Looks to me like "Contractual Obligations: The Movie".
Not a whole lot of focus on the "Birds" parts of the "Birds of Prey", though Margot is the popular girl in the cafeteria right now and its just the first trailer.
Not too keen on Black Mask without the mask*, again giving me a "contractual obligation" vibe.
With that said, seems like a fun one. I just don't trust a trailer for DC movies anymore.
*Though I only know him from the Arkham games, where I believe he(or an impersonator*spoiler*!!) had a mask on at all times.
Can't tell if this is Wacky Team Ups: the Movie, or a dark and depressing psychological journey. Partly because the clips are so carefully selected, and partly because I have no idea who anyone but Margot/Harley is supposed to be. But either way I won't walk into a movie expecting one when there is a chance I'll get the other.
Its especially confusing that I can't identify the theoretically titular characters.
nels1031 wrote: Looks to me like "Contractual Obligations: The Movie".
Not a whole lot of focus on the "Birds" parts of the "Birds of Prey", though Margot is the popular girl in the cafeteria right now and its just the first trailer.
Yeah, I would expect later trailers will focus on other characters.
This looks like a much better take on Harley than Suicide Squad.
Not too keen on Black Mask without the mask*, again giving me a "contractual obligation" vibe.
It's possible that the mask is one of the plot developments.
LunarSol wrote: Aquaman was the best bad movie of the year and Shazam is legitimately good, so things at least seem to be improving.
Yeah, Aquaman and Shazam were both a heck of a lot of fun. Haven't seen Wonder Woman yet, but even Justice League wasn't as bad a train wreck as I expected from the talk online.
It doesn't have to be an award winner, I'll be happy with 'fun to watch'... and the trailer looks promising for that.
Suicide Squad suffered from having loads of characters trying to squeeze in their intro stories into a single film whilst also having the film follow its own plot.
Prey looks interesting, if just because she's not "as" over done as Batman and Joker who are characters which are interesting, but my now are so heavily done that they don't hold as much interest for me.
Overread wrote: Suicide Squad suffered from having loads of characters trying to squeeze in their intro stories into a single film whilst also having the film follow its own plot.
Also as a film that had chunks cut.
Prey looks interesting, if just because she's not "as" over done as Batman and Joker who are characters which are interesting, but my now are so heavily done that they don't hold as much interest for me.
I think it looks good, personally. The characters definitely have an interest and fanbase to support them.
And Suicide Squad was edited like a music video, which didn't help.
I'm concerned that they've put Black Mask into this film. Actors hate masks, and we've seen so many contrived ways to get heroes out of masks to the point where it becomes self-parody (Black Panther's 3rd act being the worst example of this, but anything involving Iron Man/Spider-Man's nano-suits are just as bad), so why bother with a character who is always wearing a scary black mask that covers his entire face if you're not going to commit to it.
It's possible that the mask is one of the plot developments.
LunarSol wrote: Aquaman was the best bad movie of the year and Shazam is legitimately good, so things at least seem to be improving.
Yeah, Aquaman and Shazam were both a heck of a lot of fun. Haven't seen Wonder Woman yet, but even Justice League wasn't as bad a train wreck as I expected from the talk online.
It doesn't have to be an award winner, I'll be happy with 'fun to watch'... and the trailer looks promising for that.
Mask as plot development pretty much always ends up with a bad interpretation of a character in my experience. It just seems to create a situation where the character gets interpreted wrong outside a few notable exceptions.
Wonder Woman was fantastic outside of the third act; particularly since it ruins what was a far better ending that they had just done.
Justice League was.... well, IDK, I got up and did other things whenever I got bored and honestly, didn't see much of it.
Mmmmmmm... I like the way she Talks as Harley. I don’t like the way she Looks as Harley. Also, Black Mask? Really?! Where’s the Mask!? I dunno. Trailer doesn’t speak to me yet really.
Trailer didn't really do it for me. Didn't feel like a real adaptation of anything I love; more like the awkward name grabbing of random comic things that hallmark WBs worst DC films. Looks like they're playing up the NY gansta "birds and dames" kind of thing with the prey becoming the.... man someone is probably overly proud of themselves.
It doesn't look bad, per se; just not how I'd like to see the Birds adapted. Hopefully its great regardless. DC has been doing a lot better lately, even with things that don't look like they should work.
Meh, getting Suicide Squad vibes from this and the lack of accuracy to the Birds of Prey name just makes me feel like it's going to be the usual DC fare. Shame, I did like Shazam.
nels1031 wrote: Looks to me like "Contractual Obligations: The Movie".
Not a whole lot of focus on the "Birds" parts of the "Birds of Prey", though Margot is the popular girl in the cafeteria right now and its just the first trailer.
Yeah, I would expect later trailers will focus on other characters.
This looks like a much better take on Harley than Suicide Squad.
I can't actually tell the difference between this take on Harley and the Squad take on Harley. They seem exactly the same... cheap thrills, easy laughs.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. I still think Suicide Squad is the best DC live action film... but that isn't a high bar. It's at least active and lively, rather than a depressing slog. WW had promise, but wrecked itself irrevocably on the shoals of its last act, and what I've seen of Aquaman was just another bland CGI fest with no depth and a very much needed epilepsy warning.
