Spoilers Suicide Squad - Grading & Discussion

[Trekker4747]

The Enchantress' movements were odd but they made her feel super creepy to me. One thing I was confused on was Amanda Waller had the Enchantress's heart which enabled her to control her yet somehow she was able to get free enough to summon her brother.

The problem with her movements and with her in general once she was completely out on her own is that she felt totally disconnected from the movie, it was hard then for me to really "connect" to her or see her as a real villain or threat. She was far more powerful and creepy when she was the Pig-Pen of ethereal smoke, and even then she still gyrated some. But once she became a complete CGI-like Air-Dancer she stopped working for me.

As for Waller's control over her: I think it was, maybe, more like the control you have over a dog it works in theory but once they have an out they're going to take it. Whatever set of circumstances set themselves up she seized on them to take her out.

As for international releases, IIRC, this movie is also not getting a China release which, like with Ghostbusters, is going to be a pretty good-sized weight on this thing.

 

[dahj]

Given remarkable figures of $750m being required to break even for this film

Those figures tend to be overblown and bombastic and are really only used by people to "prove" the movie "failed".

Suicide Squad was likely profitable before it even hit the screens from all the merchandise sales.

 

[Relayer1]

Rather an uphill slog for the film.

Hmm, not that I think that we are anywhere near, but I wonder if DC have an 'O.K., it's not working, pull the plug' point ?

 

[dahj]

^^
Of course they do, but it's much lower than people think it is, and they're unlikely to reach it anytime soon.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Those figures tend to be overblown and bombastic and are really only used by people to "prove" the movie "failed".

Suicide Squad was likely profitable before it even hit the screens from all the merchandise sales.

Interesting article from Forbes about breaking down the figures from BvS and how $860m in revenue is a very small profit in respect of ROI, but more importantly how long it takes for said revenue to actually hit the coffers, especially given the massive upfront costs of making these types of films: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain...an-v-superman-a-good-investment/#54bd44d47d67

Even at the more modest end of a production budget for SS at £175m, with global marketing hitting similar numbers, say another $150m, at $325 (before global home entertainment costs, talent (and guild) residuals, "off the tops", and interest), one can see the $700m+ figure as, sadly, reasonable, given Theatrical Release revenue sits at 52% in the US and 42% outside (barring China).

The production companies will want as much of that money to come in "up front" (from theatrical revenue) as possible, given the monies generated elsewhere can take years to scrape back. Pacific Rim is a good example of that, only becoming profitable 3 years after release. It eventually got a sequel greenlit, but I wonder if DC's apparent impatience will allow a sequel for SS

And in regards to merchandising, Batman, WW, Superman generate approximately $1b a year, roughly $100m is seen by WB. I can not see added sales of SS produce hitting the numbers you think. MoS made roughly $175m prior to release in licensing (cars, glasses, watches etc), a big release, of a big iconic name, so it would be interesting to see how much time etc DC invested into generating money for BvS against SS for licensing and how that impacts on SS's profitability.

I'm in no way care whether SS is a hit or a flop. I am interested in the crazy monies invested in these properties and how a big superhero film now seemingly has to race towards $1b to be a financial success.

Note: the Forbes article used April data and BvS performed better overseas than predicted, so profitability looks more like £200m+ (http://deadline.com/2016/03/batman-v-superman-opening-weekend-box-office-records-1201726300/)

Hugo - let's see what week two holds

 

[Christopher]

Deadshot's file places Gotham City in New Jersey.

That's consistent with what was established in The Atlas of the DC Universe back in the '80s or so. It also placed Metropolis in Delaware, which didn't make much sense to me, since there wouldn't be much Delaware left. Young Justice showed a map that put Gotham in southwest Connecticut, roughly where Norwalk is in real life. (So a few dozen miles up I-95 North from New York City.)

But didn't BvS establish that Metropolis and Gotham were twin cities on opposite sides of a river or bay? Maybe they're treating Metropolis as NYC and Gotham as Newark? Although Delaware and New Jersey do have the Delaware River between them, so it could maybe work if you put Metropolis in place of Wilmington and Gotham directly across from it (where there isn't really any major city in New Jersey).

The actor who played Rick Flagg on Smallvile was in the movie as a military officer.

Which is at least the second time that's happened, since Smallville's Emil Hamilton, Alessandro Juliani, was in Man of Steel opposite Richard Schiff as Hamilton.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

That's consistent with what was established in The Atlas of the DC Universe back in the '80s or so. It also placed Metropolis in Delaware, which didn't make much sense to me, since there wouldn't be much Delaware left. Young Justice showed a map that put Gotham in southwest Connecticut, roughly where Norwalk is in real life. (So a few dozen miles up I-95 North from New York City.)

But didn't BvS establish that Metropolis and Gotham were twin cities on opposite sides of a river or bay? Maybe they're treating Metropolis as NYC and Gotham as Newark? Although Delaware and New Jersey do have the Delaware River between them, so it could maybe work if you put Metropolis in place of Wilmington and Gotham directly across from it (where there isn't really any major city in New Jersey).

