Movies Suicide Squad: The Revenge Of The One Star Review [Archive]

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-03, 04:40 PM

Didn't they also pull the actors back in for a bunch of reshoots after the shellacking that BvS got?

I'm disappointed, really. This was the first DC movie I've been even vaguely interested in since The Dark Knight Rises proved that they'd lost their touch.

Yup. They did (to make the tone of the movie closer to the tone of the trailers, see below) and
Yup. They have "lost their touch" (if you liked the batman movies. I didn't really).

The point with the editors though is that at least 3 out of 4 was put in place by Higher-ups that feared another BvS*, while the director was happy with the movie as it was shot and wanted it to be according to his vision.

*According to inside sources the 20th Century brass were completely caught by surprise by the bad reviews and numbers of BvS and panicked, citing the need of the movie to more closely reflect the tone in the trailers. Hence at least some of the editors they brought in were the ones that created the trailers, who had had nothing to do with the actual movie.

ChillerInstinct

2016-08-03, 04:51 PM

Eh, I've liked movies with worse scores. Hated movies with higher ones as well. Don't know if I'll actually go out and see it (money's a bit tight) but it doesn't LOOK too bad, all things considered.

The fact that so many people are wanting to shut down RT for a movie they haven't even seen yet is pretty laughable though. I mean, it'd be funny even if they had, but it's not even officially out in most theatres yet. Of all the hills to die on, you'd think it'd be one that you've actually laid your eyes on.

And really, let's say a movie has a godawful RT score. So what? Did you like the movie? Then that's all that really matters. Will bad reviews hurt a movie's box office (the one thing that will really affect the odds of future installments)? Sure, except for all the times panned movies have made serious bank.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-03, 04:56 PM

All that is very valid, of course. As I said I mostly feel worried for Wonder Woman, because DC seems to be on a losing streak right now. And the whole mess is fascinating. Train wrecks and all that.

ChillerInstinct

2016-08-03, 05:14 PM

All that is very valid, of course. As I said I mostly feel worried for Wonder Woman, because DC seems to be on a losing streak right now. And the whole mess is fascinating. Train wrecks and all that.

Oh yes, definitely. It's an interesting thing to observe from the outside looking in, with no real vested interest one way or another (I mean, I'm not really a big DC buff, comics or otherwise, but more good movies are never a bad thing no matter where they come from). DC's trying to emulate Marvel's success but they've forgotten that its a marathon, not a sprint. Marvel needed several years of momentum to start pumping out several decent films a year, but they went from having one movie in the last three years to having three in one year, and the results speak for themselves. Warner Bros. is firing buckshot and hoping something will hit the mark. Reshoots are always tricky business, since you're basically trying to sew something into what was a finished product-- factor in how rushed the reshoots were and it's not hard to imagine why critics are claiming it feels "disjointed".

I'm kind of interested to see whether we'll get an "original cut" of the movie at some point, just to see what happened before WB got spooked.

GloatingSwine

2016-08-03, 05:16 PM

The fact that so many people are wanting to shut down RT for a movie they haven't even seen yet is pretty laughable though. I mean, it'd be funny even if they had, but it's not even officially out in most theatres yet. Of all the hills to die on, you'd think it'd be one that you've actually laid your eyes on.

This is the Internet, common sense is beaten to death with rocks if it shows its face around here.

Razade

2016-08-03, 05:20 PM

I'll be seeing it early Thursday. Excited to see how bad it is honestly, going in with absolutely 0 expectations.

DeadpanSal

2016-08-03, 06:46 PM

Well apparently they had four (4) different editors working on it at the same time. No wonder it's deemed "disjointed" by critics.

It's pretty terrible throughout, but the half hour in act 2 where every transition is a star wipe and selfie stickers cover the actors is dynamite.

Cheesegear

2016-08-03, 09:29 PM

Basically though my main question is: If I only care about Harley, is it worth the $10 plus soda and popcorn?

If you care about Harley Quinn, there's already BTAS, and all its spin-offs.
If you're secretly telling us that you want to see Margot Robbie in...That outfit. Well, Wolf of Wall Street already exists, and is a much better film.

It's pretty terrible throughout

Saw it this morning. Can confirm. It's not good. I wouldn't say that it's bad, but it's certainly not good. The 5/10 score on RT is accurate.

Also, Assault on Arkham (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3139086/) exists and is great.

ChillerInstinct

2016-08-03, 10:21 PM

So some details of the production are coming out, and if we thought the production was troubled, we ain't seen nothin' yet. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjHAU_eNvy4)

If the movie does turn out to be as bad as the reviews are claiming, we'll certainly know why.

Legato Endless

2016-08-03, 10:28 PM

The consensus I've gotten from people is the casting is solid, but the plot, whether from editing or scripting, ruins what should be an enjoyable run. Apparently Jai Courtney isn't terrible in this film?

...the only real benefit you're certain to get out of seeing it now is being able to talk about it sooner with those who've seen it.

That's not entirely trivial though, considering Avilan's history. I mean, we all post here...

The fact that so many people are wanting to shut down RT for a movie they haven't even seen yet is pretty laughable though. I mean, it'd be funny even if they had, but it's not even officially out in most theatres yet. Of all the hills to die on, you'd think it'd be one that you've actually laid your eyes on.

Hey now, this is a sacred pastime of the Internet. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HePannedItNowHeSucks)

While I think the conspiracy accusations are laughable, I wonder if meta reviews do exert some influence on critics. Polling is in some ways less accurate in the modern age because some Pollsters see an anomalous result and grimacing at the outlier decide to tweak the results toward the trend line they're seeing elsewhere, slowly exaggerating a slight general inaccuracy into a major one.

The Glyphstone

2016-08-03, 10:44 PM

Razade

2016-08-03, 10:47 PM

If half of the antics Leto supposedly got up to in his method acting are true, he took one glance at the 'too extreme' line and did a flying leap over it. But if that makes his Joker more convincing, power to him.

