't think there's a conspiracy. However, I do think there are critics already rolling their eyes when walking into the screenings, and blogger types going well OTT in order to pile on and claim their bonafides.
I don't think there's a conspiracy. However, I do think there are critics already rolling their eyes when walking into the screenings, and blogger types going well OTT in order to pile on and claim their bonafides.
I think the first part there is definitely evident in that article. The author is so overtly dismissive of comic book movies as a whole that of course he's not going to like a bloody comic book movie, and that has to colour his review somewhat. Ultimately, it undermines his entire review in the first place, as it means that from the outset, he's not talking about what makes the film good or bad, he's talking about what he liked and disliked but based on very heavy preconceptions. I appreciate that all media is subjective and it all comes down to opinions in the end, but he's in no more position to give Suicide Squad a fair go than I am to give an unbiased opinion on the latest foreign language indie movie that I have absolutely no interest in seeing.
Which perhaps makes sense of the disparity between critic and audience reviews that seems endemic to big movies at the moment. Especially on sites like RT where everything is a binary 'good/bad', it breaks down thus; the 1/3 (for example) of critics who give something like Suicide Squad a good rating are doing so because they happen to actually like the style and genre, the other 2/3 are giving it poor reviews because it's not their area of interest in the first place, and are only watching it because it's their job to, and ordinarily wouldn't even touch the film with a 10 foot pole.
On the other hand, the audience score is taken from a sample of people who are actively interested in the film, enough to pay money to see it and be motivated to write a review; if 3/4 of them are walking away happy, then I don't see why anyone would give a damn for the critical scores, as the film is clearly pleasing it's target audience, and thus is doing its job.
That is of course ignoring the overriding issue with sites such as RT where a 1/10 review means no less than a 5/10 and a 6/10 equates to a 10/10 thanks to the 'fresh/rotten' system that allows no middle ground, but that's a whole other kettle of fish (though it does contribute to why I cannot take the ratings on such sites seriously).
If you're using RT as your example and 1/X fractions, you should be saying something more like this:
1/4 are giving it a "good" because they are heavily-biased geek media and predisposed to liking superhero movies, despite the clear and obvious flaws.
1/4 are giving it a "bad" because they don't like action movies at all, so the clear and obvious flaws are all that they can see.
1/2 are giving it a "bad" because it's their job to see movies and evaluate them, and they conclude that the movie is more flawed than likable.
That's more in line with the actual 3:1 ratio that RT is actually showing. As opposed to the 2:1 split that you had supposed above.
And, of course, one merely has to look at Guardians (91%/92%) and Deadpool (84%/91%) as evidence that the reviews aren't necessarily so biased. With more than 9 out of 10 critics (and audiences) liking Guardians, I think it puts an upper limit on just how much anti-superhero bias is out there. And Deadpool being liked by at least 5 out of 6 critics (and 9 out of 10 ticket buyers) shows there's a fairly high tolerance even for an R-rated version.
The rational conclusion is that SS is not as good of a movie as what people would like. And it's not like they're totally savaging it. Recall that Fanastic Four only got 9%... 1/4 is much better than 1/11. ETA - I watched FF on video, and it was pure crap. I'm glad I didn't pay $20 in the theater. If I had paid for it. I'd have been mad about it.
@John; if you HAD seen Fantastic Failure in theaters, after all the warnings and hate it rightly deserved, and hated it, I'd have thrown a dreadsock at you!!
If I were a rabid FF fan, I might have pre-bought my non-refundable tickets over the Internet, for a super-special Thursday screening before the reviews really came out...
Actually, that's what Warner did with BvS, not allowing critical screenings to publish until *after* the movie hit the theaters...
But I didn't, so no dreadsock for you!
Of course, you need to be careful - I'm old school, and can legit arm myself with a dreadbola (3 dreads in 3 socks)...
Getting back to SS, the reviews came out early enough, as Warner legit thought this would be better received compared to BvS, by dint of being different characters and creative team. Maybe they should have embargoed SS, too?
I *am* a rabid FF fan (comics, obviously) and since I've consistently been let down by every FF movie ever, I didn't buy advance tickets for the latest one either - and I'm glad I didn't.
I still haven't watched it, but I will eventually, I suppose.
But I'll probably be watching Suicide Squad this weekend though!
No need to be angry about wasted money. Every theater I've ever walked out of a movie from has given a full refund.
But let's be fair here; if you stay to the end credits, you don't deserve your money back no matter how bad the movie was. And sometimes a truly gakky movie is the best experience--my circle of friends are still getting our money's worth at the expense of Prometheus and Peter Jackson's King Long. BVS will surely recoup it's cost for me in entertaining rants by the end of the fiscal year.
I think part of the difference in the critical reception of Marvel and DC is in the kind of films the two franchises are making. Both companies are making very different kinds of comic movies.
Marvel is making movies with a comic book skin. The Winter Soldier is a spy thriller that happens to be set in a world with superheroes. Ant Man is a heist movie that has superhero elements added to it.
Whereas DC are trying for something very different, they are starting with the format and logic of comic books, and adding them to the big screen. Both BvS and SS had a series of character driven subplots that were kind of loosely hanging around the central plot. It felt more like a comic book story told over 12 or 24 episodes, possibly over two different series. The Joker's story kind of felt like a cross-over.
I'm not saying one approach is good and the other bad. But it might possibly explain why critics might be more dismissive of the DC movies, whereas fans seem pretty happy with what they're getting.
Alpharius wrote: I *am* a rabid FF fan (comics, obviously) and since I've consistently been let down by every FF movie ever, I didn't buy advance tickets for the latest one either - and I'm glad I didn't.
I still haven't watched it, but I will eventually, I suppose.
But I'll probably be watching Suicide Squad this weekend though!
IMO, the biggest problem with the FF movies is that they try to make Reed a nice guy hero, rather than portraying him as the reckless, arrogant know-it-all jerk that he actually is. If the movie would just revolve around Sue and Ben, it would be actually be fantastic. Tom Cruise, for example, would make an excellent Reed Richards.
You're not missing anything at all. The latest film has basically nothing to do with the comics. I was mad at the way they story was written.
sebster wrote: I think part of the difference in the critical reception of Marvel and DC is in the kind of films the two franchises are making. Both companies are making very different kinds of comic movies.
Marvel is making movies with a comic book skin. The Winter Soldier is a spy thriller that happens to be set in a world with superheroes. Ant Man is a heist movie that has superhero elements added to it.
Whereas DC are trying for something very different, they are starting with the format and logic of comic books, and adding them to the big screen. Both BvS and SS had a series of character driven subplots that were kind of loosely hanging around the central plot. It felt more like a comic book story told over 12 or 24 episodes, possibly over two different series. The Joker's story kind of felt like a cross-over.
I'm not saying one approach is good and the other bad. But it might possibly explain why critics might be more dismissive of the DC movies, whereas fans seem pretty happy with what they're getting.
I think the main difference is simply the Marvel movies are fun, and Man of Steel and Suicide Squad are not. I haven't seen Batman v Superman so I can't speak to it. The DC movies kind of remind of the Indy books during the 90s, ultra violent and grim without much in redeeming qualities. They don't represent the DC universe I am a fan of. Of course my fandom died with the introduction of the Nu52.
Crimson Devil wrote: I think the main difference is simply the Marvel movies are fun, and Man of Steel and Suicide Squad are not. I haven't seen Batman v Superman so I can't speak to it. The DC movies kind of remind of the Indy books during the 90s, ultra violent and grim without much in redeeming qualities. They don't represent the DC universe I am a fan of. Of course my fandom died with the introduction of the Nu52.
Sure, but the question is why one set of films are enjoyed more than the other set of films. It isn't simply a matter of tone or outlook, because the Marvel films are absolutely filled with death and disaster. They are absolutely cynical about any and all institutions - the heroes have to do it all by themselves because everyone and everything else is either useless or secretly evil. And those main characters are self-absorbed man children. Sure there are plenty of good jokes, but Suicide Squad had plenty of good jokes as well. The Marvel films have a brighter colour palette, but I doubt that's all it is.
When you mention the DC movies reminding you of the indie comics of the 90s, that's very much my point. I was actually thinking of 90s comics when I watched SS - I kept looking for the extra pouches and guns with oval barrels to appear. SS really does feel like a comic book put on the screen, for good and for bad. The negatives were mostly with cohesion and pacing - what works in a serial release on the page doesn't work when crammed in to a few hours of screen time.
Whereas the Marvel films are films first and foremost - the plots are the plots of genre movies, and they work as genre movies that just happen to have superheroes in them. This give them pacing and momentum, and gets rid of that 'plodding' feel that's plagued the DC films.