Black Canary could be a really good interpretation of her (I wouldn't mind an Oliver Queen cameo). Huntress might be ok (but then again, Helena Bertinelli is an extremely easy character to write, in my view).
As for the rest...
Renee seems like a knock-off Jessica Jones. Her character deserves far, far better... She deserves to be a co-lead in a Batwoman TV show.
And Cass... Cass... Best Batkid ever... What have they done to you?
But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.
But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.
I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.
They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.
But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.
I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.
They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.
I don't think Cavil is interested. Also they need to do a hard reboot to a cohesive cinematic universe because a) Marvel ruined these disconnected movies for them. Audiences don't really want a independent Aquaman universe and Batman Universe and etc etc...and b) what they have produced so far is a universe where Batman is going to kill the joker and Harley Quinn the next time he sees them. With a gun, grenade, or by flipping a car into them at 100 mph using it like a wrecking ball with his Batmobile.
I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.
I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.
So far as Harley... I thought the original trailer was great but in retrospect was just excited to see the best bit of Suicide Squad getting a sequel. Now that has worn off and with each subsequent look, I think it's looked a little worse, and the ensemble picks seem odd and forced.
Still loving the hyena, of course. But wary of the rest. I'm still gonna go see it, obviously.
But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.
I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.
They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.
I don't think Cavil is interested. Also they need to do a hard reboot to a cohesive cinematic universe because a) Marvel ruined these disconnected movies for them. Audiences don't really want a independent Aquaman universe and Batman Universe and etc etc...and b) what they have produced so far is a universe where Batman is going to kill the joker and Harley Quinn the next time he sees them. With a gun, grenade, or by flipping a car into them at 100 mph using it like a wrecking ball with his Batmobile.
I much prefer the Angry Batman and Burtons batman - BOTH of whom are quite happy to use whatever is needed - be that batarangs or mini-guns /missiles.
Cavils Superman was also fine - just needed better writing but it appears he is busy killing monsters.
I prefer that if they are going to even attempt a cinematic universe its not one where batman kills off his rogues gallery every movie.
Marvel has also been pretty bad about just killing the villains but at least it makes sense that a green monster, a lunatic from another world, 2 assassins, a professional soldier or 2 or 3, some space mercenaries, and a rich ass hole who can buy his way out of any problem and was a arms dealer are the ones killing people.
DC has literal god like beings that dont need to hit a man at speeds not tacable with the human eye liquifying him on contact and batman is supposed to be good enough to stand beside the best of them.
Lance845 wrote: I prefer that if they are going to even attempt a cinematic universe its not one where batman kills off his rogues gallery every movie.
Marvel has also been pretty bad about just killing the villains but at least it makes sense that a green monster, a lunatic from another world, 2 assassins, a professional soldier or 2 or 3, some space mercenaries, and a rich ass hole who can buy his way out of any problem and was a arms dealer are the ones killing people.
Marvel... what?
Marvel was mostly bad about having villains. But often they don't get killed.
Red Skull- banished to space, now out of a job
Winter Soldier- converted
Captain Kree whathisname- sent home in shame
Loki- recurred, recurred, getting a series and coming back.
Iron Man films don't have anyone worthy of the title
Guardians of the Galaxy villains do tend to get killed, but they're also one-dimensional idiots bent on genocide for terrible reasons, so whatever.
But then....The D.C. Pedigree. The sort of Pedigree that promises a well bred, fault free lovely soft slobbery Labradog, and instead delivers some god awful tiny little yapper with bulging eyes, a bad attitude and mange.
I don't know if this one will be good or not, but four out of their last five have been successful all around -- Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Joker. Joker is up for big boy awards and racked up $1 bil in BO on a sub-$100 mil budget.
They can't seem to figure out what to do with Superman to save their lives (hint - just keep Cavill, give things a soft reboot and audiences will probably be fine with it), but otherwise they're doing fine.
I don't think Cavil is interested. Also they need to do a hard reboot to a cohesive cinematic universe because a) Marvel ruined these disconnected movies for them. Audiences don't really want a independent Aquaman universe and Batman Universe and etc etc...and b) what they have produced so far is a universe where Batman is going to kill the joker and Harley Quinn the next time he sees them. With a gun, grenade, or by flipping a car into them at 100 mph using it like a wrecking ball with his Batmobile.
If Cavill doesn't want it, he's doing the worst job ever of showing it, LOL. The guy is constantly talking about the role and insisting he's not done, presumably to get the fans on his side and force WB to keep him.
It's WB that isn't interested. Cavill and Chris McQuarrie (Mission: Impossible) apparently pitched something to WB early last year and they passed. I think he's done, unless The Rock can force WB's hand. They have the same agent, and Johnson and his people keep talking about wanting Black Adam to fight Superman.
Meanwhile, rumors are that JJ Abrams will be working on a Superman film...and may be recasting. Who knows.
Regarding cinematic universes...if a studio can make it happen, great. But who other than Marvel has actually pulled it off? Even the mighty Star Wars franchise has had some bumps, and that's at the same studio! I think audiences just want good movies, and if WB can deliver that better in the form of separate universes then it's a no-brainer to just walk that path.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
porkuslime wrote: My memory tells me that Margot Robbie WAS the reason this was made.. she loves herself as Harley, and wanted to continue the character.
IIRC, her character tested really, really well with audiences in SS, a stinker of a movie otherwise. So the interest was mutual. Note how the rest of the SS property is getting a reboot.