What makes this worse is I've heard he's only in the movie for a few minutes. So either a lot of his scenes got cut or he got super into character for a minor role which I can only imagine would be frustrating.

ChillerInstinct

2016-08-03, 10:52 PM

Hey now, this is a sacred pastime of the Internet. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HePannedItNowHeSucks)

The best part is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. By trying to shut down the site over negative reviews, it's only DRAWN attention to the fact that its reviews are... not very good. By trying to "protect" Suicide Squad, they've only fanned the fires that could possibly burn it.

I know the internet and common sense don't see each other much anymore, but it's rare to see this much accidental friendly fire.

Kitten Champion

2016-08-03, 11:03 PM

That's not entirely trivial though, considering Avilan's history. I mean, we all post here...

I wasn't trying to be too dismissive of that, but it's the only guaranteed return on investment here. That, regardless of how miserable a time you have in theaters, you can then share your misery with the world for however long you find that enjoyable. Still, you have to accept that misery and the loss of $10+ is a more probable outcome here.

Personally, I'm just too cheap for that.

Anteros

2016-08-03, 11:08 PM

The Glyphstone

2016-08-03, 11:46 PM

I'm a big DC fan, but I can't justify giving them more money for another stinker. After how bad the last few movies were I'm going to trust the reviews and skip it.

Honestly, I never expected it to be good anyway since they announced Will Smith's involvement. When is the last time he made a movie that wasn't awful? Independence Day?

Pursuit of Happyness was good, and Concussion was decent. And, of course, Men in Black - 1997 to ID's 1996, I had the two mixed up at first. For that matter, he was pretty darn good in MIB3, which was also a good movie overall.

Legato Endless

2016-08-03, 11:50 PM

Honestly, I never expected it to be good anyway since they announced Will Smith's involvement. When is the last time he made a movie that wasn't awful? Independence Day?

No love for the first Men in Black?

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-03, 11:58 PM

I am not sure that no studio meddling would have been better, though. It would probably just have become BvS but with DC supervillains so it would have been even Darker and Grimmer (tm).

...So...

On the other hand it seems several reviewers were surprised that well... the members of the 'squad was so well... evil. I must say that DC's badguys tend to be a good 2-3 colors darker of black than Marvel's. Especially of course the Bat universe badguys who basically all are Carnage, mentally. (While in Marvel a villain with Carnage's mentality is the exception, not the norm).
But then again on the other hand: If you have these people with souls like tar pits, is it really a good idea to make a movie out of them?

Honestly, I never expected it to be good anyway since they announced Will Smith's involvement. When is the last time he made a movie that wasn't awful? Independence Day?

Yeah, something like that. Personally he was at his best in Bad Boys. So that was a while ago.

Razade

2016-08-04, 12:02 AM

To add more salt to this wound, there's already a sequel announced.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-04, 12:04 AM

To add more salt to this wound, there's already a sequel announced.

OF course. They're trying to do a MCU in half the time. They have some catching up to do.

Razade

2016-08-04, 12:56 AM

OF course. They're trying to do a MCU in half the time. They have some catching up to do.

They are and I've said elsewhere that DC doesn't have the "it" to pull off a DCU. They don't have the Disney money for one. But they have refused to understand that dark, grim and shaky cam action isn't what people like about Superheroes. Not that every movie in the MCU has been a masterpiece but DC has cranked out dog crap. Nolan is the only thing that saved the Dark Knight series.

Chives

2016-08-04, 02:04 AM

Can't say I'm surprised. The music switch up in their (2nd?) commercial was a pretty bad sign. Now can we please (please!) just copy the script from Justice League Unlimited? I'll play Vigilante!!!

GloatingSwine

2016-08-04, 02:46 AM

They are and I've said elsewhere that DC doesn't have the "it" to pull off a DCU. They don't have the Disney money for one. But they have refused to understand that dark, grim and shaky cam action isn't what people like about Superheroes. Not that every movie in the MCU has been a masterpiece but DC has cranked out dog crap. Nolan is the only thing that saved the Dark Knight series.

Warner Bros. ain't hurting for money. Their obstacle isn't cash, it's ideology. Christopher Nolan made an interesting take on Batman and they thought it was a blueprint for success for all their characters, and it wasn't.

The realisation that this is not successful for them was too late for Suicide Squad, we can only hope that Wonder Woman has time to recover. There are some colours in the trailer, but maybe not as many as you'd want.

DeadpanSal

2016-08-04, 03:50 AM

My solution to the DC Movie Universe - trust me, I'm a writer! - is that the mentality of avoiding humor and light tones (read: emotional range), is poisoning their scripts. Instead of being fun, they aim for mythology and biblical parallels. It ends up being, I think, stuffy and strained. While it may work for Batman to operate in the humorless shadows, each enemy more twisted and grimdarkier, that is not the throughline that should guide a Superman movie. Batman operates on a concept of using the darkness against evil. Superman is light, and fights as hope. That means that the two franchises should be at odds with one other on a moral distinction. Christopher Nolan should not be a template for both, his take on Batman was great. What it needed was a counterpoint, someone that could be the smile to his glare and the joke to his growl.

To go further, for DC to beat Marvel, the solution isn't to do the opposite and call it a business model. That's ridiculous. Instead, they should have a better, and independent modus operandi. When someone says "fun", the contrapositive shouldn't be "serious". It should be something that reexamines how the universes should be viewed in entirely different lights that attract different people.

What's the opposite of Star Wars? It isn't a story on earth with guns made of rock instead of swords made with light and C-Thigh Seacars repairing the Life Planet. It's Star Trek. Instead of being mostly tame, light science fantasy; it's harder science fiction based on philosophy instead of escapism. It's not the opposite extreme, and it's not the inversion. It's something that follows the same broad strokes but with different agendas. It stands on a different selling point and allows for a viewer to like one or the other in different ways. And neither force exclusivity. Star Trek isn't toneless and dull. Star Wars and Star Trek capitalize on different traits and share some too. That should have been the way the DC Movie Universe was approached. With a question of "How can we do this better?" instead of "How do we make a movie no one would laugh at?"