Crimson Devil wrote: I think the main difference is simply the Marvel movies are fun, and Man of Steel and Suicide Squad are not.
The DC movies kind of remind of the Indy books during the 90s, ultra violent and grim without much in redeeming qualities. They don't represent the DC universe I am a fan of. Of course my fandom died with the introduction of the Nu52.
Marvel has more variety in tone both between movies and within movies. Every Marvel movie has moments where they pause before something big happens, or they catch their breath after something big, and Marvel uses those moments rather deliberately to illustrate on interpersonal character relationships. A good example would be the farmhouse scene in Avengers 2, which runs for 15 minutes with no real "action" - does DC really do that? No, of course not. The farmhouse scene is pure Whedon, and DC is hiring directors based on their visual shooting ability, not their ability to film ensembles and create characters. When I think back on the Marvel movies, it's the little conversation scenes that always come back to me. Even Iron Man 1, when he's building his new suit, he's having a conversation with his goofy robots - whereas Batman is just doing Crossfit in the dark... To me, that's the big difference - Marvel always has their characters interacting, vs just acting.
The other big thing is that Marvel doesn't need to keep doing origin stories to introduce characters. How many times have we seen Batman's parents die? Do we really need to see the Waynes die again and again to know that Bruce is tortured by their death, driven insane by it? Consider how Guardians introduces their characters. It's not the AR rap sheets as they're in-processed at the Kyln. Rocket exists as a fully-formed character with a clear personality and social position in his group before we even see him. And it's not really a shock that he's revealed to be a talking animal - to me, that is arguably the best superhero intro I've ever seen on screen. Now, consider the first sightings we have of the Justice League... iPad clips. Remote, impersonal, artificial. Compare those with the Kyln, where the guards are having a conversation as the information comes up in the background and the actors are indirectly interacting with them and the audience.
It's a fundamental question of showing vs telling and interactng vs acting.
Getting back to the "the 90s, ultra violent and grim without much in redeeming qualities" comics, I'm pretty sure that's DC Comic in the nutshell, rather than the indies. At least if DC's Lobo was anything to go by...
I'm sure they are. But knowing DC, they'll put Lobo in his pink & orange footie-jammies, working under Vril Dox, with no nudity or sex... Wolverine Deadpool Lobo, if you will.
I saw it earlier, walked out thrilled. It delivered on everything I'd hoped and that the trailers promised; great performances for Deadshot and Harley (and Diablo, not something I expected!), more of a taste of Joker and Batman, good humour, kickass action sequences and just an all-round fun script. Excellent score and solid soundtrack, nice tight plot, one of the most comic booky comic book movies in a while as well (particularly in the opening character reel and costume design and such).
I did feel Katana was underused and Killer Croc might as well have not been in it, but those are minor quibbles in what was ultimately a pretty awesome couple of hours. I shall probably see it again at the cinema, and keep my fingers crossed for an extended edition down the line as there was a fair bit across various trailers that didn't make it in.
Suicide Squad is reported to have a BvS-like -79% drop going into it's second weekend, so those negative critical reviews and negative word of mouth are having an impact.
Saw it last night. It was okay. Harley and Deadshot were the best parts in it.
But it felt like something was missing, like a great big chunk of it was removed
Spoiler:
Like when at the end, they all start saying that they were a family. Like how? When did you find the time to bond? Harley literally tried to escape from them twenty minutes earlier.
. And some of the squad might as well have no existed because they didn't really do anything.
On another note, could Harley's hotpants be any shorter? Like seriously she might as well have walked around in a thong, the coverage would have been the same.
welshhoppo wrote: But it felt like something was missing, like a great big chunk of it was removed
There are reports that the disjointedness was due to Ayer originally producing a Batman-esqe "dark & gritty" cut, and then producing a GotG-like "music & mayhem: cut, and the DC Warner suits ultimately having the two cuts mashed into a single thing, with reshoots to connect the two. The result is that there are big chunks missing from both sides.
It does amaze me Zack Snyder is still heading these projects. Setting aside that I don't like his DC films, but others do, (and of course, none of these films have bombed they've just performed under expectations) I can't help but feel like it would be very hard for anyone to do worse with this property. The popularity of the IP is what's selling these films more than anything, and I don't understand why the big wigs at Warner are so dense they can't realize that Snyder isn't contributing as much as a director should. If anything the creative team from the writers to the director seem to be the foremost obstacle to success being ludicrous success.
Also this;
You just don't get it. And it's not just DC movies, it's your whole slate. Jupiter Ascending. Get Hard. Hot Pursuit. Max. Vacation. Pan. Point Break. fething PAN, you jerk. People lost their jobs and you decided Pan was a good idea.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Suicide Squad is reported to have a BvS-like -79% drop going into it's second weekend, so those negative critical reviews and negative word of mouth are having an impact.
You appear to post these types of things with a lot of...satisfaction?
It does amaze me Zack Snyder is still heading these projects. Setting aside that I don't like his DC films, but others do, (and of course, none of these films have bombed they've just performed under expectations) I can't help but feel like it would be very hard for anyone to do worse with this property.
The popularity of the IP is what's selling these films more than anything, and I don't understand why the big wigs at Warner are so dense they can't realize that Snyder isn't contributing as much as a director should.
If anything the creative team from the writers to the director seem to be the foremost obstacle to success being ludicrous success.
Also this;
You just don't get it. And it's not just DC movies, it's your whole slate. Jupiter Ascending. ...
Personally, I really like Zack Snyder's work. I don't think there is a director alive today who does a better job of literally bringing a comic book "to life" on the screen. None. By far. As a director, he is singularly gifted at crafting beautiful shots and visual storytelling in short scenes. Also, for the record, Snyder's Sucker Punch was a clear flop, basically grossing its budget. Which is too bad, because the DC is excellent. Having recently watched Jason Bourne, that guy did a really gakky job, and I fething despise his shakey-cam close-crop "action" work. And the story was much stupider than the previous book adaptations. If BvS (or SS) were shot like Jason Bourne, Warner definitely would have done worse.
As far as directing goes, Snyder is doing fine. Where the DC movies fail really hard appears to be in the writing and story. Sucker Punch was a Snyder story, and it was OK, if you like his style. But it definitely could have benefitted from better writing. BvS was a disaster of writing. So Garbage in = garbage out - Snyder is only as good as his source material. Give him something acclaimed like Watchmen, or something like 300 to make shot-for-panel, and it comes out just fine as long as he doesn't deviate from the book. Give him a muddled hash written and reworked by committee, and it's still going to be a mess.
Oh, yeah ... Jupiter Ascending was nowhere near as good as the Wachowski's prior work, double the flop of Sucker Punch on double the budget. I can understand Warner wanting to make something happen but, without the fun pop psych of the Matrix, it wasn't going to happen. Also, the whole anti-Cinderella thing was just wierd.
Anyhow, the whole thing is disappointing. I wonder if Warner will let Ayer release a DC of SS - that would be very satisfying.
I really enjoyed 300, and I thought the deviation from the original story in expanding Queen Gorgo's character was well done. I will never bash Snyder's camera work, cause when his competition is the likes of Michael Bay's constant shifting cuts that make action scenes incomprehensible, well I have to go with the guy who can actually put together a coherent fight on screen (and the fight scenes are easily the parts that are most enjoyable of his DC entries).
The story is definitely where these movies have fallen apart, but there's also the running trend I've seen in Snyder's work that I don't think can be wholly blamed on writers. Snyder tries to invoke these really big thought provoking ideas in his films, except unlike Hideki Ano who just threw references into his anime to troll anime fans, Snyder throws them in and seems incapable of making them actually come out to mean anything. It results in films that have this facade of "deepness" that's really just a shallow puddle. He confuses loading a film with symbolism with giving a film meaning and so much time is wasted on the muddled meanings that the film fails to be enjoyable.
And yes. Jupiter Ascending was dreadful in a way I didn't think a big budget block buster could be (sure they can be bad, but they're not usually what I'd call dreadful). It had all the rottenness of a poorly made indy film with all the overblown CGI and editing work of the Prequel Trilogy XD Talk about a disaster playing out on screen.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Suicide Squad is reported to have a BvS-like -79% drop going into it's second weekend, so those negative critical reviews and negative word of mouth are having an impact.
You appear to post these types of things with a lot of...satisfaction?
Why is that?
Spoiler:
Pretty much an obligatory response there, with basically zero wiggle room.
