Spoilers Suicide Squad - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Possibly this is just BS Waller is peddling to further her agenda?
Correction, a totalitarian government.
I enjoyed it, but it does have that pacing problem that all the DC movies seem to have had. The scenes are usually good in isolation, but all up it feels...cobbled together.
It's better than Batman v Superman. Bit less broody and pretentious, shorter, and has more likeable characters.
It's better than Batman v Superman. Bit less broody and pretentious, shorter, and has more likeable characters.
So if a real big bad turns up then the One Much Greater Power will handle it while Boomerang and Harley hide behind a car?
Meaning...what, exactly? I can't ask a question about the logic of the film? I indeed don't read Suicide Squad and I was curious. Most of the people paying to see the movie don't read the comic either.
Last edited:
Khm...
David Ayer said:
source:http://collider.com/suicide-squad-deleted-scenes-jared-leto-david-ayer/
I'm waiting for someone to put the specific question to him, and not just get the "studio was very supportive" boilerplate he's contractually obliged to say. I mean, if there was genuinely no conflict at all, that's a one-in-a-billion relationship. Especially given the problems of the final product....
It's got nothing to do with communism, just with authoritarianism. You can find the same kind of censorship practiced in countries with many political and economic philosophies, including a number of nominal democracies.
(Indeed, technically there is no such thing as a communist government. Communism, as defined by Marx, is a stateless, anarchic society that's evolved beyond the need for a government. But Marxism theorizes that a society must go through an evolution from agrarian feudalism to industrial democracy to a socialist dictatorship which will then work toward the creation of that communist utopia by redistributing the means of production and educating the people to take care of themselves and their neighbors so that the state is no longer needed. But the fatal flaw in this theory -- aside from the fact that most Communist revolutions have occurrred in agrarian societies rather than industrial ones -- is the assumption that any government could be trusted to work toward its own dissolution. So the process in so-called "Communist" countries tends to get stalled at the dictatorship stage. Their leaders call themselves Communist parties because it's what they're theoretically aspiring to create, but they never actually get around to becoming communist, because that would mean giving up their own power.)
Yeah, that's a strange justification. It sounds like WB is trying to integrate them into the Extended Universe by tying the rationale for their existence into the Superman/Batman/Justice League narrative, but it's an awkward fit. In the comics, the Squad's purpose is to be a black-ops team, a deniable, expendable force sent in to do the sort of dark, legally and morally questionable, off-the-books missions that you'd never assign to a superhero. It's supposed to be The Dirty Dozen meets Mission: Impossible ("should any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions").
When Waller gave that speech about Superman-level threats, she had two team members on her list that were practically demon-gods.
Plus, the villains in this movie practically were Superman-level threats (magic being something Supes does have trouble with). The 'normals' in the Squad managed to deal with the situation just fine by using a bomb, a sword, and some quick thinking.
Of course, they're effectiveness would instantly be nerfed if they had to fight Superman himself. Once they're in the villain role, they lose their protagonist powers.
Plus, the villains in this movie practically were Superman-level threats (magic being something Supes does have trouble with). The 'normals' in the Squad managed to deal with the situation just fine by using a bomb, a sword, and some quick thinking.
Of course, they're effectiveness would instantly be nerfed if they had to fight Superman himself. Once they're in the villain role, they lose their protagonist powers.
Last edited:
Sure, but that raises the question, why not recruit the Flash or Wonder Woman to deal with the threat, if it's the same kind of threat they would deal with anyway? What's the point of forming such a different kind of team if they go up against the same kind of enemy? It's not about whether they can beat that type of foe, it's about why you'd choose them to do it instead of someone else. Or rather, why the filmmakers charged with making a movie about such a different kind of team would just fall back on a conventional type of superhero-movie threat instead of choosing a more distinctive type of threat that was better suited to the Dirty Dozen premise.
Looks like Mexico chains are pulling the movie
http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news...-of-behind-the-scenes-panic-emerge/383825.htm
http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news...-of-behind-the-scenes-panic-emerge/383825.htm
The Suicide Squad is formed because Waller doesn't want to rely on heroes deciding to be heroic. She wants a death squad who are under her control, and will be forced to obey orders. The villains work for that because:
1) She has personal leverage to use against them.
2) They're expendable. Literally nobody would care, or even notice, if they died on a mission.
3) They have absolutely no association with any law making body.
4) They're easily accessible to the government (being imprisoned and all), and are basically an infinite resource in the DCU.
5) A combination of factors (2) and (3) means that, in the event that any of Waller's plans do go tits up, everything gets blamed on them and she can freely murder them to cover her tracks.
2) They're expendable. Literally nobody would care, or even notice, if they died on a mission.
3) They have absolutely no association with any law making body.
4) They're easily accessible to the government (being imprisoned and all), and are basically an infinite resource in the DCU.
5) A combination of factors (2) and (3) means that, in the event that any of Waller's plans do go tits up, everything gets blamed on them and she can freely murder them to cover her tracks.