"We hire Jared Leto!"

Lacuna Caster

2016-08-04, 06:19 AM

Warner Bros. ain't hurting for money. Their obstacle isn't cash, it's ideology. Christopher Nolan made an interesting take on Batman and they thought it was a blueprint for success for all their characters, and it wasn't.
I dunno. It's not like BvS had a particularly cogent take on Batman either. The grim sepia tone is something that might or might not resonate with the characters' pre-established histories or particular film-goers' tastes, but it doesn't explain the overall baffling ineptitude when it comes to the basics of character motivation and thematic consistency.

I can't even blame this on executive meddling per se, because there's been plenty of that in the MCU, with noticeable effects on, e.g, Ant-Man and Age of Ultron, but it didn't turn them into out-and-out train-wrecks. I'd say the biggest problems here are (A) the absence of Kevin Feige, and (B) the presence of Zack Snyder. The man can't direct, and their execs don't know how to meddle constructively.

My solution to the DC Movie Universe - trust me, I'm a writer! - is that the mentality of avoiding humor and light tones (read: emotional range), is poisoning their scripts... ...When someone says "fun", the contrapositive shouldn't be "serious". It should be something that reexamines how the universes should be viewed in entirely different lights that attract different people.
I am such a cracked record on this point, but while it's likely that 90% of film-goers would never notice or care, I'd argue that jocular optimism is basically out of place in a universe that contains Gotham City. There's never been a good explanation for how The City of Tomorrow and Cthulhu's Urban Playground can be parked right next to eachother and still be, for narrative purposes, practically different dimensions. Batman is (ostensibly) sullen and borderline-paranoid because that's a rational response to operating in his environment- toss in Superman and his viable responses are either (A), stomp his foot and pout "No, I'm the hero the city needs!" or (B) "Oh, thank God. I can finally stop."

Keltest

2016-08-04, 06:52 AM

I am such a cracked record on this point, but while it's likely that 90% of film-goers would never notice or care, I'd argue that jocular optimism is basically out of place in a universe that contains Gotham City. There's never been a good explanation for how The City of Tomorrow and Cthulhu's Urban Playground can be parked right next to eachother and still be, for narrative purposes, practically different dimensions. Batman is (ostensibly) sullen and borderline-paranoid because that's a rational response to operating in his environment- toss in Superman and his viable responses are either (A), stomp his foot and pout "No, I'm the hero the city needs!" or (B) "Oh, thank God. I can finally stop."

Batman is sullen and paranoid because that is how he, personally, has to operate in a world with people like the Joker, or Bane. He doesn't have any superpowers, so to compensate he has to use every single ability he has to its fullest potential. And also because hes batman.

Were superman to take over in Gotham City full time, he wouldn't necessarily need to be as paranoid or sullen because he isn't in danger of getting killed if, say, he gets pushed off a ledge, or stabbed, or shot or whatever. At worst, he would have to develop a sense for intrigue so he can actually find some of the people, but that's hardly a thing exclusive to gotham crime fighters.

LokeyITP

2016-08-04, 07:02 AM

Lacuna Caster

2016-08-04, 07:11 AM

Were superman to take over in Gotham City full time, he wouldn't necessarily need to be as paranoid or sullen because he isn't in danger of getting killed if, say, he gets pushed off a ledge, or stabbed, or shot or whatever. At worst, he would have to develop a sense for intrigue so he can actually find some of the people, but that's hardly a thing exclusive to gotham crime fighters.
Very true, but in that scenario Gotham basically turns into a suburb of Metropolis, because none of the resident rogues could put up sustained resistance against Big Blue. (Depending on just how developed his super-senses are he wouldn't even need to do much detective work- he could just squint hard enough to see DNA traces in the air or do an X-ray-vision population census. I always find discussions about wiretapping-justifications to be odd in the DCU when Supes literally can't help overhearing an entire planet.) Batman and Superman might get along just fine, but their habitats are basically incompatible.

But... if one ignores all this... I'm actually agreed on the use of humour. What kills taking-it-seriously isn't levity as such but blatant Fourth-Wall violations. You can have any amount of genuine characters saying witty things about their own world, and that shouldn't impact disbelief-suspension a bit.

Chen

2016-08-04, 07:51 AM

Noldo

2016-08-04, 08:50 AM

One thing I find a lot of people don't realize on Rotten Tomatoes, is how their % system works. It's not a rating. It's merely a yay or nay system. I mean look at Batman v Superman. 27% freshness score. Average rating. 4.9/10. Basically if a movie is hovering around 50% in terms of what a standard rating would be, it's going to get a dramatically lower Rotten Tomatoes score. I think the 4.9/10 is pretty indicative of Batman v Superman quality. A very slightly below average movie. Had some entertaining things but had significant flaws. I suppose it's also an issue of people not using the mid part of the rating scale very well. A movie someone dislikes will tend to get significantly below average score, whereas one someone does like tends to get significantly above average. The 4-6 range tends to be underused often enough.

I suppose that people who have strong opinion on movie, on one way or the other, are way more likely to take the effort to rank it. If you think that a movie is kind-a meh, it is not worth the effort to go and rank it.

It would be interesting to see if Rotten Tomatoes would add third category ("meh"?) so that scores from 1 to 4 would be rotten, scored from 6 to 10 would be fresh and the middle ground would be "meh", so that averagely rated movies, as BvS appears to be based on quick glance, would show as meh, highlighting the truly awful pieces (which would remain primarily rotten) and great ones (which would still score fresh).

ChillerInstinct

2016-08-04, 09:19 AM

It would be interesting to see if Rotten Tomatoes would add third category ("meh"?) so that scores from 1 to 4 would be rotten, scored from 6 to 10 would be fresh and the middle ground would be "meh", so that averagely rated movies, as BvS appears to be based on quick glance, would show as meh, highlighting the truly awful pieces (which would remain primarily rotten) and great ones (which would still score fresh).