Also, Lord of Hats is spot on that Snyder's action work is top notch. It's on par with what we see coming out of Asia, where the director has confidence in the actors and stuntpeople and the fight choreographers to make the action look good, so he just needs capture it at its best. But the other thing that Snyder does really well are the freeze shots which line up panel for panel. We saw that in Watchmen and BvS, pulling things right off the pages. It's uncanny the detail that he works in for those things. Re: symbolism, I see it as Snyder wanting to make things absolutely clear what people are supposed to take away from his film, rather than trying to have something deeper. He really wants people to see Superman as Space Jesus, simple as that.
Well, I saw SS this past weekend with a whole bunch of friends of mine, and well, it wasn't terrible. I went in with low expectations, and wound up having a fun movie-going-experience. Now, it's certainly not a masterpiece, and most of the criticisms I've heard of it are broadly on the money, but were were some cool moments, and it was sufficiently coherent, and didn't feel totally soulless. The casting worked pretty well as well, with Viola Davis making an excellent Amanda Waller, with Will Smith, Margot Robbie & Jay Hernandez being pretty good to.
I reserve a special category for bad super hero film (that I've actually seen), there are currently 4 entries in it; Amazing Spiderman, The Fant4stic Four, Man of Steel, and BvS. Suicide Squad is a category above that, so I am thankful for that.
welshhoppo wrote: Saw it last night. It was okay. Harley and Deadshot were the best parts in it.
But it felt like something was missing, like a great big chunk of it was removed
Spoiler:
Like when at the end, they all start saying that they were a family. Like how? When did you find the time to bond? Harley literally tried to escape from them twenty minutes earlier.
. And some of the squad might as well have no existed because they didn't really do anything.
I've watched 3 or 4 films (in a range of genres) in the last month where there was an expected shift in the characters but the film lacked the necessary scenes for the transition. Most people have seen enough films to guess roughly what development would take place to move from one to the other but it still jerks you out of the movie - quite frustrating.
It seems to be a trend over the last few years to edit a finished film with no regard for information or pacing. I remember remarking here about Avengers 2 having a pacing issue that seemed like something was missing then we found out they cut an hour of the film out. Since then it seems like this issue pops up more and more.
Makes me just itch to find out what was left on the "cutting room floor".
So, do you think we will see how the movie should have been with a "director's cut" version?
I suspect it would make a lot more sense.
Ahtman wrote: It seems to be a trend over the last few years to edit a finished film with no regard for information or pacing. I remember remarking here about Avengers 2 having a pacing issue that seemed like something was missing then we found out they cut an hour of the film out. Since then it seems like this issue pops up more and more.
I think that's a sign of studio involvement, and how they're more concerned about the ingredients rather than the cake that's baked when it comes to blockbuster filmmaking. I mean, Kevin Feige was quoted in an interview about how he used a stopwatch to time the length of action scenes in Avengers 2 (it had more than Avengers 1, so he was pleased). It's no way to make a good movie, but maybe it's a way to guarantee box office. *shrug*
Life hasn't permitted me to see SS yet. I suspect it's flawed but not as bad as critics suggest. What I've read is that it's not about valuable scenes being cut for length a la BvS. It's that the film was restructured, did better with test audiences that way, and in the process some of the stuff seen in the trailer was lost in the restructured version.
Yeah I've heard stuff like that before. They want big, epic blockbusters to get people into the cinemas but... They also want 4 showings per theatre per night as opposed to 3.
People defending Snyder and saying he does good scene work while the writing is flawed, well, that's STILL his problem. He's the director. He's the guy running the project. If the writing sucks, it's his job to tell the writers to fix it, or as Chris Rock said in Jay and Silent Bob: "mutha fetha, I will direct you to the unemployment line!" If he lets a crap script through, that's on him as much as it is the writers. That means he's good at some things, but not at the big picture. Can he do fun action sequences? Yes. But he always ends up with crap back-and-forth time jumps in his movies, and they're all over the place. I can't say I came out of any Snyder movie saying "man, that was awesome". 300 was okay. BvS was okay. Man of Steel took 3 viewings before I could agree it was okay. Watchmen was a god awful piece of crap. Didn't see his others. But at this point, why bother? To me, his crowning accomplishment was a rating of "okay". And while that is only my opinion of those ratings, it is FACT that a large number of the populace and reviewers feel similarly to me. The number of Snyder fans is much lower than the amount who aren't thrilled with his work. Reviews are pretty good at showing that.
(Apparently I have to make it black and white in these threads as to the difference between facts and opinions, as it was addressed previously)
The big problem is that his style caters to a VERY small portion of what used to be a niche market. Meanwhile Marvel stuff tries to cater to the public as a whole.
I am about 100% sure that the crap script of BvS (and SS) was entirely due to WB Executive meddling, not Snyder. When the men who write your paycheck demand that you incorporate Batman and JLA into your movie, you do so.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I am about 100% sure that the crap script of BvS (and SS) was entirely due to WB Executive meddling, not Snyder. When the men who write your paycheck demand that you incorporate Batman and JLA into your movie, you do so.
I think there's just a general Snyder backlash, much like there was for Shymalan and Bay. Not saying it's completely undeserved, especially after Sucker Punch and the sheer cheek of trying to reframe it as a feminist movie, but still.
Compel wrote: He also directed a grand total of about 80 seconds in Suicide Squad
And yet I saw a reviewer of SS blame Snyder.
At this point, they have to make a change post-JL if the DCEU is to continue. He's just become too toxic, whether deserved or not (and I think not).
kronk wrote: I liked BvS, but it felt rushed. I would have liked another hour or so. Also, a different Luthor.
Dunno if you've seen the 'Ultimate Edition,' but it helps the first half of the film a lot IMO. Doesn't fix the Luthor performance, but some scenes, motivations, and Luthor's plan make more sense.
It's funny...I thought Eisenberg was on his way to a really good performance very early in the movie, when he was outwardly cool with the crazy running hot underneath. But he boiled over too early and too much, and the manic stuff didn't work well. He even could have gone a little manic in spots, but it needed to be contrasted against icy cool more IMO.
But then he's the third excellent actor to get that role and chew every piece of scenery in sight. I don't know what it is. And I'm convinced that fan-fave Cranston would have done the same thing, because he's shown he'll do that.
gorgon wrote: I'm convinced that fan-fave Cranston would have done the same thing, because he's shown he'll do that.
The difference is that Malcolm's dad has inherent charisma that makes him immediately likeable in ways that others lack. Plus, he's got some of the bulk and age that you expect of Luthor. And he carries that who BrBa darkness with him. Same if they were to have cast Allison Hannigan as Oracle. So much charisma there. Fans react to that kind of likability very positively.
gorgon wrote: I'm convinced that fan-fave Cranston would have done the same thing, because he's shown he'll do that.
The difference is that Malcolm's dad has inherent charisma that makes him immediately likeable in ways that others lack. Plus, he's got some of the bulk and age that you expect of Luthor. And he carries that who BrBa darkness with him. Same if they were to have cast Allison Hannigan as Oracle. So much charisma there. Fans react to that kind of likability very positively.
We've have to agree to disagree on that. Is it just because she's a redhead that you'd connect her to that role? The only reason Cranston came to fans' minds regarding the Luthor role is because he played another bad-guy character with a chrome dome.
Fans can't cast roles for gak. We know all the classic examples, but the most hilarious recent example is how they *screamed* that Grant Gustin was all wrong for Barry Allen...until he did a decent job on the CW show. Now geeks can't imagine anyone else in the role and *scream* for him to be in the films. Although with that first bit of footage we've seen with Ezra Miller seems to have attitudes softening. Ezra Miller is a much, much, much better actor than Gustin.
I saw it. I thought it was pretty good, much better than that garbage movie ghostbusters which literally kept putting me to sleep only to have my wife elbow me when I started snoring in the theater.
There was no character development, there were some obvious red shirts. That said, it appeared to me they simply took a comic or collection of comics in a series and made a one off movie with them. They delved into the background of the more interesting characters and glossed over the not so interesting characters. Note I haven't read the comics but it seemed to me that the Boomerang guy was about pointless and I fully expected him to bite it. I really hated the cliché boss character who was the evil government character simply for the sake of being evil and government is bad. The whole Harley Quinn stealing the purse and "We are bad guys" line is by far the worst and most annoying in the movie. The rest of her lines are so much better.
Action was pretty decent. Plot wasn't bad for a one off. The villains were not terrible but they were not stellar either. I liked the dark humor of the movie. Was it Guardians of the Galaxy, the benchmark of a good comic book movie? Not even close, but I enjoyed it more than the most recent Avengers movie.