Lance845 wrote: I prefer that if they are going to even attempt a cinematic universe its not one where batman kills off his rogues gallery every movie.
Marvel has also been pretty bad about just killing the villains but at least it makes sense that a green monster, a lunatic from another world, 2 assassins, a professional soldier or 2 or 3, some space mercenaries, and a rich ass hole who can buy his way out of any problem and was a arms dealer are the ones killing people.
Marvel... what?
Marvel was mostly bad about having villains. But often they don't get killed.
Red Skull- banished to space, now out of a job
Winter Soldier- converted
Captain Kree whathisname- sent home in shame
Loki- recurred, recurred, getting a series and coming back.
Iron Man films don't have anyone worthy of the title
Guardians of the Galaxy villains do tend to get killed, but they're also one-dimensional idiots bent on genocide for terrible reasons, so whatever.
Confirmed dead mcu villains who have long standing comics history.
Iron monger
Whiplash
Baron strucker
Crossbones
Ego the living planet
Taserface
Malekith
Kurse
The destroyer armor
Laufi the frost giant king
Ultron
Killmonger
Klaw
Dr minerva
Ronan the acuser
Hela (maybe?)
Surtur (maybe?)
The collector (probably)
Thanos
All 4 of the black order.
Others.
The list of dead is much longer than the list of alive.
In comics time doesn't really move like irl so it is easier, and necessary, to make even mediocre villains recurring characters. Most on that list weren't really worth more than one movie with the possible exception of Ultron. I'm not really counting Thanos as he was a recurring villain and even had one movie where he was essentially the main character.
Ouze wrote: I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.
I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.
I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.
Ouze wrote: I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.
I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.
Agreed. Last month Neil Gaiman had the perfect response to a news report about how DC Films is having problems making Superman "relevant": Gaiman said "You don’t make it relevant. You make it inspiring."
I feel ditching the John Williams music was just another sign of how DC doesn't understand that.
I really quite like the Hans Zimmer music, to be honest. I don't think that's to blame either.
- Even then, it's the same problem, kind of. People focus on the big exciting themes, but the heart of Zimmers music is "This is Clark Kent" and "What are you going to do when you're not saving the world?"
The Zimmer theme is terrific. And more representative of the modern Superman IMO in that it gives us the quiet Kansas farmboy at the beginning with the piano notes and builds into the superheroic. Williams’ theme is classic but all bluster, befitting the Bronze Age Superman of the era, in which ‘Clark Kent’ was a lie and didn’t really exist.
Honestly I think it’s very very weird to expect that new Superman films use the same music from films 3 or 4 decades and 1.5 reboots ago (Returns is the .5). I mean, the comic books don’t play that theme when you open them, right? The character is a little bigger than that theme.
The real mistake that WB made was not following up MoS with a strong, more hopeful sequel with a grown-a$$ Superman as the end of MoS promised.
my feeling on birds of oprey from what I'm seen so far is it's very... 1990s super hero. in other words it reminds me of the odd super hero films we saw in the 90s where (batman aside) they seemed strangely shy about putting the character in their super suits. and well.. those 90s movies sucks so unless BoP starts getting amazing reviews? I'll pass on this one
Ouze wrote: I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.
I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.
I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.
Ouze wrote: I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.
I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.
I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.
I always felt this about the Nolan/Bale films, particularly Batman Begins; for me Bale’s Batman was very average, but I think he was the best Bruce Wayne we’ve had on screen*. A lot of the other films treat Bruce as a thing they have to put up with as little as possible to get to the action, but this is the guy who chose to give up a life of immeasurable wealth and comfort in order to hand out what he sees as justice on the streets. That is what makes the character interesting. In fact, now I think about it, both Batman and Superman have that theme of giving up essentially unlimited power for what you think is right, just in opposite directions?
* Noting that I haven’t watched the very well talked about animated series, just the various films (and the Batman, Adam West )
If you've not watched Batman the Animated series you don't know Batman that said, they didn't really focus toooo much on Bruce Wayne, he was always sort of in the background, but we saw little things that really if you where paying attention brought the guy to life. between the voice acting (Bruce Wayne and Batman spoke very differantly if you've got Arkham city you can see it there) and even the animation they did a great job of enforcing that Bruce Wayne was an act, even the body language in animation sent that apart. you can see it great in "the night of the Ninja" where Batman as bruce Wayne is captured alongside a reporter, the Ninja basicly is doing it due to revenge over something Bruce did while in Japan learning martial arts, he keeps up his cover while the reporter is there, but the minute the reporter is unable to see what happens and Bruce perpares to REALLY fight, the "mask" drops his voice, becomes Batman's voice, and his body language changes etc. it's really well done. (even though the episode is, TBH a bit cheesy with the martial arts tropes otherwise)
There is nothing especially interesting about Bruce Wayne because Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman has to pretend to be Bruce. In actuality he REALLY is Batman.
Superman is the opposite. Superman REALLY is Clark Kent. Down to earth country boy with a good work ethic and a good sense of right and wrong. When he puts on the suit and is Superman he knows that he is a symbol and has to behave as such. So there are things Clark would want to do. Ways he would want to help, that he knows he can't because Superman has to respect certain boundaries.
Superman is the costume Clark Kent wears to attempt to do the most good in the long run.