I have to agree on this one. As little as it matters, seeing as the percentage is right next to it, both Rotten and Fresh feel like they have WAY too wide of margins to be much good for anything (they DO have certified fresh for the creme of the creme, but that's it). Were it up to me, I'd add "meh" and a new level on the rotten side, then set the milestones for each tier at every 20%. (ie. 0-19% would be "compost", 20-39% would be rotten, 40%-60% would be "meh", 61-80% would be fresh, and anything above 80% would be certified-- it'd lower the requirements to be certified but anything above 4/5 people liking it is honestly probably deserving)

Ceiling_Squid

2016-08-04, 10:37 AM

FYI: if you think reshoots or up to the last minute editing is a sign of anything, there's lots for you to learn about movie making (either isn't a sign of problems, they're pretty normal unless something is shelved for a while).

Well, it depends on what prompts them.

I was considerably concerned by Suicide Squad's re-shoots, because the underperformance of a completely different film preceded them quite suddenly, resulting in a trailer that was immediately pulling an emotional-180. I told myself I'd wait for reviews, and now I am glad I did.

I'm far less concerned about the reshoots on, say, Rogue One. Those were supposedly done based on the merits of the film itself, and without much ado made of them.

So yeah, Reshoots aren't an inherently bad thing. The context should really drive how the public recieves the news.

That said, I'm not sure that every single development regarding an upcoming film needs to be a news item, since circumstances isn't always clear to outsiders. I'm sick of my Facebook feed getting cluttered up with pointless fluff pieces about "x hero will probably cameo in the next Marvel film, maybe!", or "unrelated actor gives vague, PR-friendly 'thoughts' on another actor's performance in yet-unreleased DC film", or "Zack Snyder puts foot in mouth again".

The hype train is relentless and nitpicky. And it does have a tendency to put routine stuff like reshoots under a microscope, while not having all the details necessary to determine if they're good or bad in a given context.

DeadpanSal

2016-08-04, 11:07 AM

I have to agree on this one. As little as it matters, seeing as the percentage is right next to it, both Rotten and Fresh feel like they have WAY too wide of margins to be much good for anything (they DO have certified fresh for the creme of the creme, but that's it). Were it up to me, I'd add "meh" and a new level on the rotten side, then set the milestones for each tier at every 20%. (ie. 0-19% would be "compost", 20-39% would be rotten, 40%-60% would be "meh", 61-80% would be fresh, and anything above 80% would be certified-- it'd lower the requirements to be certified but anything above 4/5 people liking it is honestly probably deserving)

That's not how tomatoes work. A tomato is only suitable for consumption or not.

But maybe there's a scale of how rotten it is from:

Super Fresh - Post it on Instagram
As Good As Can Be Expected - Eat It
Rotten, And Thus Unsuitable To Eat - Toss It
Disgusting And Offensive And Moldy - Throw At Your Best Friend
Oh My God It's Coming This Way - Someone Play Puberty Love!

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-04, 12:02 PM

Lethologica

2016-08-04, 12:41 PM

Why would you make the tomatometer into the RT audience score? RT already has an audience score, and y'all know that, because you're using the discrepancy between them as an argument.

Knowing what fraction of people ultimately liked the movie is a valuable statistic alongside the average rating. Measuring different things doesn't make one valid and the other invalid, it makes them useful in different ways. For example, for BvS, it suggests a hardcore base that loved the movie and a mass of people who thought the movie was okay but unenjoyable.

Having a binary freshness rating also helps avoid 7/10 syndrome. More precision doesn't always mean more accuracy.

Zmeoaice

2016-08-04, 01:03 PM

The DCCU never fails to disappoint.

I can only hope that all future projects of the DCCU are canceled and they can focus on what they're good at: CW shows and Lego Batman.

Anteros

2016-08-04, 01:12 PM

DC has, for the last 10 years, thought that everything needs to be Batman. Everything. Let's hope they don't Batman WW or JLA.

I know this is a common complaint, and I know you don't like Batman, but it's not really accurate.

The real problem is that Snyder doesn't understand any of the characters he's working with. It's not that he's trying to turn everything into Batman. He doesn't even get Batman right.

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-04, 02:16 PM

I am such a cracked record on this point, but while it's likely that 90% of film-goers would never notice or care, I'd argue that jocular optimism is basically out of place in a universe that contains Gotham City. There's never been a good explanation for how The City of Tomorrow and Cthulhu's Urban Playground can be parked right next to eachother and still be, for narrative purposes, practically different dimensions. Batman is (ostensibly) sullen and borderline-paranoid because that's a rational response to operating in his environment- toss in Superman and his viable responses are either (A), stomp his foot and pout "No, I'm the hero the city needs!" or (B) "Oh, thank God. I can finally stop."

It's not just Gotham, but also places like The Question's Hub City, a place canonically so bad it makes Gotham look pleasant.

What's really irritating is that Gotham and Metropolis are both originally New York City. It's just that one is the city you get from reading the crime reports, and the other is the one the Board of Tourism tries to sell.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-04, 03:47 PM

I know this is a common complaint, and I know you don't like Batman, but it's not really accurate.

The real problem is that Snyder doesn't understand any of the characters he's working with. It's not that he's trying to turn everything into Batman. He doesn't even get Batman right.

True.
But let's put it this way: DC (not Snyder) thinks everything needs to be Nolan!Bats. Or did, at least, until the failure of BvS. Then they tried to turn it around and failed.

The Glyphstone

2016-08-04, 03:52 PM

Gotham always came across to me as New York geographically, but something a lot closer to grimdark Detroit in terms of tone and ambience.

DeadpanSal

2016-08-04, 04:17 PM

True.
But let's put it this way: DC (not Snyder) thinks everything needs to be Nolan!Bats. Or did, at least, until the failure of BvS. Then they tried to turn it around and failed.

