This movie is a sequel; why would it completely redefine Deadshot's characterization?
Why get rid of almost every character? We don't really know yet what direction this movie is going.
This movie is a sequel; why would it completely redefine Deadshot's characterization?
Why get rid of almost every character?
^ Given that it’s a different writer/director and has jettisoned most of the original cast, with the one confirmed returning character being played by a different actor, it’s hardly a straight sequel.
Why get rid of almost every character? We don't really know yet what direction this movie is going.
Because the first movie was widely hated
Saying that it's "jettisoned most of the original cast" is extremely premature because we don't actually have a cast list for it given that it is barely entering active development now (previous to this point, it had been confirmed as an eventuality but was not being actively developed).
However, it's still a sequel regardless of whether or not it ultimately brings back the previous cast.
Because character turnover is "baked into" the very concept of what the Squad is.
Amanda Waller is literally the only "connective tissue" a film like this needs.
This is not an accurate statement.
I'll take Idris Elba over Will Smith in a film any day. The man is an amazing actor (IMO Will Smith not so much in comparison.) YMMV.![]()
Time will tell but Batman Forever was a sequel to Batman Returns, also featuring a new actor and new director and the title character was portrayed very differently.
Because they've already said that this is going to be a soft reboot, with a new writer and director who going to take the movie in a diferent direction from the first.This movie is a sequel; why would it completely redefine Deadshot's characterization?
We also have Margot Robbie back as Harley Quinn, so we will have at least one actor reprising their role from the first movie.^ Given that it’s a different writer/director and has jettisoned most of the original cast, with the one confirmed returning character being played by a different actor, it’s hardly a straight sequel.
They've been saying over, and over, and over since James Gunn was announced to be working on it that it will not being bring back most of the original cast. Literally every single article I have seen about the movie has consistently said that, so I think at this point we can pretty much assume it's true.Saying that it's "jettisoned most of the original cast" is extremely premature because we don't actually have a cast list for it given that it is barely entering active development now (previous to this point, it had been confirmed as an eventuality but was not being actively developed).
Well, sure technically since it's a second movie, but it sounds like it will pretty much be ignoring the first movie,However, it's still a sequel regardless of whether or not it ultimately brings back the previous cast.
I've still never been able to figure out exactly how much continuity there was meant to be in the pre-Daniel Craig James Bond movies. Most of them are pretty much stand alone, especially once new actors too over the role, but I think there were a few times where they acted like stuff that happened when an earlier actor was in the role did happen to the current one. I also know of at least one scene with Roger Moore referring to something never happen to "the other guy", but I always took that as a fourth wall breaking joke, rather than in universe confirmation that him and Connery were actually playing different characters with the same name.Technically it was a sequel, but references to the previous films were minimal. Fans these days want continuity to be black-and-white, either it's a continuation or it isn't, but countless film sequels over the decades have split the difference, being nominal continuations while often paying little more than lip service to continuity. There are many films that are deliberately ambiguous about such things, so you can pretend it's a continuation if you want or can treat it as its own separate thing if you want.
Hmmm. I don't buy the scheduling conflict story. Thats always 'the reason.' Wil could have passed on the role.
How do you know that?He was contracted for two movies, and had previously confirmed as much personally.
Because the first movie was widely hated
I've still never been able to figure out exactly how much continuity there was meant to be in the pre-Daniel Craig James Bond movies. Most of them are pretty much stand alone, especially once new actors too over the role, but I think there were a few times where they acted like stuff that happened when an earlier actor was in the role did happen to the current one. I also know of at least one scene with Roger Moore referring to something never happen to "the other guy", but I always took that as a fourth wall breaking joke, rather than in universe confirmation that him and Connery were actually playing different characters with the same name.
How do you know that?
What I meant was, do you have a link to where Smith said that?Because he'd previously personally confirmed it (as I noted).
Because the first movie was widely hated and most of the characters were one-dimensional anyway. Probably Margot Robbie's popularity is the only reason they're even trying to do a sequel, so Harley's the only character they'd consider essential. Keeping Deadshot is probably more about the fact that he's a stalwart of the Suicide Squad in the comics than out of any misplaced loyalty to a failed first film.
Because character turnover is "baked into" the very concept of what the Squad is.
Amanda Waller is literally the only "connective tissue" a film like this needs.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.