Watching the extended BvS makes me think Luthor is a more bipolar Two-Face than Joker. His plans are tight, evil, and make him a mastermind behind the scenes. Then he goes off the deep end in person and looks like a wackjob. Extended cut does a far better job on the setup of...practically everything. There are scenes that make far more sense (wheelchair cased in lead, the mercenaries in the desert; I had thought Luthor hired them afterwards originally, and the woman admitting to being paid off for saying Superman killed people in her village). All of it made Luthor seem more evil and FAR smarter. Still looney, but far more intelligent.
gorgon wrote: I'm convinced that fan-fave Cranston would have done the same thing, because he's shown he'll do that.
The difference is that Malcolm's dad has inherent charisma that makes him immediately likeable in ways that others lack. Plus, he's got some of the bulk and age that you expect of Luthor. And he carries that who BrBa darkness with him. Same if they were to have cast Allison Hannigan as Oracle. So much charisma there. Fans react to that kind of likability very positively.
We've have to agree to disagree on that. Is it just because she's a redhead that you'd connect her to that role?
No, it's because she is arguably the most likeable female actress I can think of off the top of my head. She's not a physical fighter, so Oracle is the best fit for her, of all the DC female characters I can think of off the top of my head.
Come to think of it, she'd be great fun as Raven, too.
True, true. Fan-fave AH as fan-fave Raven has no upside, as neither can makes the other more beloved than they already are.
Question: Is BoP worth hunting down / streaming for Dina Meyers?
Anyhow, getting back to SS, I can't help but wonder if casting unknown / C-list talent to keep the budget (and egos) down wouldn't have been a better choice vs splurging for Will Smith, etc.
Went and saw SS the other day. I didn't have any hopes for the movie to be anything as I have no idea what SS was. Most (by most I mean all) my understanding of DC lore is informed by the old Batman and Superman the animated series.
Leto's Joker was not my favorite. Maybe for some people but I didn't enjoy the character at all. The look was just awful and the attitude came off as a badguy that watched Joker cartoons rather than being the joker
Will Smith predictably played Will Smith as Deadshot.
Margo Robbie was badly directed and it seemed she had to force in more "Harleyisms" then she may have wanted to.
The Boomerang dude was funny enough and Diablo was actually a fairly developed character. Though the forced Fast and Furious for the family stuff seemed to come out of nowhere to me. Killercroc was okay but the voice modulator they used made Adwale's voice unintelligible half the time.Joel Kinnaman seemed to only grunt cliche militaryesque one liners as half his dialog.
Basically I thought the movie was pretty meh. I think if they make another with a different director or writer they could be really good movies. Otherwise it will be just the poor mans bad mishmash of Deadpool and Guardians.
I did then immediately went home and watched BvS. Man! That movie was a giant mess lol. Somehow Ben Affleck who I thought was a terrible choice for Batman was the only honestly great part of anything in BvS. Following SS with BvS was probably a bad idea....not as bad as when I followed Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li with Dragonball Evolution but then few things would be.
Question: Is BoP worth hunting down / streaming for Dina Meyers?
I don't know - I've only watched the first episode so far. It's definitely not what I'd call good, it's pretty cheesy (in a forerunner-to-Smallville sort of way) and has a bit of a early 2000's post Matrix-Mania feel to it all. I'd call it an interesting novelty though and it was only £7 from Amazon Digital for the whole season.
Kinda depends how curious you are really. I don't regret buying it
timetowaste85 wrote: Watching the extended BvS makes me think Luthor is a more bipolar Two-Face than Joker. His plans are tight, evil, and make him a mastermind behind the scenes. Then he goes off the deep end in person and looks like a wackjob. Extended cut does a far better job on the setup of...practically everything. There are scenes that make far more sense (wheelchair cased in lead, the mercenaries in the desert; I had thought Luthor hired them afterwards originally, and the woman admitting to being paid off for saying Superman killed people in her village). All of it made Luthor seem more evil and FAR smarter. Still looney, but far more intelligent.
I agree entirely.
Saw 'squad last week.
It was... enjoyable enough.
Not brilliant but not as bad as some of the reviews had made out.
Given footage from trailers etc not included in the cinema cut, one suspects there'll be an extended disc version of this which will -- hopefully -- expand/explain a few things too.
OgreChubbs wrote: SS is just a remake of the anime batman assault on arkam or how ever you spell it. Way better movie aswell.
It is on netflix btw.
To be honest, other than 'they both feature the Suicide Squad', there's barely any similarity. Some stuff (token head-explosion, Waller doing something dodgy, various Squad members doing something heroic at some point) will come up in any SS story, but in terms of the actual plot, not to mention the team itself, the film is very different. Assault on Arkham is great, one of the best DCAU films, but a whole other kettle of fish!
Question: Is BoP worth hunting down / streaming for Dina Meyers?
I don't know - I've only watched the first episode so far. It's definitely not what I'd call good, it's pretty cheesy (in a forerunner-to-Smallville sort of way) and has a bit of a early 2000's post Matrix-Mania feel to it all. I'd call it an interesting novelty though and it was only £7 from Amazon Digital for the whole season.
Kinda depends how curious you are really. I don't regret buying it
Well, if it wasn't worth you getting to Ep 2, I think I should pass. Thanks, though.
Was Amanda Waller 'evil?' - Was there anything that she did at all that wasn't technically justifiable?
Spoiler:
Ask the relatives of the FBI agents she shot in cold blood because they weren't cleared for the op she had them working on
Maybe that?
Well, that and the fact that she shows no hesitation in killing/sending any of her operatives on suicide missions. Sure, the SS are hardened criminals, but flag and the others are just regular joes. She shows no concern for anyone but herself, even saying "I'll send a chopper back for you guys". No the feth she wouldn't.
Both really enjoyed it, some great moments - even if many had already been seen - good action, great music but pacing was off (eg the bar scene would have worked better at the end then Amanda walks in).
It was somewhat disjointed and not as slick a production as a Marvel film but much better than Bats vs Superman, we felt all the cast worked, Katana was a little underused but no massive misfires like" Loppy Lex" - shudder.
Harley was the star, again nice chemistry between her and Will Smith.
Amanda Waller was a very good bad guy - sort of a darker version of Nick Fury - she was very good, hope she is in more DC films.
Joker was good.
for me the best DC film since the first Tim Burton Batman and if DC can polish iup their act a bit more in terms of plot and pacing, then Wonder Woman should be fantastic.
Ok, so...why the hate? As the "not main bad guy", Leto's Joker got plenty of screen time. He was okay. Ranked below Nicholson, Ledger and Hamill though. The plot was easy to follow. Had no issues with any of it. I got a few chuckles. I'd give it a solid middle of the road rating for a super hero (or villain) movie. It didn't do anything unique, but it was better than MoS and BvS. Critics saying it was as bad as Fant4stic Four are numbskulls. Idiots. Cretins. Etc.
I am convinced that the hate is caused by three things.
1) The movie was overhyped and people expected some kind of masterpiece above and beyond any comic book movie out there. I don't know what's so great about some comic book films heralded as the best...i.e. I can't remember a single notable scene from Winter Soldier other than the Dr. Strange easter egg. Even if SS had been on par with say GotG or Civil War I still think it would have gotten lower reviews than either.
2) Jared Leto as Joker. No one will ever be sold on this until he pulls a Batfleck and nearly single handedly almost saves or makes a movie.
3) Horrible decisions somewhere along the line to cut scenes entirely and reorder the rest. The released film is apparently wildly different than the one in test screenings and it's never a good thing when what it appear to be promising scenes (Harley taking orders in the bar) are cut entirely.
trexmeyer wrote: The movie was overhyped and people expected some kind of masterpiece above and beyond any comic book movie out there.
Actually, I don't think this movie was overhyped at all because it was released after the gigantic letdown that was Batman v. Superman. I gathered from this forum and most other places on the web that the majority of people were cautiously optimistic at best.
I don't know what's so great about some comic book films heralded as the best...i.e. I can't remember a single notable scene from Winter Soldier other than the Dr. Strange easter egg.
I remember lots of The Winter Soldier (the opening scene on the boat, the Nick Fury car chase in DC, Cap and Black Widow on the lam, the Cap/Black Widow/Falcon car chase/shootout, the elevator brawl and Cap's escape from the Triskelion, the end set piece with the helicarriers) but I don't remember there being a Dr. Strange Easter egg.
Jared Leto
I really, really wish Hollywood would stop trying to make him happen.
Saw it last night despite all the negative reviews (but still stayed away from BvS and only watched a few minutes of the recent Supes movie).