I hear they scrambled to make Suicide Squad more fun in a last minute rush. It's like finishing construction of tower and then being like "Hey, uh...is it too late for me to make my place out of brick like my brother did?"

druid91

2016-08-04, 04:18 PM

Why not simply wait for it to come on video? I mean, even if you find yourself agreeing with the critics at least you can turn it off or skip through scenes to get to the material you're interested in. Unless you pre-ordered tickets, or have a passionate commitment to either big screen 3D cinema or the immediate profit of the studio producing it, the only real benefit you're certain to get out of seeing it now is being able to talk about it sooner with those who've seen it.

Alternatively, buying it on video costs 20-30 dollars.

Buying a movie ticket is 8.

Zmeoaice

2016-08-04, 04:24 PM

Alternatively, buying it on video costs 20-30 dollars.

Buying a movie ticket is 8.

We can wait until we can check it out at the library and watch it for free.

Kitten Champion

2016-08-04, 04:41 PM

We can wait until we can check it out at the library and watch it for free.

Same. Plus Netflix will have this soon enough, and just renting. I assume renting is still a thing.

Oh, and a theater ticket is $11-12.50 here.

LibraryOgre

2016-08-04, 04:50 PM

We can wait until we can check it out at the library and watch it for free.

Hell, one of my library jobs is to take a list of what's coming out, compare it to the catalog, and send out an e-mail to everyone with links so they CAN check it out.

cobaltstarfire

2016-08-04, 04:58 PM

Alternatively, buying it on video costs 20-30 dollars.

Buying a movie ticket is 8.

Is that at a second run movie theater?

I suppose if you can go during a matinee...assuming you don't have things like work...but other than that you're not even getting a small child into a theater for only 8 dollars, and you certainly won't be getting anyone in even during a matinee for under 8 if you want a drink or snacks.

Tvtyrant

2016-08-04, 05:15 PM

Gotham always came across to me as New York geographically, but something a lot closer to grimdark Detroit in terms of tone and ambience.

This is basically all because comic books have been stuck in the 1980s since then. Gotham was just a regular city in the old Batman comics, and then was a regular city with a cast of crazy people. The disappearance of the RL Mafia as a major power and the increased paranoia about street gangs invented the Gotham of the 1980s, and no one has discovered an appropriate new tone for the setting since.

JoshL

2016-08-04, 05:53 PM

Is that at a second run movie theater?

I suppose if you can go during a matinee...assuming you don't have things like work...but other than that you're not even getting a small child into a theater for only 8 dollars, and you certainly won't be getting anyone in even during a matinee for under 8 if you want a drink or snacks.

My tactic has been days I'm not working...Saturday or Sunday, first show of the day, matinee price and usually pretty empty theater. $6. That said, it does negate sleeping in on a weekend, which is always a bummer.

On topic, I love lots of poorly reviewed and/or poorly received movies, so bad ratings I rarely care about. But the trailers didn't really grab me, as much as I'd like to see Harley on screen, at the end of the day I just don't really like DC other than Bats (well, Vertigo, but that doesn't really count), so I'd see this on Netflix anyway. That said, the one I strangely am looking forward to is Aquaman. Don't care about the character, but love Jason Momoa and director James Wan. Not expecting high art, but it should be fun!

Rodin

2016-08-04, 06:23 PM

Is that at a second run movie theater?

I suppose if you can go during a matinee...assuming you don't have things like work...but other than that you're not even getting a small child into a theater for only 8 dollars, and you certainly won't be getting anyone in even during a matinee for under 8 if you want a drink or snacks.

Matinee during the week (I work weekends) for me is $5.50. Would cost more if I bought concessions, but I think anyone who does that is crazy personally. I generally try to snag a movie between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, which allows me to park a fair distance away and walk into the shopping district and grab lunch first, then hit the theater afterwards so I don't need snacks. Food quality is better and I get to have a nice walk while I'm at it. Of course, doing so right now is right out, what with the whole "98 degrees and 200% humidity" thing.

Anteros

2016-08-04, 06:38 PM

Gotham always came across to me as New York geographically, but something a lot closer to grimdark Detroit in terms of tone and ambience.

Just think of it as Metropolis being New York and Gotham being New Jersey.

Fawkes

2016-08-04, 06:51 PM

Same. Plus Netflix will have this soon enough, and just renting. I assume renting is still a thing.

I rent movies digitally from Amazon on occasion. About $4 for a 2-day window, but I've never rented something I wasn't sitting down to watch right then.

Cheesegear

2016-08-04, 08:13 PM

Just think of it as Metropolis being New York

Culturally, Metropolis is Manhattan, Gotham is Long Island.
Locationally, Metropolis is around Kansas/Illinois. Clark has to be able to get to Metropolis from Smallville (in Kansas) and back on a fairly regular basis. Metropolis is basically where Chicago is, with Central City (Flash's hometown) and Keystone City (other Flash) is where Kansas City basically is. Star City (Green Arrow) is...Everywhere.

Current guesses also say that Metropolis and Gotham are somewhere in Delaware.

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-04, 08:41 PM

I've often seen Gotham also identified with Philadelphia, despite it being named for NYC.

Dienekes

2016-08-04, 09:36 PM

More than a few writers have based Gotham on Chicago. Frank Miller famously said Metropolis is New York in the day while Gotham is New York at night.

Location, they're mostly just wherever the writers say. I think Gotham has been placed somewhere in New Jersey pseudo-officially. Metropolis was somewhere in the east. Supes just travels to Smallville because he is so fast and whatnot. It's also been placed in New York, the state.

Anteros

2016-08-04, 09:48 PM

Culturally, Metropolis is Manhattan, Gotham is Long Island.
Locationally, Metropolis is around Kansas/Illinois. Clark has to be able to get to Metropolis from Smallville (in Kansas) and back on a fairly regular basis. Metropolis is basically where Chicago is, with Central City (Flash's hometown) and Keystone City (other Flash) is where Kansas City basically is. Star City (Green Arrow) is...Everywhere.