Bruce Wayne is the costume Batman wears so that he can keep pursuing his mission.
Ouze wrote: I agree that the problem with Superman is not Cavill, who is fine.
I'd like to see a Superman movie that actually is filled with, you know, hope. I want the boy scout. Superman isn't meant to be depressing, he's meant to be uplifting.
I'm of the opinion that Superman is a boring character. His secret identity, Clark Kent, is what really gives him flair. The dynamic of the superhuman who can do anything, and the the every man content with being a mild mannered farm boy. That's that makes the character human and that's what the recent films have all failed to bring to life.
I always felt this about the Nolan/Bale films, particularly Batman Begins; for me Bale’s Batman was very average, but I think he was the best Bruce Wayne we’ve had on screen*. A lot of the other films treat Bruce as a thing they have to put up with as little as possible to get to the action, but this is the guy who chose to give up a life of immeasurable wealth and comfort in order to hand out what he sees as justice on the streets. That is what makes the character interesting. In fact, now I think about it, both Batman and Superman have that theme of giving up essentially unlimited power for what you think is right, just in opposite directions?
* Noting that I haven’t watched the very well talked about animated series, just the various films (and the Batman, Adam West )
As usual for me the Burton Batman film did this better and before - Michael Keaton was an excellent Bruce Wayne AND Batman.
Lance845 wrote: There is nothing especially interesting about Bruce Wayne because Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman has to pretend to be Bruce. In actuality he REALLY is Batman.
true but I think whats being said is that with most prior Batman movies this meant Bruce Wayne was just sort of.... there.
The Dark Knight trilogy was the first time in the movies they really played with this and explored some of the implications. Like Bruce really can't make many friends even if he wanted to because his Bruce Wayne act is something that would no doubt disgust the kind of people whose company he'd actually find worthwhile
Bruce can be as interesting as Batman, the problem is that most of Bruce Wayne's interesting aspects will be more talking and sly double deals and such. Ergo lots of words and not much action to really present on the TV nor in a comic. So its much easier to focus on Batman who is far more about action and cool fights and combat moves.
Lance845 wrote: There is nothing especially interesting about Bruce Wayne because Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman has to pretend to be Bruce. In actuality he REALLY is Batman.
true but I think whats being said is that with most prior Batman movies this meant Bruce Wayne was just sort of.... there.
The Dark Knight trilogy was the first time in the movies they really played with this and explored some of the implications. Like Bruce really can't make many friends even if he wanted to because his Bruce Wayne act is something that would no doubt disgust the kind of people whose company he'd actually find worthwhile
Lance845 wrote: There is nothing especially interesting about Bruce Wayne because Bruce Wayne is the mask. Batman has to pretend to be Bruce. In actuality he REALLY is Batman.
Superman is the opposite. Superman REALLY is Clark Kent. Down to earth country boy with a good work ethic and a good sense of right and wrong. When he puts on the suit and is Superman he knows that he is a symbol and has to behave as such. So there are things Clark would want to do. Ways he would want to help, that he knows he can't because Superman has to respect certain boundaries.
Superman is the costume Clark Kent wears to attempt to do the most good in the long run.
Bruce Wayne is the costume Batman wears so that he can keep pursuing his mission.
People ask me "why do people like Batman and Superman fighting" and I think this really sums it up. These two men are foils to one another in almost every way. A country boy with unlimited power who wears a mask to do what he can without becoming a monster, and a wealthy inheritor who wears a mask so he can do what has to be done, even if it costs him some of his humanity. There's just too many ways these characters can effectively play off one another, and that's why it's fun to see them on opposing sides from time to time.
Apparently Black Canary is essentially a perfect version of her in the movie. (Much to the Arrowverses sadness, I'm sure.)
Harley is supposed to be a really good version of Amanda Conner's Harley series (EG Rebirth). - It's worth saying, that that version of her can be very marmite for people, but ultimately really was quite popular.
Cass is the biggest change and is essentially a completely different character with the same name. - Which is really sad for me, I'm a huge Cass fan.
BUT, maybe Canary might balance it out and I might enjoy the film overall.
Sounds like Winstead's Huntress steals some scenes also. Early reactions are what they are, but positive is better than negative and we've seen negative reactions re: movies. No matter what the 'they're all paid off!!1!1' crowd thinks. (Don't you think the studio would have paid 'Cats' reviewers to avoid that whole mess if they could have?)
Germain Lussier's review isn't exactly glowing, but it's not bad either, and he's hardly been a DC fanboy in the past. That's probably a solid sign.
Reviews are coming in. Currently has a 91 on RT and 60 on MC. Think that suggests a less-than-perfect film but a really fun ride. The reviews all seem to praise the action sequences (the director of the John Wick movies helped with those).
Walter Hamada needs to be given a lot of credit for turning things around with DC films. That's four solid-to-great entries in a row, with WW 1984, The Batman, and James Gunn's Suicide Squad soft reboot on the way.
My company got early screening tickets because Triumph motorcycles apparently have some product placement in the flick. 4 of my coworkers went and enjoyed it (I got stuck with some fam stuff) and said it was like Deadpool with women. None of them are super hero movie going guys/gals.
I could have gone to an early screening but it was a weeknight and the theater was located in the city, so no thanks. If I get a shot at a screening for The Batman, then I might make the necessary arrangements.