Most of that is actually mentioned in the movie, and isn't comic-exclusive. I know the editing makes things easy to miss, but Waller having a bit of a god-complex is discussed quiet a bit.
Last edited:
I looked into this more and it seems to be a dispute over the distribution deal between Cinemex and Universal Pictures. Universal Pictures being the local distributors for the movie. So, it's about business and not censored content, like with China.
And yet the general audiences so far seem to like it.
It's a film about anti-heroes and villains fighting evil. What kind of movie were people expecting? SS does have character arcs for several characters (Deadshot, Harley, Diablo and Enchantress), funny moments (Boomerang, Croc and Katana all get good lines in), and go get'em action scenes. It wasn't as long or as boring as Batman v Superman and was actually fun to watch.
FRIDAY AM UPDATE: Suicide Squad got off to a strong start last night, pulling in $20.5 million from Thursday night preview screenings nearly doubling the previous August record of $11.2 million set by Guardians of the Galaxy back in 2014 before it opened with $94.3 million, the current August opening weekend record. Suicide Squad screenings started at approximately 6 PM and took place in 3,700+ locations. The total includes IMAX screenings which grossed $2.4m.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4213&p=.htm
Despite negative reviews, DC films just chug right along. It is a bummer about losing Mexico and China though.
FRIDAY AM UPDATE: Suicide Squad got off to a strong start last night, pulling in $20.5 million from Thursday night preview screenings nearly doubling the previous August record of $11.2 million set by Guardians of the Galaxy back in 2014 before it opened with $94.3 million, the current August opening weekend record. Suicide Squad screenings started at approximately 6 PM and took place in 3,700+ locations. The total includes IMAX screenings which grossed $2.4m.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4213&p=.htm
Despite negative reviews, DC films just chug right along. It is a bummer about losing Mexico and China though.
Last edited:
The general audience are not the people who rush out to see the movie opening night or even opening weekend. The vast majority of people who went to the showings last night are hardcore comic book fans who liked Man of Steel and BvS. Of course those people liked the film.
My favorite characters were Deadshot and Rick Flag. Will Smith and Joel Kinnaman acted very well and they both were the highlight of the movie.
I wished i had seen more of the Jared Leto and Margot Robbie romance and i suspect they had their scenes cut.
Captain Boomerang, Katana, Killer Croc and El Diablo were an interesting bunch of sidekicks whose powers really complemented the team.
I did not expect Amanda Waller to be so ruthless. Is she like that in the comics ?
The weakest character for me was Carol Delevingne's Enchantress. Getting a model in her early twenties to play the main villain was a bad idea.
I wished i had seen more of the Jared Leto and Margot Robbie romance and i suspect they had their scenes cut.
Captain Boomerang, Katana, Killer Croc and El Diablo were an interesting bunch of sidekicks whose powers really complemented the team.
I did not expect Amanda Waller to be so ruthless. Is she like that in the comics ?
The weakest character for me was Carol Delevingne's Enchantress. Getting a model in her early twenties to play the main villain was a bad idea.
Studio interference is as old as time; it's very rarely absent. And if the movie does well, the studio will conclude it interfered just the right amount, and if it doesn't, they'll conclude it was a bad idea/script in the first place.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...2-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?tid=sm_fb
They say "Imitation is the highest form of flattery," but sometimes "the myth is worse than the lie." My favorite comic book movie is still 2008's "The Dark Knight," a big-budget, dark, action film with tremendous acting performances, characterization unlike anything seen in Superhero movies up to that point, and a bad guy that was deliciously devilish--borne out of anger and resentment that builds from being hurt--the Joker's reinterpretation in the hands of the late-Heath Ledger, is gold. The story is simple, but the characters are not. Its pacing is fast with not a wasted scene or key bit of dialogue. It took me about 8 viewings to catch it all.
It answers the question "Why does Gotham need Batman?" At the heart of the movie, is Batman's need and what he could be, as a vigilante. In taking down Lau, working with law enforcement, he proved his need. In the copy-cats, he says "I'm not wearing hockey pads!" Both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent lose the love of their lives, the woman they wanted to marry, in Rachel. Wayne becomes reflective about how he hasn't done enough to save Gotham. Harvey uses his investigative skills, his need for revenge, to go on a killing spree. In doing this, with Batman trying to apprehend the mastermind, and Harvey trying to kill everyone in the conspiracy that led to her death, we explore the dangers of having someone work outside of the law.
The music, the suspense, the psychological motivations, the threads that dangle, but are tied up in the end, made "The Dark Knight" a Best Picture Nominee, and left Heath Ledger, who died before the Awards, the Best Supporting Actor.
But, it cast a long shadow.
It is seen as the darkest interpretation of Batman, and that it may be, but it's greatness does not lie in being dark. It doesn't lie in nihilism. Its nihilism doesn't make the Joker a hero. Its nihilism is a backdrop to see the light that is Harvey Dent (before he turns), Jim Gordon, and Batman. Its greatness is its script, its timing, and its acting.