Current guesses also say that Metropolis and Gotham are somewhere in Delaware.

He moves faster than light. Smallville could be on the moon and it wouldn't matter.

Arcane_Secrets

2016-08-04, 10:34 PM

I'm a big DC fan, but I can't justify giving them more money for another stinker. After how bad the last few movies were I'm going to trust the reviews and skip it.

Honestly, I never expected it to be good anyway since they announced Will Smith's involvement. When is the last time he made a movie that wasn't awful? Independence Day?

I really liked Concussion.

Why does Zack Snyder keep getting to make superhero movies? I literally couldn't wade through Man of Steel.

Palanan

2016-08-04, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Arcane_Secrets
Why does Zack Snyder keep getting to make superhero movies? I literally couldn't wade through Man of Steel.

This. I've tried to watch Man of Steel four different times, and each time I quit from boredom and/or appalled disbelief at the terrible acting and laughable dialogue. The actor playing Zog (or whoever) gives a bad name to "cartoonishly bad," and the situation leading to his final moments was absurdly contrived.

That helped convince me to skip BvS, and it sounds like Suicide Squad is another one to avoid. Harley's cute and all, but no.

Originally Posted by druid91
Buying a movie ticket is 8.

Matinee is about $6.00 for me, plus all the hassles movie theaters come with these days. (Painfully loud sound and 40 thousand previews among them.)

Or, I can rent the HD version from Verizon FIOS at the same price, and watch it at home with all the food and feline company I like, plus the option to watch it again the next night. That makes it $3.00 a viewing, and less if there are other family members around.

Originally Posted by Rodin
Of course, [walking] right now is right out, what with the whole "98 degrees and 200% humidity" thing.

This is my happy space. :smalltongue:

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-04, 11:53 PM

As far as I understand it, one of the reasons many people prefer Marvel (apart from the fact that most Marvel comics are basically (or were, at least) soap operas for boys (tm) instead of Legendary Stories told about Legendary People) is that it is based in the real world. New York is New York etc.

DC has replaced all major citied with their own. Gotham is indeed New York, even if it's may not be exactly where New York is on the map. Metropolis is somewhere in the middle of the US and Gateway City has replaced Los Angeles. Those are just the ones I know of on the of my head.

Now this still doesn't explain why Gotham is such a Hive Of Scum and Villainy (to the point where the whole thing is almost ridiculous, really. At least some versions have a Hellmouth residing under Arkham Asylum that would explain a lot...). It's true, as mentioned above, that before the disappearance of the Mob as a major factor in crime Gotham was closer to Chicago than New York though.

DeadpanSal

2016-08-05, 12:31 AM

Wait, is that canon? Has someone used the term hellmouth in the DC Universe before?

Razade

2016-08-05, 01:48 AM

So just got back from seeing it.

I'll do a quick pro/con list because...man...

Pros

Margot Robbie did a fine job as Harley Quinn. Nothing great about it, nothing terrible about it. She was quirky and crazy and what you'd expect.

Will Smith was fine as Deadshot, he got he most one liners and general screen time.

Viola Davis WAS Amanda Waller. Couldn't have got a better woman for her and she played her part well for how ever long she was on screen. Which wasn't long.

Jared Leto as the Joker wasn't around much. Yeah, it's a pro.

Fight scenes were alright up until the final battle. A bit of the old shakey cam going at times but the action was well paced and that's all you could ask for. Again, that is until the final battle.

Cons

Jared Leto as the Joker was the worst thing I've seen in the cinema and I've watched Manos: Hands of Fate. He was just...obnoxiously bad. He acted more like a meth head than the Joker. He tried to copy Heath Ledger's cadence and rhythm and holy hell could he not pull it off. People say there's never been a bad Joker, well this Joker is a bad Joker.

The main villains have literally no stated motivation other than "kill all humans", they have almost no screen time and they have 0 characterization. They're dull, just utterly terrible in every way a shlock standard super hero movie villain could possibly be. I can't even begin to express my utter boredom with them and at no time did they feel like they were a threat.

The story moves quick, none of the other Suicide Squad members get anything resembling characterization save for Diablo and he dies to save the team just as you knew he would. Every member is "insert one trick storyline element here" and that's how they are the whole movie. The whole thing could just been called Deadshot and no one would have argued otherwise. Katana might as well not be there. Captain Boomerang might as well not have been there. Killer Croc might as well have not been there. They get maybe twenty lines between them and none of them are stellar.

We heard a lot about reshoots for this movie to add some levity. Well I'm sorry to report that if those rumors were true then they failed miserably. There's no real humor in the movie, there isn't much time for it between the dozen and a half flashbacks and quick paced action. There's a few ok lines at the end of the movie, crammed in after the final battle is done but other than that? Not a one. And none of them were particularly well set up.

The final fight. Holy. God. DC's "shoot everything in sepia and blue" continues in this movie but then they add sheets of rain to the mix which makes the whole last fight incomprehensible. It's also over in about five seconds and features a teleporting enemy who is the same shade of gray everything else is so it's impossible to follow the action in any way, shape or form.

The only character who stays dead is Diablo. I'd have respected a movie about the villains more if they'd kept the Joker dead (they do not) and the host of the Enchantress (which they do not).

The movie ends with a bit of a cliffhanger. I didn't stick around to see if there was an after-credits scene but that was mostly because I was stuck between two of the most racist groups of people who wouldn't shut up through out the whole movie and I just wanted to leave. They probably effected how much I liked the movie, and I mean they made me think more positively about it because it was better than anything going on with them. So if that tells you anything, avoid the movie. It's crap.

Kitten Champion

2016-08-05, 02:19 AM

So just got back from seeing it.

I'm curious, do any of the songs they play in the various advertisements/trailers actually run in the movie? Or was that the exclusive to the confines of WB's marketing department.

