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.

 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.

He also directed a grand total of about 80 seconds in Suicide Squad

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.

I liked BvS, but it felt rushed. I would have liked another hour or so. Also, a different Luthor.

 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:
And I'm convinced that fan-fave Cranston would have done the same thing, because he's shown he'll do that.

We could have had this as Luthor?



Damn! That would have been sweet!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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.

The BvS scenes of Ezra Millar Flash I thought were awful, it was the Justice League trailer (and him being clean shaven) that improved him for me.

Was Amanda Waller 'evil?' - Was there anything that she did at all that wasn't technically justifiable?

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:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 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.

I think Raven might be a little too... On the nose.

I saw the first episode of a very little known DC show the other day, Birds of Prey.

It's kinda pants and you can see why it was cancelled after 13 episodes,even after the pilot.

However, the standout (after the first episode at least), was Dina Meyers (AKA Dizzy from Starship Troopers) as Oracle.

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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

Batman was much more heroic here I thought ?

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.

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!

 Compel wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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.

It's not worth me being too episode 2 yet :-P

Long story short my PC is knackered and I don't want to watch it on my phone.

 Compel wrote:

Was Amanda Waller 'evil?' - Was there anything that she did at all that wasn't technically justifiable?

Maybe that?

That is some straight up Paranoia stuff there, Orange ordering a Red into a Yellow zone...

 Necroagogo wrote:

 Compel wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, relevant:

http://www.dorkly.com/post/80188/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vs-suicide-squad