Watching Batman v. Superman, I was more entertained by it than say, The Man of Steel, but the hokey-ness of the dream sequence with Flash, the use of Batman and Superman as seeing the other one as evil, felt childish and half-baked. A rivalry, not a deep, psychological mistrust of each other. The movie was little else, from what I saw, then a comic book film. Its use of a profit-center and its relationship to government, never nuanced, never subtle, more melodrama than a mirror on the society at-large. And a tremendous actor, Jesse Eisenberg, turns in one of the worst performances of his career.
I couldn't help but draw the comparisons to the long shadow of "The Dark Knight." It was too successful, and trying to bottle what made it great, a mythos, especially when the fanbase has as much to say as comic-cons properties do, usually kills creativity in-favor of what is bankable, until, a piece of crap comes down the tube, and it sets everyone's opinions on-fire, like this movie just did. Then, they throw out the formula, and try something new.
Just ask "Star Trek" fans. From The Wrath of Khan to Star Trek: Nemesis, some humanoid, usually bent on revenge, has to conquer Kirk (or Picard) and crew to achieve their madman goals. They turned into comic-book movies. And this is a franchise that is a hopeful vision of tomorrow, used as little else than a backdrop to show what we will lose if said madman achieves his goals. That's why I don't like the films, anymore. "The Final Frontier" does poorly, they try to make them serious again. Nemesis does poorly, we try to tell an origin story with Kirk after Picard's final mission.
I've seen this long shadow before. Success breeds imitation, and everyone has an opinion on what made it commercially successful.
They say "Imitation is the highest form of flattery," but sometimes "the myth is worse than the lie." My favorite comic book movie is still 2008's "The Dark Knight," a big-budget, dark, action film with tremendous acting performances, characterization unlike anything seen in Superhero movies up to that point, and a bad guy that was deliciously devilish--borne out of anger and resentment that builds from being hurt--the Joker's reinterpretation in the hands of the late-Heath Ledger, is gold. The story is simple, but the characters are not. Its pacing is fast with not a wasted scene or key bit of dialogue. It took me about 8 viewings to catch it all.
It answers the question "Why does Gotham need Batman?" At the heart of the movie, is Batman's need and what he could be, as a vigilante. In taking down Lau, working with law enforcement, he proved his need. In the copy-cats, he says "I'm not wearing hockey pads!" Both Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent lose the love of their lives, the woman they wanted to marry, in Rachel. Wayne becomes reflective about how he hasn't done enough to save Gotham. Harvey uses his investigative skills, his need for revenge, to go on a killing spree. In doing this, with Batman trying to apprehend the mastermind, and Harvey trying to kill everyone in the conspiracy that led to her death, we explore the dangers of having someone work outside of the law.
The music, the suspense, the psychological motivations, the threads that dangle, but are tied up in the end, made "The Dark Knight" a Best Picture Nominee, and left Heath Ledger, who died before the Awards, the Best Supporting Actor.
But, it cast a long shadow.
It is seen as the darkest interpretation of Batman, and that it may be, but it's greatness does not lie in being dark. It doesn't lie in nihilism. Its nihilism doesn't make the Joker a hero. Its nihilism is a backdrop to see the light that is Harvey Dent (before he turns), Jim Gordon, and Batman. Its greatness is its script, its timing, and its acting.
Watching Batman v. Superman, I was more entertained by it than say, The Man of Steel, but the hokey-ness of the dream sequence with Flash, the use of Batman and Superman as seeing the other one as evil, felt childish and half-baked. A rivalry, not a deep, psychological mistrust of each other. The movie was little else, from what I saw, then a comic book film. Its use of a profit-center and its relationship to government, never nuanced, never subtle, more melodrama than a mirror on the society at-large. And a tremendous actor, Jesse Eisenberg, turns in one of the worst performances of his career.
I couldn't help but draw the comparisons to the long shadow of "The Dark Knight." It was too successful, and trying to bottle what made it great, a mythos, especially when the fanbase has as much to say as comic-cons properties do, usually kills creativity in-favor of what is bankable, until, a piece of crap comes down the tube, and it sets everyone's opinions on-fire, like this movie just did. Then, they throw out the formula, and try something new.
Just ask "Star Trek" fans. From The Wrath of Khan to Star Trek: Nemesis, some humanoid, usually bent on revenge, has to conquer Kirk (or Picard) and crew to achieve their madman goals. They turned into comic-book movies. And this is a franchise that is a hopeful vision of tomorrow, used as little else than a backdrop to show what we will lose if said madman achieves his goals. That's why I don't like the films, anymore. "The Final Frontier" does poorly, they try to make them serious again. Nemesis does poorly, we try to tell an origin story with Kirk after Picard's final mission.
I've seen this long shadow before. Success breeds imitation, and everyone has an opinion on what made it commercially successful.