Suicide Squad (David Ayer, 2016) Movie • Page 22

I think it would be challenging to frame a lot of the Justice League characters in a modern context for any filmmaker, even the best. I realize that it's been done in the books over the years but what works for comic book fans may not work for general movie audiences.

Which is why you haven't seen a lot of non-Batman" content hitting the silver screen. When they try (Green Lantern/MoS) they get shy and run back to Batman as quickly as they possibly can (BvS/SS).

It's easy to see why, Batman lends itself well to the modern sensibilities of movie-going audiences.

But if we lay the MCU foundation over the DCEU characters, it becomes clear to me what the universe should look like:

Batman is an Iron Man movie
The Flash is a Spider Man movie
Aquaman is a Thor movie
Wonder Woman is a Captain America movie
and Superman is SHIELD

Superman is the thread that runs through all the movies. He is talked about, seen in television clips, maybe even pop in to lend a hand when needed. But when the time comes, he gathers all of the heroes he has been watching from a distance together to form the Justice League.

 

I don't know, I don't want a ton of origin films before the team up. I like how the DCEU seems to be just having batman show up randomly and hopefully other characters just drop in the other films. Marvel seems to finally be doing that as well, having the hulk drop by Thor 3 for a bit seems so awesome. That's what I love about the comics, it seems like a living/breathing world. I also love that Snyder set up a world were these characters are already active and have their history so no set up.

This will always have me doubting his involvement is a completely good thing lol.

 

Of course it is. How do you think you end up seeing the handful of films you see each year and not the thousands of movies that come out in the same year?

 

lol how do you know how many films I watch?

 

I don't and that is irrelevant.

 

You're totally over-thinking my original comment. My point was that if I was really excited about a particular movie, I wouldn't allow the opinions of others to stop me from seeing it as I would want to watch it for myself so that I could make an informed decision on how good or bad it is. That's all.

 

People have a very limited amount of time and money at their disposal. When a movie gets trashed by a majority of people who watch movies professionally, it seems masochistic to continue on with the movie.

 

I'm probably with Letterbomb where reviews don't sway me at all, I would have missed out on some awesome films let alone all the classics we love today like Blade Runner where ripped apart by critics. I always keep that in mind and go only by trailers, cast and crew involved. I think your point though is that a lot of people (maybe most) are influenced by word of mouth and I think you are right. This is the same society that supports reality shows like Kim K and TMZ type gossip, so it's not a stretch that they buy into all the negative press for a movie and pass it up without having their own opinion.

 

And it's my choice to do what I want to do with my time and money, same as it is for everybody else. I expressed my opinion that the bad reviews will not stop me from seeing this movie, especially since I think the reviews for BvS were ridiculously over-the-top with their negativity. If you like allowing film critics to decide which movies you watch, then that's cool. That's your choice. Personally, I like to make my own mind up.

 

I don't see much of a difference between people who watch superhero movies and people who like TMZ so it is a mixed comparison.

Unless you are fifty years old you cannot use Blade Runner as an example because it is widely cited as one of the greatest films of all time and has been for a while. You can find a few more such examples (The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey) but the thing that is being left out is how criticism has changed over the years. Film criticism was heavily limited to newspapers and magazines at that point in time, and people knew less about movies just by being around at an earlier point in film history. Criticism is much more varied with many more voices now. It is also unhelpful to compare something like Blade Runner, which was directed by a master who had already made a great film, to a corporate product that had the director who wrote such films as SWAT and U-571.

 

But you don't. You are influenced by media and marketing the same way everyone else is. Making your mind up because critics hated it and making your mind up because you liked the marketing material for the movie is both influence.

 

"Producer" is a loose term, though, and Matt Fraction was a creative consultant on Iron Man 2. I suspect Geoff Johns had limited say in that film but expect him to be able to steer the ship better going forward. Plus, even if some of the problems with GL were his fault, 5 years removed, he could have learned from his mistakes and learned better how to translate superheroics to the big screen.