This one sounds like a fun ride and my interest has perked up. It'll probably be next week/weekend before I see it, though.
Gonna have a butchers this afternoon. Still got some money left on that giftcard after watching Star Wars, so why not eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post: DC takes a trip to Tarantino land and brings home the bacon. Well, a cheese and bacon sandwich, to be precise.
As Ryan loves his Deadpool, Margot loves her Harliquin. As with Deadpool 2, Margot has a decent enough story to work with this time round, and an equally enthusiastic supporting cast.
Bit silly and grungy at times - maybe a bit too dark - but an enjoyable comic book romp all the same. One of the better comic book movies in recent times.
Saw it yesterday. Didn't have high expectations going in, after hearing that Suicide Squad sucked hard, but I was pleasantly surprised. Not a GREAT movie, but a good one. Worth watching, and kept me entertained.
Compel wrote: I just saw the movie and I really sort of enjoyed it but it also really annoys me that I did enjoy it.
I shouldn't. I really shouldn't but still it was fun.
which is all anyone should ask of a super-film, and usually why Team DC keep getting circles danced around them by their Marvellous rivals, they are starting to get it as whilst the Justice League film was quite dull Mr M injected some much needed fishy fun, and WW1964 seems to me to have a Ragnorok vibe to it, (haven't seen Aquaman yet)
Heading for the worst DC comic book movie opening weekend since some movie called Jonah Hex. Doesn’t feel like a bomb, but it will struggle to break even financially.
Shame, as it seems decent and DC had been on a tear. Wonder Woman to save the day in a few months, I suppose.
the lack of anyone wearing their costumes in all the pictures I've seen and on the movie poster pretty much kills my intreast, it feels like another late 90s "we're afraid to be a super hero movie" super hero movie
There really isn't any costumes in the film at all (Except for Black Masks), but it is also, without a doubt an *extremely* Comic Book movie. Just not necessarily a superhero oni would say, admittedly, not being an expert, the clothinh design in the movie wasn't great overall.
Compel wrote: There really isn't any costumes in the film at all (Except for Black Masks), but it is also, without a doubt an *extremely* Comic Book movie. Just not necessarily a superhero oni would say, admittedly, not being an expert, the clothinh design in the movie wasn't great overall.
But really, it was a fun and enjoyable movie
The pictures I have seen have not been promising. Tell me, in what % of his scenes is black mask actually wearing his black mask?
For those that’ve seen both, and yes I am deadly serious...
How does it compare to Tank Girl? Because I effing love Tank Girl. All of it. Seriously up there amongst my favourite movies for its sheer pants on head crazy nonsense.
Regarding Ewan's take on Ronan Sionis and The Black Mask...
Spoiler:
The "Black mask" is a mask from his art collection, which he dons towards the end of the film. Ronan shares a nasty artistic appreciation for peoples faces(slash)heads with Victor Zsasz and are buddies while also being boss and lackey. He is extremely volatile.
This take of Ronan is clearly a one-off as one will find out if they watch the film...
How does it compare to Tank Girl? Because I effing love Tank Girl. All of it. Seriously up there amongst my favourite movies for its sheer pants on head crazy nonsense.
Good lord, thats going back quite a bit. There's certainly some crazy stuff going on in this film, which is balanced by Margot's equally crazy performance, which shines more here than in Suicide Squad.
For example, I never knew how precious cheese and bacon sandwiches are....
Compel wrote: There really isn't any costumes in the film at all (Except for Black Masks), but it is also, without a doubt an *extremely* Comic Book movie. Just not necessarily a superhero oni would say, admittedly, not being an expert, the clothinh design in the movie wasn't great overall.
But really, it was a fun and enjoyable movie
The pictures I have seen have not been promising. Tell me, in what % of his scenes is black mask actually wearing his black mask?
right, which is my point when I see a advertisement for a comic book movie and they can't be bothered to have these people wearing an outfit that is vaguely similer to the characters in the comics, it just tells me they don't respect the source material.
Compel wrote: There really isn't any costumes in the film at all (Except for Black Masks), but it is also, without a doubt an *extremely* Comic Book movie. Just not necessarily a superhero oni would say, admittedly, not being an expert, the clothinh design in the movie wasn't great overall.
But really, it was a fun and enjoyable movie
The pictures I have seen have not been promising. Tell me, in what % of his scenes is black mask actually wearing his black mask?
right, which is my point when I see a advertisement for a comic book movie and they can't be bothered to have these people wearing an outfit that is vaguely similer to the characters in the comics, it just tells me they don't respect the source material.
I think of it less as they don't respect it and more that they either don't understand it or don't have any faith in it. Why do they not put them in their costumes? Because they don't think it would work on screen. Why do they change an entire characters backstory? Because they don't understand how those elements shape the important aspects of the character or because they don't understand what the important aspects are.
Look at all the many MANY changes to Tony Starks character for the MCU. But it worked, because they understood the important parts of his character. His arrogance that he could fix everything. His drive. His trying to fix everything and his best intentions and all the harm it causes. Suicide Squad doesn't understand Deadshot. Batman movies don't have any faith in the no killing aspect of the character.
Lance845 wrote: Why do they change an entire characters backstory?
I'm not a Bird of Prey expert but. Canary and Huntress' backstory is pretty much 100% accurate to what I know about them. - In general, Black Canary is the most comic accurate version of her in live action yet.