Cheesegear

2016-08-05, 02:31 AM

He moves faster than light. Smallville could be on the moon and it wouldn't matter.

The series, Smallville made canon. Metropolis 'isn't far' from Smallville, because people drive to and from each place fairly regularly and don't seem to mind too much when they have to drop things in Smallville to head to Metropolis, and vice versa. There are more people than Clark on the show, and they have to drive. Clark also drives, when he's with people.

Smallville is officially in Kansas...Somewhere. Clark's identity is tied up in being from Kansas. So, yeah. Metropolis is basically where Chicago is. Although it may look a whole lot like New York (specifically, Manhattan). Although, Metropolis was originally based off of Toronto. Go figure.

Razade

2016-08-05, 02:38 AM

I'm curious, do any of the songs they play in the various advertisements/trailers actually run in the movie? Or was that the exclusive to the confines of WB's marketing department.

I never saw any of the trailers so I couldn't say. The soundtrack was good honestly. Can't remember all the songs but House of the Rising Sun played, some CCR was in it. Some old school Eminem. Heathens by Twenty One Pilots played at the end, it's not a bad song but not the best song either. So if any of those played in the trailers...yes?

Professor Gnoll

2016-08-05, 02:48 AM

Gah. There was so much bad in this movie.

I wanted to like it. I really did. But gah. Gah.

Razade

2016-08-05, 03:00 AM

I honestly think it was worse than Dawn of Justice.

Anteros

2016-08-05, 05:05 AM

The series, Smallville made canon. Metropolis 'isn't far' from Smallville, because people drive to and from each place fairly regularly and don't seem to mind too much when they have to drop things in Smallville to head to Metropolis, and vice versa. There are more people than Clark on the show, and they have to drive. Clark also drives, when he's with people.

Smallville is officially in Kansas...Somewhere. Clark's identity is tied up in being from Kansas. So, yeah. Metropolis is basically where Chicago is. Although it may look a whole lot like New York (specifically, Manhattan). Although, Metropolis was originally based off of Toronto. Go figure.

I don't think Smallville is considered canon at all though...

Kitten Champion

2016-08-05, 05:53 AM

I never saw any of the trailers so I couldn't say. The soundtrack was good honestly. Can't remember all the songs but House of the Rising Sun played, some CCR was in it. Some old school Eminem. Heathens by Twenty One Pilots played at the end, it's not a bad song but not the best song either. So if any of those played in the trailers...yes?

Heathens was in the final trailer, apparently. Bohemian Rhapsody and Ballroom Blitz were featured in the one's which eventually spurred the fan reaction towards (what I perceived as, at least) general positivity after a pretty run-of-the-mill initial offering. I'd imagine you'd mention them if they were in it, probably in the later end credits.

Not terribly important, I was just suspicious of it because of how much the music was integrated into their marketing and likely will factor into their opening weekend box-office take. Though, at the very least, if I watch this movie at some point in the future, I can probably enjoy the OST. That can be enough to get me through more tedious movie-watching experiences.

Cheesegear

2016-08-05, 06:02 AM

I don't think Smallville is considered canon at all though...

Not even what I meant. What I meant was, elements of the TV show were successful, and were made canon at some point.
BTAS isn't canon, but now we have Harley Quinn, see how that works?

In Man of Steel, they fought in Smallville and Metropolis because they're right next to each other.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-05, 08:26 AM

so I had to decide to see it or not tonight, and you guys almost talked me out of it...then I saw this review

https://youtu.be/BuiLDbyetsk

I think I will go make my own mind up

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-05, 08:33 AM

The series, Smallville made canon. Metropolis 'isn't far' from Smallville, because people drive to and from each place fairly regularly and don't seem to mind too much when they have to drop things in Smallville to head to Metropolis, and vice versa. There are more people than Clark on the show, and they have to drive. Clark also drives, when he's with people.

Smallville is officially in Kansas...Somewhere. Clark's identity is tied up in being from Kansas. So, yeah. Metropolis is basically where Chicago is. Although it may look a whole lot like New York (specifically, Manhattan). Although, Metropolis was originally based off of Toronto. Go figure.

nope smallville canon in no way equals any other canon...

Metropolis is an east coast city that depending on the era was New York, Boston, or some mythic up state New York City

Ramza00

2016-08-05, 08:45 AM

BTAS isn't canon, but now we have Harley Quinn, see how that works?

BTAS is its own continuity, it is canon but not part of the main continuity when it was out in the 1990s nor in the new 52.

That said dozens of things from BTAS were eventually entered into the mainstream comic contunity including stuff from the new 52.

For example this character

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dcanimated/images/2/25/ReneeMontoya.png/revision/latest?cb=20090831212846

is known as Renee Montoya she was introduced in batman the animated series as Harvey Bullock's partner. Now I am going to put this next info into the spoiler blocks but it is not really new info (if I recall the info is 2007 or earlier so we are talking a decade old info)

Renee Montoya eventually becomes the female question. She is revealed to be a lesbian via two face, and she did date the real world identity of Batwoman even though she did not know Kate Kane was Batwoman

Here is Renee and Kate in the 2016 clip from Batman Bad Blood direct to dvd movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaWMaXDPK6w

Another example of changes BTAS did was they retcon Mr. Freeze's origin story to be effectively the same as the TAS version of Batman. The Heart of Ice / Mr. Freeze episode kinda made Batman TAS a little more famous for this 1st season episode won an emmy for Outstanding Writing in an Animated Program and this made people took TAS more seriously. Remember the 1st season of TAS was for several months aired both during weekday afternoon but also on Fox during sunday primetime aka adult viewing time where it was competing against CBS's 60 minutes.

I can list numerous more, but the 3 big things (Harvey, Renee Montoya, and Mr Freeze) were some of the most easily identifiable changes of how TAS influenced mainstream batman comic lore.