Other than some odd pacing and kind of weird wrap-up battle, it was a decent enough movie. Wife and I enjoyed it and wondered why it had gotten so much bad press. We both thought Amanda Waller was played extremely well. One thing I think they did with the PR campaign was spoil too many scenes.
Interesting that they did the Marvel post-credits scene thingie.
timetowaste85 wrote: People defending Snyder and saying he does good scene work while the writing is flawed, well, that's STILL his problem. He's the director. He's the guy running the project.
Whether or not the director runs the movie depends on the specific project. Typically the smaller the project the more the director is likely to have control over. Once you get to big studio tent poles like these movies the director is going to have a lot less impact. Batman vs Superman is famous for what Snyder was told to include - all the clunky JL stuff was a forced studio inclusion. There's been rumours about studio re-working of Ayers' Suicide Squad, but it will probably be a little while before we actually know the rumours from what actually happened.
And Marvel is no different. When Edgar Wright didn't like where the studio was taking his Ant-Man project, they booted him and brought in a generic, no finger prints director Peyton Reed. After making the first two Iron Man movies, Jon Favreau declined making the third in that series, and instead went and made Chef, which is basically a two hour rant about creative freedom being lost to management interference.
Both studios interfere, neither studio will let directors go and make the films they want (nor should they, $200 million budgets are a lot of money to let someone go and explore their creative freedoms). The difference seems to be that Marvel knows what it wants out of its directors, from the first frame to the last they want summer popcorn with wisecracks, big action and lots of heroic moments. DC, on the other hand, seems to keep changing the game on its creative teams. At one moment they want the seriousness and big themes of Nolan's Batman trilogy, and the next moment they want the jokes and levity of the Marvel franchise. This would explain why they'd hire an almost completely humourless director like Ayers to make a very dark SS, and then start re-working the script during shooting to add more jokes (if that's what actually happened).
Nothing explains the hiring of Snyder, though. I mean, I really liked BvS, but I've got no clue as to why he was hired for the project.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Hey, I like Jared Leto! I didn't think his Joker was the best, but he was terrific in Requiem for a Dream and Lord of War.
Jared Leto's Joker was crappy, but I don't think it was the fault of the actor. He's up against some very famous performances, and those others were given whole movies to develop and expand their characters. Leto had maybe 10 minutes of screen time, most of which was in a fairly awkward exposition scene. In the end the character came across as nothing more than a fairly vicious gangster with some terrible taste in fashion.
I'll wait to judge when he gets to the flesh the character out in a bigger role. If nothing else, he'll be the first Joker to make it in to a second movie.
Ouze wrote: Hey, I like Jared Leto! I didn't think his Joker was the best, but he was terrific in Requiem for a Dream and Lord of War.
Jared Leto's Joker was crappy, but I don't think it was the fault of the actor. He's up against some very famous performances, and those others were given whole movies to develop and expand their characters. Leto had maybe 10 minutes of screen time, most of which was in a fairly awkward exposition scene. In the end the character came across as nothing more than a fairly vicious gangster with some terrible taste in fashion.
I'll wait to judge when he gets to the flesh the character out in a bigger role. If nothing else, he'll be the first Joker to make it in to a second movie.
That's the thing I find weird about a lot of the comparisons with the other Jokers. All of the other Jokers were the main antagonist within the plot of the film they appeared in, whereas Leto's was barely present due to timing cuts. It's hardly a shocker that he has less "presence" than someone like Ledger when Leto had a 5th of the screen time.
I actually really like this Joker, he actually seems to have a lot more of a vicious air than any of the other on-screen ones, and unlike Ledger's, he's got some objective beyond 'watching the world burn'. I like that he's the top dog in Gotham's underworld, the actual Clown Prince of Crime rather than a loony in a purple suit. Visually, his design is fantastic, the costumes are all really comicy and his mannerisms and attitude do scream 'Joker' to me.
I look forward to seeing him more, him and Affleck could be the best, most comicy Joker/Batman pairing ever.
Paradigm wrote: I actually really like this Joker, he actually seems to have a lot more of a vicious air than any of the other on-screen ones, and unlike Ledger's, he's got some objective beyond 'watching the world burn'. I like that he's the top dog in Gotham's underworld, the actual Clown Prince of Crime rather than a loony in a purple suit. Visually, his design is fantastic, the costumes are all really comicy and his mannerisms and attitude do scream 'Joker' to me.
I look forward to seeing him more, him and Affleck could be the best, most comicy Joker/Batman pairing ever.
He is closer to Jack Nicolson's version (my fav thus far) in that he is a criminal and is also insane, enjoys causing pain to others etc. He drips acid on his lover until she commits suicide, kills an entire museum full of people just to be alone with Vicky Vail. Scary scary guy.
Oddly enough H Ledgers version did very little actual killing - except other criminals whereas both the current Joker and JN's slaughter people - he blows up an empty hospital. He had a god like ability to predict the future.
I understand the animated one is also great but not seen it.
Paradigm wrote: I actually really like this Joker, he actually seems to have a lot more of a vicious air than any of the other on-screen ones, and unlike Ledger's, he's got some objective beyond 'watching the world burn'. I like that he's the top dog in Gotham's underworld, the actual Clown Prince of Crime rather than a loony in a purple suit. Visually, his design is fantastic, the costumes are all really comicy and his mannerisms and attitude do scream 'Joker' to me.
Same here. The few SS Joker scenes actually kept me engaged with the movie when I was starting to get bored. Leto's performance reminded me a bit of the animated show's Joker (voiced by Mark Hamill), and since I grew up on that show it was a good fit for me Joker-wise.
I liked him as the Joker - and the girls I know all think he was hot in the movie - twisted but then i thought Harley was hot as well so same thing I guess.
Paradigm wrote: I actually really like this Joker, he actually seems to have a lot more of a vicious air than any of the other on-screen ones, and unlike Ledger's, he's got some objective beyond 'watching the world burn'. I like that he's the top dog in Gotham's underworld, the actual Clown Prince of Crime rather than a loony in a purple suit. Visually, his design is fantastic, the costumes are all really comicy and his mannerisms and attitude do scream 'Joker' to me.
Same here. The few SS Joker scenes actually kept me engaged with the movie when I was starting to get bored. Leto's performance reminded me a bit of the animated show's Joker (voiced by Mark Hamill), and since I grew up on that show it was a good fit for me Joker-wise.
I agree, vocally he sounded very Hamill-esque, maybe with a touch of old Hollywood or Vaudeville. Sort of theatrical-like maybe a bit of Bob Hope
mixed with Ed Sullivan.
I didn't hate Leto's Joker, I would like to see more. Very much more Tony Montana than just a weirdo that happens to be able to orchestrate some chaos. He's still a psychopath, but one with a very clear purpose and goal.
sebster wrote: After making the first two Iron Man movies, Jon Favreau declined making the third in that series, and instead went and made Chef, which is basically a two hour rant about creative freedom being lost to management interference.
You know, I saw Chef when it came out and I never quite made the connection you just laid out, which in retrospect is a little embarrassing in how obvious it was.
nor should they, $200 million budgets are a lot of money to let someone go and explore their creative freedoms
George Lucas is why directors can't have nice things
James Cameron and Ridley Scott have been given more, and then manage to return on that investment for the most part.
Can you imagine the sales pitch for Avatar "yeah it's like 7 feet tall blue aliens, who are actually controlled by other people inside their minds. We can have a 7ft tall Sigourney Weaver in 3D!"
There are probably only a handful of people that could have got away with that in Hollywood. But, they wouldn't go anywhere near this kind of franchise, or probably have a strong enough vision (or perhaps be enough of a fan?) where they could overturn the marketing juggernaut, and stop the film being murdered by committee.
Ouze wrote: You know, I saw Chef when it came out and I never quite made the connection you just laid out, which in retrospect is a little embarrassing in how obvious it was.
I wonder if The Jungle Book was an allegory for how much he hated making Chef?
nor should they, $200 million budgets are a lot of money to let someone go and explore their creative freedoms
George Lucas is why directors can't have nice things
I think Michael Cimino is guy who killed the old style. His 1980 movie Heaven's Gate is generally seen as the death of big budget, auteur filmaking in Hollywood. When he killed the old system, it just so happened that George Lucas was standing there with his recent big hit b-movie while the old system was coming apart.
nor should they, $200 million budgets are a lot of money to let someone go and explore their creative freedoms
George Lucas is why directors can't have nice things
James Cameron and Ridley Scott have been given more, and then manage to return on that investment for the most part.
Can you imagine the sales pitch for Avatar "yeah it's like 7 feet tall blue aliens, who are actually controlled by other people inside their minds. We can have a 7ft tall Sigourney Weaver in 3D!"