Renee, aside from the age-up, pretty much fits her as well (I was really concerned that she was going to be a knock-off Jessica Jones, but they actually portray her as a good, serious cop).
nels1031 wrote: Heading for the worst DC comic book movie opening weekend since some movie called Jonah Hex. Doesn’t feel like a bomb, but it will struggle to break even financially.
Shame, as it seems decent and DC had been on a tear. Wonder Woman to save the day in a few months, I suppose.
I've seen some discussion about the box office underperformance for a film that's getting solid reviews and audience ratings. DC's been doing better ever since they stopped trying to deliver a shared universe, instead focusing on making good movies. And apparently this is a good movie, but without a shared universe driving interest in it, people are asking who these characters are and why they should care. I thought Captain Marvel was a very mediocre film featuring a character that no one knew, but turn it into a bridge between the two parts of the epic conclusion of a phase of the MCU, and suddenly it's a billion-dollar enterprise. BoP is the flip side of the 'no shared universe' approach. *shrug*
It probably should have been marketed more heavily and better explained. "Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey" might have been a good start. HQ is all over the ads sure, but I think it's a clearer and more honest title. Put the character that people are actually familiar (and the main character) with right up front and let people know the BoP are her backup band.
I'm also not sure why they chose this weekend over the Valentine's Day/President's Day weekend. BO almost certainly would have been better next weekend, and they could have avoided the negative headlines. I may be crazy, but I think it has a chance to have a solid second weekend just because it's a better moviegoing weekend. If not, well...it was inexpensive, so like MCU first phase films it's not a huge deal if it stumbles.
Lance845 wrote: Why do they change an entire characters backstory?
I'm not a Bird of Prey expert but. Canary and Huntress' backstory is pretty much 100% accurate to what I know about them. - In general, Black Canary is the most comic accurate version of her in live action yet.
Renee, aside from the age-up, pretty much fits her as well (I was really concerned that she was going to be a knock-off Jessica Jones, but they actually portray her as a good, serious cop).
I'm kinda disappointed in Huntress.
And Cass should have just been called Sin.
Yeah. Cassandra Cain is the one from this movie. But it's not like they don't change people all the time.
Considering its only just cleared its opening weekend, Birds of Prey has already paid back its budget. A similar case study would be Shazam, which for $360 million was considered a success and lacked an audience-familar character, whereas Birds of Prey does have the popular Harley character behind it and she practically dominated the trailers.
The problem with comic chararcters from DC and Marvel is that they don't have any fixed status. They have common themes that carry forward edition to edition, but almost every time a new author/director/creator picks up the reins of one they change things to their own vision.
Thus each version has similar elements, but also differences. Sometimes they are small (eg the 3 spiderman films were basically retelling the same story); sometimes they are quite major differences. Shifts in artistic style also come about - from the outright insane costumes to the more "gritty dark real world" we see in some of the films where some elements of the costume are more muted (then again when half the screen is underexposed and black that also has an impression).
Indeed its hard to get it "right" because unless you're a die-hard fan who follows everything; chances are you've got one initial exposure to most of the superheroes which "defines them" for you. Eg for me Xmen is defined by the 90s cartoon series. So something like the Xmen movies, whilst visually impressive, also highlights some major changes and "wrong" things with them. Of course this is before we even touch on the cross-overs which have a huge variety (and almost random) nature of either being "just a crossover" or "cannon crossovers".
Overread wrote: The problem with comic chararcters from DC and Marvel is that they don't have any fixed status. They have common themes that carry forward edition to edition, but almost every time a new author/director/creator picks up the reins of one they change things to their own vision.
Thus each version has similar elements, but also differences. Sometimes they are small (eg the 3 spiderman films were basically retelling the same story); sometimes they are quite major differences. Shifts in artistic style also come about - from the outright insane costumes to the more "gritty dark real world" we see in some of the films where some elements of the costume are more muted (then again when half the screen is underexposed and black that also has an impression).
Indeed its hard to get it "right" because unless you're a die-hard fan who follows everything; chances are you've got one initial exposure to most of the superheroes which "defines them" for you. Eg for me Xmen is defined by the 90s cartoon series. So something like the Xmen movies, whilst visually impressive, also highlights some major changes and "wrong" things with them. Of course this is before we even touch on the cross-overs which have a huge variety (and almost random) nature of either being "just a crossover" or "cannon crossovers".
Yeh but the 90s cartoon is great for how much it got right with every character they introduced. The x-men movies are known for introducing character after character in name only while scrapping everything, including powers, about who that character is. Lady death strike in x2 comes to mind.
I saw it and was entertained. It seems like a logical follow-up for the character from the end of Suicide Squad.
This is way better than suicide squad and much closer to Guardians of the Galaxy. Plus, you can tell Margot Robie loves to play this character.... I mean she is the main producer of the film.
Huntress and Black Canary are good. Montoya is a 80's cop cliche.... by design. Black Mask is not like the Black Mask we know and love in Comics, but he IS crazy and fun to watch. Perhaps too Mr. J -esque but he does HAVE a character and an arc.
