Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You know, it occurs to me that Jared Leto's Joker is a pretty spot on rendition of the Joker from the self-titled graphic novel. Not visually, but his behavior, his attitude.

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.

I really like the Civil War movie. It could easily be my favorite comic book movie, and perhaps even among my favorite movies.

I would watch that again anytime.

 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.

Not quite sure why so much Marvel talk, when this is DCEU movie.

If anything, we should be talking about this guy.

 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.


Pretty excited about Deathstroke.

I kinda suspect that Batman v Deathstroke is not going to be the sunshine, roses, and unicorns alternative to dark & gritty...

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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You know, it occurs to me that Jared Leto's Joker is a pretty spot on rendition of the Joker from the self-titled graphic novel. Not visually, but his behavior, his attitude.

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.

Woops

thanks for clearing that up.

 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.

Saw the movie this morning. Loved it. Want to see it again.

 Ouze wrote:

 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?

 Pacific wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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?"



I guess I just don't understand comics

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.

It's passed 700m now. This is no flop.

I'm happy for it. To see such obscure characters making it big is a good thing for the genre.

Didn;t her file say she was super agile or some such - likely as a result of the wierd chemicals she went into

I would have thought it was more of a worry that if she was on mission its possible her lover would show up and screw it all up!

Hoping figures are good enough for a sequal - for them to appear in other DC films. Also it was so much better than Bats vs Sups.

Has Wonder Woman ever fought the Joker - guessing she would just put a sword through him and walk on.

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.

I like the time Joker swings a giant mallet at Clark Kent and Kent is trying to decide how best to play that off without revealing who he is.

 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.