There are probably only a handful of people that could have got away with that in Hollywood. But, they wouldn't go anywhere near this kind of franchise, or probably have a strong enough vision (or perhaps be enough of a fan?) where they could overturn the marketing juggernaut, and stop the film being murdered by committee.
Pretty sure the pitch was 'Fern Gully crossed with Dances with Wolves in space'.
Ya know there was a film theory about how there is actually 3 jokers in the dc universe.
gold silver and modern age.
leto matches up with the silver age one iirc.
since the gold one was about gags and getting rich over just killing people and stuff silver being the cold murdering kind and the modern one being the psychologically broken kind.
all 3 matches up with various movies and the ages of comics as well.
Ya know there was a film theory about how there is actually 3 jokers in the dc universe.
gold silver and modern age.
leto matches up with the silver age one iirc.
since the gold one was about gags and getting rich over just killing people and stuff silver being the cold murdering kind and the modern one being the psychologically broken kind.
all 3 matches up with various movies and the ages of comics as well.
As per DC's recent 'Rebirth' event, that's actually the case (or at least heavily implied, since Joker quite rightly still doesn't have a definitive backstory and origin), there have been multiple men to take the name over the years but each is so insane and dangerous that it doesn't really matter, as far as Batman and the rest of the universe goes it s still the same evil entity really.
As far as matching them up to specific actors, I've thought of it like this (in that these are the 'voices' I hear reading each version). The classic one is BTAS-era Hamill Joker, manic and dangerous but also a lot more carefree, silver age is closer to Ledger or John DiMaggio (from Under The Red Hood), New52/Modern version most like Troy Baker's Arkham Origins/Assault on Arkham portrayals, totally unhinged but really vicious and sadistic under all the 'humour'. Leto's version also fits the bill there, which is a lot of the reason I can't wait to see more of him, as it's by far the scariest and nastiest version.
-Loki- wrote: Pretty sure the pitch was 'Fern Gully crossed with Dances with Wolves in space'.
I think the pitch was something along the lines of;
"I made you guys a stupid amount of money by making big blockbusters about time travelling robots and the Titanic. Now I want to make a huge movie about a fully 3D world."
"Okay, but what is the movie about?"
"It's a completely immersive 3D world. It isn't like the old blue and red glasses, but with digital tech we can produce actual depth perception on the screen."
"Yeah okay, but what is it actually about? Like, who is the hero, what does he do?"
"I don't know, we'll think of something. It doesn't matter. If we really can't think of anything then I'll just do Fern Gully again. 3D."
AT this point it looks like its taken in $636mm. Thats a massive amount of bank.
"Suicide Squad fell to No. 2 with $12.1 million from 3,582 theaters for a domestic total of $282.9 million. Offshore, the movie took in another $19.7 million from 65 territories for a foreign cume of $353.1 million and a global take of $636 million."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/weekend-box-office-dont-breathe-923578
Does that mean we're now allowed to talk about the audience reception (68% on it right now, average 3.7/5) without people going "oh it's just because hardcore DC fanboys who wouldn't know a good film if you slapped them in the face with it are the only ones voting for it?"
To be honest, 3.7 is a little higher than what I'd go for, I'd probably be going for 7/10. So 3.5/5.
In terms of comic books, for me, I've found DC much more interesting than Marvel.
However, I thought SS was Meh, at best. My wife hated it, and now she gets to pick the next 2 movies. Thanks a lot, DC!
I enjoyed Superman vs. Batman, but then, I also enjoy the new Star Trek movies. feth you, Manchu!
Edit: For completion, I have completely enjoyed the Captain America Movies and the Avenger movies. Iron Man and Thor movies suck, though. Stop making them.
Ya know there was a film theory about how there is actually 3 jokers in the dc universe.
gold silver and modern age.
leto matches up with the silver age one iirc.
since the gold one was about gags and getting rich over just killing people and stuff
silver being the cold murdering kind
and the modern one being the psychologically broken kind.
all 3 matches up with various movies and the ages of comics as well.
You've got Gold and Silver age mixed up. Gold Age Joker was a calculated crime boss who wasn't adverse to murdering (Leto and Nicholson match up with him) while Silver was the jokey one that loved pulling gags and robbing banks without killing.
kronk wrote: In terms of comic books, for me, I've found DC much more interesting than Marvel.
However, I thought SS was Meh, at best. My wife hated it, and now she gets to pick the next 2 movies. Thanks a lot, DC!
I enjoyed Superman vs. Batman, but then, I also enjoy the new Star Trek movies. feth you, Manchu!
Edit: For completion, I have completely enjoyed the Captain America Movies and the Avenger movies. Iron Man and Thor movies suck, though. Stop making them.
Woah. IM 1 was awesome, IM 2 was pretty good and so was Thor 1. IM 3 is pretty much regarded as awful and never saw Thor 2.
I did not enjoy Iron Man 1 or 2, to be honest. I like RD Jr. as Tony Stark. His scenes were funny/good. But for the most part, I didn't like the stories. I never bothered with IM3.
For Thor 1 and 2, there were scenes with Loki (Brilliant) and the rest of the movies (lame). Thor works better in the Avengers than a stand-alone.
I liked IM1, but the story was 100% formula, held together by RDJ's charm.
One might say that also applies to the MCU in general. Captain America: CW was Tony Stark's film more than anyone else's. His was the only major character arc.
jreilly89 wrote: Woah. IM 1 was awesome, IM 2 was pretty good and so was Thor 1. IM 3 is pretty much regarded as awful...
That statement surprised me because while Iron Man 3 was flawed in plenty of ways, it at least had a focus and direction that was utterly lacking from Iron Man 2. So I looked it up on Rotten Tomatoes and Iron Man 2 got critics 72% and audience 72%. Iron Man 3 got critics 79% and audience 79%.
So no, the overall view does not regard Iron Man 2 higher than Iron Man 3.
Frazzled wrote: AT this point it looks like its taken in $636mm. Thats a massive amount of bank.
Box Office Mojo is saying budget was $175 million. Add another $80 million or so for marketing, and it's still a really successful movie.
/shrug I still liked it. It wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't terrible either. The Justice League trailer sort of implies that they might be righting the ship a bit, in terms of not being all dark and dour.
Not that that's a problem, Batman should never be in 'sunshine, roses and unicorns' territory really! Deathstroke does look awesome, though, and I'm interested to see what direction the plot will take as I can't actually think of any major Batman arcs where he's the main antagonist... they worked him into the Son of Batman animated film, but he's not in that comic, and while I think he could work very well in a Knightfall type scenario in place of Bane, we just had that a few years ago with DKR...
If anything, I expected him to cameo in JL and be the villain in Cyborg given his history with the Titans, so this is a cool development. The only downside is that he'll probably never make a comeback in Arrow now, which is a shame, he's still the best villain that show's had.
Deathstroke is a Batman-level opponent, but you're right that he's mostly Teen Titans antagonist. They've fought before, and Deathstroke should usually win if Batman isn't plot-prepared, like when Bats takes out Superman and the JLA single-handed...
Oh, I'm definitely excited at the prospect, Slade is one of the coolest villains out there, so I'm fine with him going up against anyone really. It'll be interesting to see Bats going up against someone who is his equal on pretty much every level (including tank battles if you go by Arkham Knight, but hopefully the film won't go there! )
I do wonder who they'll put in Cyborg now though... GRID could work really well if done right, but he's about the only one I can come up with.
Ya know there was a film theory about how there is actually 3 jokers in the dc universe.
gold silver and modern age.
leto matches up with the silver age one iirc.
since the gold one was about gags and getting rich over just killing people and stuff
silver being the cold murdering kind
and the modern one being the psychologically broken kind.
all 3 matches up with various movies and the ages of comics as well.
You've got Gold and Silver age mixed up. Gold Age Joker was a calculated crime boss who wasn't adverse to murdering (Leto and Nicholson match up with him) while Silver was the jokey one that loved pulling gags and robbing banks without killing.
Paradigm wrote: Oh, I'm definitely excited at the prospect, Slade is one of the coolest villains out there, so I'm fine with him going up against anyone really. It'll be interesting to see Bats going up against someone who is his equal on pretty much every level
(including tank battles if you go by Arkham Knight, but hopefully the film won't go there! )
I do wonder who they'll put in Cyborg now though... GRID could work really well if done right, but he's about the only one I can come up with.
I think that is precisely why they're bringing out Deathstroke - because he *is* Batman's equal. And he's someone people can relate to in the current movieverse, without ruffling too many feathers. KGBeast, for example is another equal, but the Cold War is over. Azrael? The obvious Catholic bits are problematic if you intend to show it in southern Europe, and not as a parody a la Preacher.