From what those involved have said, we never really got to see large parts of Leto's performance. *shrug*
It'll be interesting to see how the new Batman franchise handles the Clown Prince. Reports say that the first film will show a younger Batman, but one already with a rogue's gallery in place. The Joker isn't rumored to appear, but I guess we'll have to see if that means he's operating already or not.
gorgon wrote: From what those involved have said, we never really got to see large parts of Leto's performance. *shrug*
It'll be interesting to see how the new Batman franchise handles the Clown Prince. Reports say that the first film will show a younger Batman, but one already with a rogue's gallery in place. The Joker isn't rumored to appear, but I guess we'll have to see if that means he's operating already or not.
The best thing Batman Begins did was avoid using the Joker, end reference notwithstanding.
Joker has been really overused to the point where its almost as if Batman fights no one else but Joker.
It's devalued and downplayed a lot of the other enemies which is a huge shame. Granted Joker was almost always the most insane and the most likely to actually kill people (even on a whim). But when you make him too common that "Shock" factor gets diluted greatly. Let Mr Freeze, Catwooman, Penguin and such get back to the foreground.
In a way he's also simpler to write because you can do whatever you want with him because he's so unpredictable. Other characters, like Penguin, you've got to be smarter with in many ways to get them to do evil and nasty things because whilst they've all got a degree of madness behind them, many of them are quite sane in their actions and motivations. So you've got to position them well to have them take out their anger and aggression and such on the city and the people.
I think it also brings things down a scale too - no more "whole city at risk". Many times they'd be targeting one bank or jewel and such. Catwoman would be a stealing spree rushing through the city, but outside of jewels and diamonds and cash she'd not be striking anywhere else. It's a very different sort and scale of crime to "here's someone mad who is going to blow the whole city up"
I’m really enjoying the “Batman’s Grave” comic series right now for the very reason that’s it’s scaled way back and he’s just dealing with some street crimes instead of the city/world/universe/multiverse destroying threats most of the comics are dealing with right now.
A lot of super heroes actually start to break once they are dealing with huge threats. Batman especially starts to lose more and more of himself the more you up the scale. He's great for a city villain or small team. But once you start throwing armies and legions and space alien armadas into it he gets more and more marginalised as Batman and just becomes another Ironman as he has to rely more and more on technology to keep up. This tends to result in his character getting diluted down to "he's that broody guy with the gravelly voice in all those bat-shaped mechs and vehicles".
Same is true with a lot of the other super-heroes. You up the scale and a good few start to fall to the side very quickly.
Easy E wrote: Sometimes, I think lower stakes or more personal stakes are better than "saving the city/world" stakes.
I think this all the time. Its more relate-able, and you don't burn through settings and characters at an absurd pace.
My go to examples for this are Pillars of Eternity and Mass Effect, where the companies involved could have told stories for years, but instead decided to burn down the setting after just 2 or 3 games. 'Epic!!!!' stories are a cancer on good stories.
The Arkham games really did the over done Joker thing.
Arkham Asylum. Cool.
Arkham City... Alright it's the Joker again. Fine.
Arkham Origins.. Ohh a Black Mask story... nope it's the Joker.
Arkham Knight... Well the Joker is dead this time so Scarecrow and the Red Hood!... No it's the Joker poisoning people as the real plot. Everyone else is just a distraction from Batman dealing with the Joker.
Overread wrote: A lot of super heroes actually start to break once they are dealing with huge threats. Batman especially starts to lose more and more of himself the more you up the scale. He's great for a city villain or small team. But once you start throwing armies and legions and space alien armadas into it he gets more and more marginalised as Batman and just becomes another Ironman as he has to rely more and more on technology to keep up. This tends to result in his character getting diluted down to "he's that broody guy with the gravelly voice in all those bat-shaped mechs and vehicles".
Same is true with a lot of the other super-heroes. You up the scale and a good few start to fall to the side very quickly.
100% this. And this is why I think shows like Daredevil and Punisher took off, because although they did tongue-in-cheek references to the events in Avengers, you were dealing with the aftermath and problems in society that the Avengers would never stoop themselves to actually solving. And it is this scale that precisely ruined them afterwards since they pushed towards Defenders, which really took away the personal involvements of the characters with another overarching bad guy group with the Hand which was made so generic and boring that it left a bad taste that crossed over even into DD season 3.
I really hope there isn't any more skybeams we have to deal with in the future for DC movies, its overdone in Marvel already. I think we've seen enough for the decade.
Saw this the other day, generally liked it just fine. Fun, energetic romp. Much like the last Terminator movie, this seems like a good movie which is sadly going to pay the price in ill-will that was sown by it's predecessor at the box office.
Not really sure why they did Cassandra Cain like that, but OK.
Also kind of wish
Spoiler:
they hadn't killed off Black Mask - it's bad enough with the MCU killing off every single compelling bad guy as soon as they introduce him.
Grimskul wrote: I really hope there isn't any more skybeams we have to deal with in the future for DC movies, its overdone in Marvel already. I think we've seen enough for the decade.
Grimskul wrote: I really hope there isn't any more skybeams we have to deal with in the future for DC movies, its overdone in Marvel already. I think we've seen enough for the decade.
Screen Rants Pitch Meeting segment for Birds of Prey gave skybeams a good shoutout.
Speaking of which, the above mentioned, along with Cinema Sins and Honest Trailers is how I've been "watching" about 3/4 of all major studio releases in the last few years. I usually enjoy them more than the real movies, and they're free!