 

I actually appreciate this as well. I hate how a lot of the earlier Marvel movies felt so empty as far as the sense of a bigger world was concerned.

 

There isn't much of a difference, that's why I originally said that lol. I feel like it's most of our society and not just limited to Superhero movies....

My age doesn't matter. It's a fact that critics hated it when it came out. That is relevant because people may love MOS, BvS and SS 20 years from now. I feel like you took what I said, discounted it but also repeated the same points but with different examples. Are you a professional film critic?

 

It was ok. I had fun but I won't even defend it.

I appreciate Ayer's intentions and still rooting for a sequel that actually utilizes everyone eith better fights and storytelling. A shame because I really like the premise and the characters.

 

I will bet my prized possessions that none of these films are held to the standard of Blade Runner.

 

You've moved away from my original point again. You think it's "masochistic" to see a movie that is poorly reviewed, so you clearly value the opinions of film critics much more than I do. My argument was that I will still see this movie regardless of the negative reviews because they don't matter to me and never have. That's literally all I'm saying haha, but you keep changing the parameters of the conversation.

 

I think reviews have their place. If something is in the 20s or 30s on RT I will probably wait for VoD. I don't think I have every thought a movie in that percentile was awesome.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet, but Jared Leto as the Joker was enough to worry about. He's terrible and it sounded like he tried to do a overcharged adolescent version of Ledger's joker.

 

Personally, when a big movie like this is in the 20's/30's, it makes me want to see it and see if it's as bad as they say it is. It usually isn't.

I'm no BVS Fan, but I think it deserves higher than the 27 or so it has on RT.

 

Somewhere between 60 and 70 I think.

 

Id probably settle around 50ish.

 

If a movie is in the 20s or 30s, it doesn't mean it's worse than a movie in the 40s or 50s. Rotten Tomatoes is a binary system, reviewers submit "fresh" or "rotten". Batman V Superman is a bad movie, and most people agree on that, which is why it's at 27 or so. They aren't saying how bad it is, just that it's bad. If you agree it's bad, and had a voice in RT, you'd make its score even worse, even though you think it deserves higher than 27. Metacritic has it at 44, which brings in a little flexibility in just how bad critics are saying it is.

All of it is close to meaningless, though. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't measure quality. It measures agreeability. A Pixar movie or a Marvel movie will usually do really well because usually they're safe, or constructed soundly at a story level. Finding Dory isn't a masterpiece, but it's mostly pretty okay, so it's got a 94. To the Wonder is an exceptional film from a master of the form, but it's ambitious and subtle and not traditionally structured, so it's at like, 44%. It and another masterpiece like, say, Antichrist, are divisive, which is why they're around 50%. So it drives me a little crazy when so much emphasis is placed on Rotten Tomatoes. This isn't to say critics aren't important, but there are so many critics, a lot of them are bad, all their voices count equally on RT. If you want to really get at how a movie works as a film and why, Rotten Tomatoes really doesn't have a place in the discussion.

 

Story was promising but ultimately ended up being wack. There were big moments but they were delivered in the most generic way. The action was OK at best.

I will add spoiler tags just in case you want to find the flaws of the movie yourself

Pros and Cons
+Will Smith, I thought Margot was fine as well considering the dialogue was flat
+the members of the team had so much potential
+main characters in the DC universe being extras is actually pretty funny
-if you ever watched that nickoledeon show The OffBeats there was that gang of bullies who always walked as a unit and only their leader was given speaking parts and the rest just followed her around. Suicide Squad follows the same concept except they delegated the task to two people: Will Smith and Margot Robbie
-cannot stress this enough, but the characters were underutilised, and nothing in their skillset were even used. You could've easily replaced any one of them with another ss member and nobody would even bat an eye.
-so many awkward transitions
-the joker/harley relationship was mixed considering the tone of the movie, it was supposed to be fun. There was a small scene where the Joker tortured Quinzel but then the rest of the movie seems to celebrate the fact that they're a couple and are in love
-joker wasn't bad, but not really a standout character either.

 

@Greg probably. I might be more tolerant of faults than you.