If they brought out Arkham Knight, that would be cool, too. I like that character, even if he's a bit obscure. But no tanks...
Cyborg? They should do it as a prequel, with Starfire and Beast Boy and Raven against Hive and Rose.
Frazzled wrote: AT this point it looks like its taken in $636mm. Thats a massive amount of bank.
Box Office Mojo is saying budget was $175 million. Add another $80 million or so for marketing, and it's still a really successful movie.
Pretty sure Terminator Genesys made a big profit once the Asian market was brought in to the equation, but the sequels have been cancelled.
I think there is more to the analysis of continuing sequels than just a cost vs. profit exercise.
Would the director want to work under similar circumstances, if again the Studio was going to step in so strongly with the creative decisions?
IIRC the revenue for Genysis was very good for a Terminator movie, the problem was someone greenlit a budget that was massively higher than previous Terminator movies and just didn't make sense for the likely reach of the film. If they'd got that performance off a similar budget to the others they'd have been dancing in the streets.
Baragash wrote: IIRC the revenue for Genysis was very good for a Terminator movie, the problem was someone greenlit a budget that was massively higher than previous Terminator movies and just didn't make sense for the likely reach of the film. If they'd got that performance off a similar budget to the others they'd have been dancing in the streets.
Terminator 3 and Terminator Salvation both had budgets of $200 million. Terminator Genisys actually scaled that back, to $155 million. It outperformed each of those movies in global box office, Terminator 3 took $433 million, Salvation took $371 million, and Genisys took $441 million. Genisys had by far the worst domestic box office, though I'm not sure how much that matters these days.
It's funny, because that's three times now three Terminator movies in a row that have been pretty crappy and killed off plans for more films in the series. But each time the films have actually done respectably well in commercial terms. It turns out even a fairly crappy Terminator movie is a pretty reliable performer, which seems ripe for franchising to me. Maybe there's more to it - I know the rights to the franchise are something of a mess. And I don't know if there's much in the way of merchandise sales to this stuff anymore - when I was a kid T-2 was huge and the toys were everywhere. I don't even know if Genisys had a toy range, but that might just be because I'm old.
Finally got around to seeing SS. I thought it was okay, not great, not terrible, Decent action movie but over the past few years I think people have come to expect more from action movies than just action.
Sure was a hell of a lot better than Batman vs Superman, BvS I didn't think much of at all, bad pacing, good action from a technical perspective but the action wasn't compelling and got boring before the end.
Watched it Last Saturday on Release day in Japan, and i liked it, story was weak, but the banter between characters was fun, and Harley Quin killed it, she needs a film of her own.
I like Harley but not being a huge comic book fan I mostly sit there pondering "erm, so her special ability is that she's crazy? And that stands her in better stead than trained soldiers when throwing her up against supernatural beings? And Boomerang's special ability is that he's an obnoxious alcoholic?"
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I like Harley but not being a huge comic book fan I mostly sit there pondering "erm, so her special ability that justifies throwing her up against supernatural beings is that she's crazy? And Boomerang's special ability is that he's an obnoxious alcoholic?"
I guess I just don't understand comics
Looks like you do, that's pretty much all there is to it!
Part of the idea of the Suicide Squad is that they're always outmatched, but it doesn't matter because they're expendable anyway; if they die horribly, ARGUS can just send in another Squad, if that doesn't work then they know that the worse things get, the more likely it is that Batman or The Flash or whoever will turn up and Sort It All Out.
To be fair to Harley, though, she's as much of an acrobat as Batman or Catwoman, with a mean streak a mile wide and no concept of fear or danger, so she's more capable than you might expect.
Harley is as good an acrobat as a human can be, but there's never been anything superhuman about her. Most versions have her as a trained gymnast before becoming a doctor.
WW has encountered the Joker a fair bit, as he's screwed with the League as a whole many, many times, either solo or as part of the various supervillain team-ups, but in general they leave handling him to Batman. Check out the 'Injustice' universe for a look at what happens when Joker sets his sights on a more powerful enemy... In his own words, 'I thought I'd try it on easy mode for a bit'...
One of the first DC comic books I read was a silver age Joker v Superman story. It did not go like injustice. More like lulz silly Joker doesn't know how my powers work.
Paradigm wrote: Part of the idea of the Suicide Squad is that they're always outmatched, but it doesn't matter because they're expendable anyway; if they die horribly, ARGUS can just send in another Squad, if that doesn't work then they know that the worse things get, the more likely it is that Batman or The Flash or whoever will turn up and Sort It All Out.
I think that works well enough as a set up, the problem here is that they tried to hammer home the greater meta-humans story of the DC universe. And so when you spend that much time talking about how you need meta-humans of your own... it's a bit strange when the team you ask for only has three people who appear to perfectly human criminals (Harley, Capt Boomerang, and Slipknot), two humans with pretty low level powers (Deadshot and Killer Croc) and one actual, proper high power meta-human (El Diablo).
Its a pretty minor issue in the scheme of things, but it kind of showed how this is being shoe-horned in to the greater DC franchise plot slightly awkwardly.
Being smart and being super well trained to be accurate are things normal people can accomplish. That's like saying Arnold Schwartzenager was super powered because he used to be the strongest man alive. Tony is a hero because of his armor, but he's a regular guy under it. Clint and Natasha (and Floyd) are regular people. Bullseye (Lester) has adamantium laced bones at this point. So he isn't exactly just human anymore. But his accuracy skills, I believe, are from practice.
Generally yeah, however there was a thing at someone that did suggest it. Not sure the source of it all but it was a theory going round a couple of years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Generally yeah, however there was a thing at someone that did suggest it. Not sure the source of it all but it was a theory going round a couple of years ago.
timetowaste85 wrote: Being smart and being super well trained to be accurate are things normal people can accomplish.
Bouncing shots off walls with 100% accuracy isn't really something that's achieavable for humans.
Tony is a hero because of his armor, but he's a regular guy under it.
Stark achieved an expert level knowledge of thermonuclear physics in a single night. He's achieved mastery of multiple technologies that no-one else is able to even copy. He's so far past the human level scale of intelligence that what he does is basically indistinguishable from magic. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, those kinds of incredible aptitudes are part and parcel of comics and comic book movies, but it is what it is.
timetowaste85 wrote: Being smart and being super well trained to be accurate are things normal people can accomplish.
Bouncing shots off walls with 100% accuracy isn't really something that's achieavable for humans.
Tony is a hero because of his armor, but he's a regular guy under it.
Stark achieved an expert level knowledge of thermonuclear physics in a single night. He's achieved mastery of multiple technologies that no-one else is able to even copy. He's so far past the human level scale of intelligence that what he does is basically indistinguishable from magic. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, those kinds of incredible aptitudes are part and parcel of comics and comic book movies, but it is what it is.
Agreed - respect!
I still have to see Suicide Squad before in leaves theaters... maybe this week?
It has pulled in an impressive worldwide box office to date though!
I cant remember who it was, but I think it was in reference to season 2 of Daredevil on Netflix. He said that the Punisher totally has a superpower; inhuman rage.
Batman's I suppose would be "crazy prepared"
Helps put some perspective on the vary degrees of ludicrous in our super heroes
LordofHats wrote: I cant remember who it was, but I think it was in reference to season 2 of Daredevil on Netflix. He said that the Punisher totally has a superpower; inhuman rage.
Batman's I suppose would be "crazy prepared"
Helps put some perspective on the vary degrees of ludicrous in our super heroes
The Joker's superpower in SS was 'his murder sprees inspire an extraordinarily lackadaisical response from police and security forces'
LordofHats wrote: I cant remember who it was, but I think it was in reference to season 2 of Daredevil on Netflix. He said that the Punisher totally has a superpower; inhuman rage.
Batman's I suppose would be "crazy prepared"
Helps put some perspective on the vary degrees of ludicrous in our super heroes
LordofHats wrote: I cant remember who it was, but I think it was in reference to season 2 of Daredevil on Netflix. He said that the Punisher totally has a superpower; inhuman rage.
Batman's I suppose would be "crazy prepared"
Helps put some perspective on the vary degrees of ludicrous in our super heroes
The Joker's superpower in SS was 'his murder sprees inspire an extraordinarily lackadaisical response from police and security forces'
Well he had flawless super pre-cognition for the majority of the Nolan film.
I get the impression that the security forces stay out of the way when the Joker, Batman and co are rampaging about in Gotham in the current DC film universe?
timetowaste85 wrote: Being smart and being super well trained to be accurate are things normal people can accomplish.