Grimskul wrote: I really hope there isn't any more skybeams we have to deal with in the future for DC movies, its overdone in Marvel already. I think we've seen enough for the decade.
Screen Rants Pitch Meeting segment for Birds of Prey gave skybeams a good shoutout.
Speaking of which, the above mentioned, along with Cinema Sins and Honest Trailers is how I've been "watching" about 3/4 of all major studio releases in the last few years. I usually enjoy them more than the real movies, and they're free!
Sad part is that, given how formulaic a lot of the recent fare seems to be, it's a better use of your time and they more or less hit all the plot points anyways so you're not missing out on much.
Just got back. Fun ride, it was a female version of the first Deadpool movie. If you liked that...watch this. If you hated that...well, then your opinion hardly matters.
Watched last night and really enjoyed, Margot is obviously enjoying herself immensley and its a good fun film with lots of great action. Imagery is really good, characters all work.
One of the best DC movies
Hate Deadpool, loved this -so whatever.
Also kind of wish
Spoiler:
they hadn't killed off Black Mask - it's bad enough with the MCU killing off every single compelling bad guy as soon as they introduce him.
not having yet another
Spoiler:
oh he might not be dead is always pleasing for me so having him explode on screen was cool. Could not really see what else you could do with him.
Is there a sense they’re ragging on how crap Joker was in Suicide Squad?
Nothing wrong with that portrayal - its not my fav but he did a good job of a complete psycho rather than a vaguely threatening super precog who managed to blow up an empty hospital - ohh scary....
I think the Black mask being like Mr J was the point - ti would have been easy for Harley to become the toy of another powerful psycho guy - "nothing wihtout Master as she herself puts it" but she doesn't
Overread wrote: Joker has been really overused to the point where its almost as if Batman fights no one else but Joker.
It's devalued and downplayed a lot of the other enemies which is a huge shame. Granted Joker was almost always the most insane and the most likely to actually kill people (even on a whim). But when you make him too common that "Shock" factor gets diluted greatly. Let Mr Freeze, Catwooman, Penguin and such get back to the foreground.
In a way he's also simpler to write because you can do whatever you want with him because he's so unpredictable. Other characters, like Penguin, you've got to be smarter with in many ways to get them to do evil and nasty things because whilst they've all got a degree of madness behind them, many of them are quite sane in their actions and motivations. So you've got to position them well to have them take out their anger and aggression and such on the city and the people.
I think it also brings things down a scale too - no more "whole city at risk". Many times they'd be targeting one bank or jewel and such. Catwoman would be a stealing spree rushing through the city, but outside of jewels and diamonds and cash she'd not be striking anywhere else. It's a very different sort and scale of crime to "here's someone mad who is going to blow the whole city up"
Well, also Batman has been stuck lately with villains that are "more realistic" (Steppenwolf notwithstanding). I wanna see a hard-scifi Mr. Freeze with a bit of the fantastical, or something like that. DC has plenty of crazy villains, but they keep getting ignored for bad guys who can be portrayed as glorified down-to-Earth terrorists, and that caps out Batman's rogues gallery pretty quickly.
Watched it together with me wife on Sunday. I was genuinely surprised by the choreography of the fights and had a few good chuckles through out the film. Favourite moments were
Spoiler:
The chase for the egg sandwich
and
Spoiler:
Harley lecturing Huntress about her seek for revenge:
"Psychologically speaking, vengeance rarely brings the catharsis we hope for."
Brilliant...
Overall very nice and I can't wait to watch it again on DVD to check for example all the complaints Black Mask has about her. I certainly hope that the box office result won't discourage additional films with Harley/Margot and in this tone for the DCEU.
People tend to forget that DOCTOR Harley Quinzel was one of , if not THE, best psychiatrists in Gotham. That's why she was assigned to the Joker in the first place. She's not stupid, despite the way she often acts.
It's just that the Joker is, among other things, a master at manipulating people around him...
It's just that the Joker is, among other things, a master at manipulating people around him...
I also recall that in many of the storylines regarding Joker he's often not just insane but chemically altered as well (something that seems to have fallen to the side in some of the modern depictions). Joker Serum was a thing and it wasn't just he messed with her mind. He also injected her with it to make her more like him. Though I think she always had a reduced dose or it never long term affected her the same way it did him. Hence why she was a bit insane, but also more capable of thinking logically and snapping out of it.
In the movie, they reference her jump into a vat of chemicals al la the Joker that altered her physically and mentally.
There were also at least three instances where her training and skill as a Psychologists are referenced in a line of dialogue. My wife really liked that touch.
I also enjoyed when she was using the bat at in the evidence room. A very nicely choreographed fight scene.
Easy E wrote: In the movie, they reference her jump into a vat of chemicals al la the Joker that altered her physically and mentally.
There were also at least three instances where her training and skill as a Psychologists are referenced in a line of dialogue. My wife really liked that touch.
I also enjoyed when she was using the bat at in the evidence room. A very nicely choreographed fight scene.
Easy E wrote: In the movie, they reference her jump into a vat of chemicals al la the Joker that altered her physically and mentally.
There were also at least three instances where her training and skill as a Psychologists are referenced in a line of dialogue. My wife really liked that touch.
I also enjoyed when she was using the bat at in the evidence room. A very nicely choreographed fight scene.
)