If it helps, here's a map of the cities in question.

BvS does indeed have Metropolis and Gotham across the bay from one another. Personally speaking, I akways thought Gotham was supposed to be a city like Boston and Metropolis some amalgamation of other North Easterns US cities. Since NYC and Boston both exist in the DCU.

 

[Christopher]

I always felt that Metropolis should be on the West Coast. Having Gotham right next door compels the question of why Superman doesn't just pop over on his lunch hour and clean up whatever cataclysmic threat Batman is dealing with. So it seemed to me that the two cities should be at a greater remove. (Alternatively, there's Smallville's approach of putting Metropolis in Kansas. Or you could follow Nolan's lead and put Gotham in place of Chicago.)

Of course, in the earliest Siegel-Shuster issues, Metropolis was essentially Cleveland. They based its skyline and its portrayal on their hometown. I'm not sure when it first came to be treated as a New York City surrogate. The '50s TV series, of course, used Los Angeles locations for Metropolis; the Daily Planet building in the show was actually L.A. City Hall. The earliest overt instance of Metropolis = NYC that I can think of is Superman: The Movie in 1978.

Conversely, one of the earliest Batman comics (in Detective Comics #31, just the fifth Batman issue) opened with "Through the dark of a New York night." Batman was originally based in the actual New York City before they switched it to Gotham, which of course is an old nickname for New York City. And the '66 sitcom always used NYC stock footage in establishing shots and used parody versions of New York geography (Chimes Square, Avenue of the Armenias) and political figures (Mayor Linseed, Gov. Stonefellow) -- while also, naturally, filming on Los Angeles locations and the studio backlot, which gave it kind of a hybrid quality.

(This isn't unique to DC, by the way. In the first issue of The Fantastic Four, Reed and his team were said to reside in...Central City!)

 

[dahj]

I am interested in the crazy monies invested in these properties and how a big superhero film now seemingly has to race towards $1b to be a financial success.

Keyword there being seemingly, and it's interesting how media is much more interested in making DCEU seem unprofitable, all backed by just guesswork.

I'm also amazed how people have short memories.
All of the first wave MCU movies had around $150 million budgets, and only the Iron Man movies barely broke $500 million worldwide box office(585 for the first one, 625 for the second one, but on a 200 mil budget.). Yet they were all automatically considered successful(even The Incredible Hulk, wikipedia article on which actually cites an analyst who says it's a success with its $260 mil take!?! ).

That supposed $750 mil break even number sounds more like bullshit if you take some recent films that made similar numbers, like Guardians of the Galaxy and Days of future Past which both had a $200 million+ budget and are considered not just as "broke even", but as big successes for hitting that.

And now suddenly Suicide Squad chugs along and is automatically considered a massive failure if it doesn't reach and even beat those numbers? C'mon.

 

[USS Firefly]

Things I did like, though:

• Deadshot. The "I love my daughter" line was played way too hard, but Smith carried this film, almost single handedly

But his fantasy wish was that he killed Batman and not to be with his daughter.
I was really dissapointed by the movie, and all the jokes fell flat in the cinnema I was in

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Good, I want more movies, so it'll need to be profitable.

As I said earlier, it looks to me as if DC are hovering somewhere between getting it right and screwing up and Suicide Squad hasn't pushed it in either direction. Wonder Woman is pretty rigidly set now (for good or bad) and they're going to need several more movies to hone the format.

Marvel and DC want the "oddball" movies in their film universes, and given that format, they are out of place next to the traditional superhero movies, no matter how many plot threads and Easter eggs are laid as a connection to the other films.

It should be appreciated that although Marvel haven't produced anything with the kind of flaws in Batman vs Superman or Suicide Squad, Iron Man 2 wasn't very good and there are other 'disappointments'. They've had a lot of practice...

You say that, but long into the MCU's history, they were still cranking out films that were rather hollow--no better than a 80s cartoon (Age of Ultron) or films that were just in a dull holding pattern (The Dark World). One was the anticipated sequel to the big super-team film, yet they did not improve on lessons or the model from the first. Then TDW--featuring one of the flagship characters was just...there. Nothing to make anyone care, other than Marvel's investment in post-credits scenes. Then, there's Guardians--no matter how much cash it pulled in, personally, I could not imagine watching a couple of sequels to that. Again, each are long past the early, finding-your-feet period of MCU, so what's their excuse?

DC has set a serious tone with MoS & BvS, and that's the early world-building phase that will be carried over into Justice League (I would suggest anyone not be fooled by the "humor" seen in the SDCC teaser as some full-on format change), and i'm betting with Wonder Woman, she will be likeable, but the film should be grim by the time she bows out of the early 20th century timeline. With the coming of Darkseid, the DC films cannot have characters joking their way through scenes.

 

[BillJ]

I guess the thing that bothered me more than anything about the movie, was Amanda Waller. She comes across as a psychopath that belongs in the Louisiana swamp just as much as any of the bad guys. She didn't come off as ambiguous at all, which is problematic.