Bouncing shots off walls with 100% accuracy isn't really something that's achieavable for humans.
To be fair, did Deadshot really do that beyond the little "flashback" sequence?
It took him:
A) Figuring out where the witness was going to be.
and
B) Setting up a camera which is what he used to bounce the shot off of to do that crazy shot.
The rest of it was just stupid accurate line of sight fire in rapid succession.
I really did expect there was going to be a thing in his "tryout" scene where the bullet he fired up into the air would fall back down and kill jerky jerk guard as he was walking away with Waller.
LordofHats wrote: I cant remember who it was, but I think it was in reference to season 2 of Daredevil on Netflix. He said that the Punisher totally has a superpower; inhuman rage.
Batman's I suppose would be "crazy prepared"
Helps put some perspective on the vary degrees of ludicrous in our super heroes
The Joker's superpower in SS was 'his murder sprees inspire an extraordinarily lackadaisical response from police and security forces'
Well he had flawless super pre-cognition for the majority of the Nolan film.
I get the impression that the security forces stay out of the way when the Joker, Batman and co are rampaging about in Gotham in the current DC film universe?
Despite the Joker's protest to the contrary he had a master plan and out thought the cops. Fortunately for him Nolan's Batman isn't very smart.
Mr Morden wrote: Well he had flawless super pre-cognition for the majority of the Nolan film.
Yeah, I always wondered if the Joker was meant to be so smart that he knew exactly which exit and corner the police would take, or if he somehow managed to get goons with grappling hooks on every single street block in Gotham.
I know the answer is 'don't think about it'
I get the impression that the security forces stay out of the way when the Joker, Batman and co are rampaging about in Gotham in the current DC film universe?
I always root for the underdog, and so in comic book movies I find myself cheering for the hapless security guards and policemen. It's a frustrating exercise
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: It took him: A) Figuring out where the witness was going to be. and B) Setting up a camera which is what he used to bounce the shot off of to do that crazy shot.
Yeah, but seriously think about the physics of controlling the bounce of a bullet. There's so many variables at play, and that bullet travelled for some distance after rebounding to strike the target in the head. To get the right angle you would need to be accurate within the tiniest fraction of a millimeter, and perfectly accounted for the weight of the round, the resitance of the target metal, in addition to the usual environmental factors. That is not, and cannot ever, be humanly possible. have
The rest of it was just stupid accurate line of sight fire in rapid succession.
Stupid accurate to the point where he melted bullet sized holes in the targets in the prison gun range. His powers were basically magic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: Despite the Joker's protest to the contrary he had a master plan and out thought the cops. Fortunately for him Nolan's Batman isn't very smart.
Forget Nolan's Batman. The Joker managed to get large drums of explosives in to a hospital with no-one noticing, and then repeated the same feat on a boat transporting prisoners.
Batman probably wasn't stupid so much as exhausted. He appeared to be the only one doing anything
I get the impression that the security forces stay out of the way when the Joker, Batman and co are rampaging about in Gotham in the current DC film universe?
I always root for the underdog, and so in comic book movies I find myself cheering for the hapless security guards and policemen. It's a frustrating exercise
Indeed! The Batman Miniatures Game is just taking off here, and while everyone was jumping on their Batmans, Harleys, Scarecrows, Banes, and other super bad arses, I grabbed up Gordon and the GCPD.
Also I loved the page in a Green Lantern book a bit back where a dude was raising an army of zombies. Cops showed up, and the officer in charge sees the shambling horde heading towards them, and yells out Alright men, you've trained for this, head shots and major joints! and the cops proceed to just mow them down.
In a world where weird crap like that is a not uncommon occurance, you train for it.
I think Deadshot's powers are clearly metahuman, which brings the number of useful metahumans on the Suicide Squad to 2.
Unless by "useful" we mean that they could stop the "What if Superman had decided to fly down, rip off the roof of the white house, grab the president right out of the oval office? Who would've stopped him?" scenario for which they were formed.
In that situation, the useful number of metahumans on the team remains a solid 0.
AduroT wrote: Also I loved the page in a Green Lantern book a bit back where a dude was raising an army of zombies. Cops showed up, and the officer in charge sees the shambling horde heading towards them, and yells out Alright men, you've trained for this, head shots and major joints! and the cops proceed to just mow them down.
That's awesome!
And yeah, with all that crazy stuff going around it bugs me that police don't change (except for your example). 9mm pistols don't work on half these dudes... start packing bigger guns you idiots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I think Deadshot's powers are clearly metahuman, which brings the number of useful metahumans on the Suicide Squad to 2.
Killer Croc was metahuman, but I'm guessing you excluded him on the 'useful' front. it seemed like he was only going to be useful in situations where they have to swim underwater. I guess they just got really lucky when that exact thing was needed at the end of the movie
In that situation, the useful number of metahumans on the team remains a solid 0.
I don't know much about El Diablo, but it seemed his powers scaled pretty high. He stood his own in a punch up with the enchanter... whatever the brother of Enchantress was called.
Probably not enough to match it with Superman, but close enough that it wasn't ludicrous to have him in a Superman stopping team. No argument for the rest of them, though.
If it came down to it, Diablo and Enchantress could probably put up a fight against Superman. Enchantress is crazy powerful*. Diablo can be, and Superman has absolutely no defence against magic so while he's a threat to them, they are as much of a threat to him. Deadshot could probably get a Kryptonite bullet through Superman's eye if he were given access to some, he's clever enough to set up some kind of trap situation like Batman does in BvS that would eventually expose a weakness.
The others? Yeah, they're useless in that situation, but bear in mind the 'Superman' scenario was part of Waller's pitch to get the Task Force approved, she never really intends for them to go up against Superman but presenting that argument means she gets the clearance to put her team together for all the other nasty stuff she needs done.
*In the first volume of the N52 Justice League Dark, she basically takes down the whole regular Justice League at once, Supes included, on her own, which is what prompts the formation of the JLD in the first place to fight fire with fire.
Yeah, I get Waller never planned to actually put them up against Superman. I'd like to say that the government wouldn't bankroll a project whose stated goal is "defeat Superman" when presented with a team that had little to no chance to "defeat Superman".
On the other hand, considering how the F-35 went, perhaps that was the most realistic part of the movie.
So far as the kryptonite bullet idea, again there doesn't seem to be a huge advantage to using Deadshot instead of just a team of Navy SEALS or what have you. While I'd say Deadshot is a metahuman, I'm not sure he has an ability that is particularly useful. Conventional human snipers are already very effective.
I'd agree that Enchantress would potentially be able to combat Superman, at least briefly. I overlooked her because
Spoiler:
i forgot she was part of the team initially. Oops.
Between Enchantress and Diablo, I suppose they'd probably be able to hold Superman off briefly, at least a minute or two I imagine. The version of Suicide Squad that I read didn't have Enchantress so I only know her powers from what I've seen in the movie.
AduroT wrote: Also I loved the page in a Green Lantern book a bit back where a dude was raising an army of zombies. Cops showed up, and the officer in charge sees the shambling horde heading towards them, and yells out Alright men, you've trained for this, head shots and major joints! and the cops proceed to just mow them down.
That's awesome!
And yeah, with all that crazy stuff going around it bugs me that police don't change (except for your example). 9mm pistols don't work on half these dudes... start packing bigger guns you idiots.
The GCPD is really the only one that doesn't change their modus operandi or armament. They have Batman, and they know Batman won't pull his punches.
Star City, Central City, Keystone City, and the other places with metahuman related shenanigans on a daily basis have changed things up.
Heck, S.T.A.R. Labs exists in many of those cities strictly to provide support to local police agencies.
Ouze wrote: To the surprise of, i imagine, no one - the Harley Quinn spinoff movie got greenlighted. Margot Robbie is going to exec produce.
I, for one, am shocked that Warner would double down on the only standout character of the film, the only character that they promoted ALL THE TIME for the film. Shocked, I tell you!
whembly wrote: Don't care about movie script... I'm so watching this spinoff because of Margot.
You should watch The Big Short. About a third in to the movie they stop to say they have to explain some very heavy going finance concepts, so here's Margot Robbie in a bathtub to explain it to you... and then they deliver with Margot Robbie in a bubble bath explaining collateral swaps
Yeah, but seriously think about the physics of controlling the bounce of a bullet. There's so many variables at play, and that bullet travelled for some distance after rebounding to strike the target in the head.
The other part is that he's shooting a pistol round. While its still potentially lethal, odds are at that point its not.
I am thankful for this having been hit with lots of splash and ricochets in the last couple of years.
), I just find the 
.jpg)