There was really no one to root for in the movie.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Suicide Squad has set a record for $267 million worldwide on it's debut weekend. Ayer thanks fans on twitter.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/a...records-overseas-scores-267-million-worldwidehttp://www.comicbookresources.com/a...records-overseas-scores-267-million-worldwide

 

[Relayer1]

You say that, but long into the MCU's history, they were still cranking out films that were rather hollow--no better than a 80s cartoon (Age of Ultron) or films that were just in a dull holding pattern (The Dark World). One was the anticipated sequel to the big super-team film, yet they did not improve on lessons or the model from the first. Then TDW--featuring one of the flagship characters was just...there. Nothing to make anyone care, other than Marvel's investment in post-credits scenes. Then, there's Guardians--no matter how much cash it pulled in, personally, I could not imagine watching a couple of sequels to that. Again, each are long past the early, finding-your-feet period of MCU, so what's their excuse?

DC has set a serious tone with MoS & BvS

Well, I did say there were other disappointments. Guardians though, I'd point to as Marvel's crowning achievement - not that I'm saying that it's their best movie, more than it showed that they could take an obscure comic that didn't fit well with the other films thematically and make what is certainly both one of the better Marvel movies AND one of their most successful.

DC's tone ? I'd say they've fluffed it so far. They might have been shooting for serious, but they've actually hit dour and joyless.

Joyless even when they beat the 'big bad', which undermines the impression of achievement. There's no relief, no light and shade.

 

[BillJ]

Well, I did say there were other disappointments. Guardians though, I'd point to as Marvel's crowning achievement - not that I'm saying that it's their best movie, more than it showed that they could take an obscure comic that didn't fit well with the other films thematically and make what is certainly both one of the better Marvel movies AND one of their most successful.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the only Marvel movie I remembered for more than five minutes after I left the theater. The only one I've seen more than once.

DC's tone ? I'd say they've fluffed it so far. They might have been shooting for serious, but they've actually hit dour and joyless.

Joyless even when they beat the 'big bad', which undermines the impression of achievement. There's no relief, no light and shade.

Pretty much spot on. Suicide Squad should've been DC's "Deadpool".

 

[Vendikarr]

The more I think abough it, I believe the failings of this move are due to the fact that the story is too big for the characters. This is not a 'save the world' team. Not yet. To me it went astray when they had to battle Enchantress and Incubus.

In the comic, the team's first storyline had them going up against a group in the middle-east that was creating metahuman terrorists. The movie could have had kept the same beginning, then had a metahuman attack on a U.S. base or embassy in the Middle East, then the team is assembled and deployed. It's a smaller story that would better showcase the characters.

And it could pay off with a bigh battle like the CA:CW airport battle. With deaths.

 

[theenglish]

I'm wondering if the Enchantress angle was originally meant for Justice League Dark and then shoehorned into this movie?

 

[Makarov]

I guess the thing that bothered me more than anything about the movie, was Amanda Waller. She comes across as a psychopath that belongs in the Louisiana swamp just as much as any of the bad guys. She didn't come off as ambiguous at all, which is problematic.

There was really no one to root for in the movie.

I thought she was clearly meant to be bad which is meant to get the audience to root for the sucide squad. Then you have Will Smith just trying to get back to his kid which is easy to root for as well.

I disagree that the movie is joyless. How so? Goons in teddy bear masks, the movie opening with cheesy spinning cgi guns, jokes everywhere.

Spoiler

Happy ending being ruinited with his kid and Harley reuniting with the joker and the military dude reunited with the enchantress lady.

Dour is not how I'd describe this movie..

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Came to mention the Ghostbusters riff with the Gozer/Zuul rooftop action but already mentioned. They even had the flight of stairs and freeing Dana from the demon cocoon.

I thought it was OK but maybe could've used another sub-boss or challenges. Instead we basically got the equivalent of the putties from the Power Rangers. It wasn't amazing but worth seeing. Damning with faint praise I suppose but less bombastic than its kin can be. It kind of reminded me of a big budget version of what I imagine an Arrowverse Suicide Squad might've been, more low-key and low-powered.

It seemed like Leto was going for one of those bravura Joker performances but I don't think came off as amazing as they hoped. Nothing wrong with it but not a Nicholson/Ledger level deal given all the behind-the-scenes hype. Speaking of that, I don't know about the reported comments about him and Will Smith because I don't think they ever really interacted.

I always felt that Metropolis should be on the West Coast. Having Gotham right next door compels the question of why Superman doesn't just pop over on his lunch hour and clean up whatever cataclysmic threat Batman is dealing with.

While that may feel more right, being Superman does that distance even matter? Shouldn't he be just as capable of popping over?

 

[Admiral2]

Those figures tend to be overblown and bombastic and are really only used by people to "prove" the movie "failed".

Suicide Squad was likely profitable before it even hit the screens from all the merchandise sales.

Suicide Squad as a property maybe, but the movie itself has to make back production and marketing costs plus a significant profit just to be considered successful. There's nothing overblown about that number at all. It's the number quoted by experts who actually know something about how movies are financed.