Cheesegear

2016-08-05, 09:30 AM

Metropolis is an east coast city that depending on the era was New York, Boston, or some mythic up state New York City

Except it's not. Metropolis' location was changed as a direct result of Smallville being a thing that exists.
Harley Quinn exists because of BTAS. She wasn't canon, now she is.

Metropolis was on the east coast, now it's in Illinois/Kansas. Because of Smallville. Its location was changed because it made more sense to change it. Besides, I'm pretty sure Chicago is a major city/hub/port/airport/everything (at least, Dresden Files told me it is), would it really not make sense if Metropolis was where Chicago is? :smallconfused:

DiscipleofBob

2016-08-05, 09:39 AM

Except it's not. Metropolis' location was changed as a direct result of Smallville being a thing that exists.
Harley Quinn exists because of BTAS. She wasn't canon, now she is.

Metropolis was on the east coast, now it's in Illinois/Kansas. Because of Smallville. Its location was changed because it made more sense to change it.

That's only in the Smallville universe based off the TV series. Metropolis is still in New York state. It kind of needs to be to have those docks and islands just off-shore. That doesn't really work in Kansas.

EDIT: Link (http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Metropolis) that provides all pertinent info on Metropolis and officially sets it in New York in the canon comic-verses (Earth-One, Earth-Two, Prime Earth, etc.)

Remember, every other piece of DC media, movies, TV shows, cartoons, video games, elseworlds, "unofficial" comics, are each their own separate universe unless specified otherwise. Though there's obviously a lot of influence that they have on the main canon, like Harley Quinn.

Kitten Champion

2016-08-05, 09:42 AM

In the Avengers/Justice League crossover, Superman and company travel to the vague American mid-west area where Metropolis was supposed to be in the DCU only to find it's just sprawling farmland in the Marvel Universe. That's why I assumed it was supposed to be in the Kansas-ish area.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-05, 09:46 AM

Except it's not. Metropolis' location was changed as a direct result of Smallville being a thing that exists.
Harley Quinn exists because of BTAS. She wasn't canon, now she is.

Metropolis was on the east coast, now it's in Illinois/Kansas. Because of Smallville. Its location was changed because it made more sense to change it. Besides, I'm pretty sure Chicago is a major city/hub/port/airport/everything (at least, Dresden Files told me it is), would it really not make sense if Metropolis was where Chicago is? :smallconfused:

I seem to recall that in the old black and white* superman and superboy comics it definitely was in the Midwest somewhere. endless fields around it, no forests, no coast. Of course since Gotham transformed from Chicago to New York, I guess Metropolis at some point moved from there to Boston?

In the Avengers/Justice League crossover, Superman and company travel to the vague American mid-west area where Metropolis was supposed to be in the DCU only to find it's just sprawling farmland in the Marvel Universe. That's why I assumed it was supposed to be in the Kansas-ish area.

Edit: Yep I remember that.

*They were printed b&w in Sweden, translated. I know 1960's Superboy was in color in the US.

BiblioRook

2016-08-05, 10:45 AM

Based on the reviews I'm disappointed, I actually kinda wanted this movie to be good. I'm not even a DC fan, far from it, but the trailers actually got me interested. I guess my expectation was that if DC could do well with a goofy and fun movie then they would reconsider trying to go all grimdark and serious all the time.

Again, not really much of a DC fan so I'm kinda not at all invested in this but something just clicked for me. Suicide Squad is still part of the DCEU, so that means Jared Leto is the DCEU Joker. Huh. Makes me wonder just how much they expect to make use of him in the future.

Cristo Meyers

2016-08-05, 10:53 AM

Based on the reviews I'm disappointed, I actually kinda wanted this movie to be good.

Me too, if only so it could have expunged the last remnants of the godawful Jason Bourne from my mind.

But even a $4.50 matinee is too much for this experiment.

Janus

2016-08-05, 12:20 PM

I actually enjoyed the movie, but I'm also one of those crazies that likes MoS and BvS in spite of their flaws, and I'm generally more into DC characters than Marvel.

It's an entertaining popcorn flick more than anything. And I have to disagree with the assertion that it had no humor. It had plenty, it's just that most of it was dry and sarcastic, something I enjoy.

I really didn't like Joker, though. Everything about him just felt off, and he talked like his mouth was full of cotton balls or something. I liked the laugh he let out when he and Harley were in acid together. I also appreciated him making his henchmen dress up.
And I geeked out when they recreated Alex Ross's painting of Harley and Joker: http://media.comicbook.com/uploads1/2015/07/4d55a579071020b93ef6a09f94f87a39-142283.jpg[/quote]

I'm not sure anyone will ever replace Jack Nicholson as my favorite live action Joker.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-05, 12:32 PM

Winter_Wolf

2016-08-05, 02:25 PM

Based on the rampant dislike I'm reading about this movie, it almost feels like I'm being dared to go watch it. Which is cool, I'd rather be disappointed by this movie than just not see it. Eventually, anyway. It's a matter of logistics: a babysitter and actually getting my wife to go out to a movie in a theater is no mean feat these days.

Tangentially related, Mark Hamill made a guest appearance on Criminal Minds a while back (years by now), and I think he must have drawn a lot on his work as Joker to inform his role. I enjoyed it, so it's not a complaint, just an observation.

ChillerInstinct

2016-08-05, 06:26 PM

Kislath

2016-08-05, 06:31 PM

I honesty don't see why you guys are complaining so much.

This movie is NOT bad.

It's dark. Okay, there's that. Most of the action takes place at night and some in the rain, so yeah, okay, visually it's not a treat.

There isn't a lot of humor. There's maybe a dozen jokes in the whole movie, but most of them are pretty good. I laughed plenty.

The plot was a bit goofy, but it worked. You hear me? IT WORKED!!

The Joker was... ok, you got me on this one. This Joker was not very good. He wasn't altogether terrible, either. This isn't the manic zany Joker we know and love, but the depressed and bummed out one who clings to lucidity as best he can in the cause of rescuing his girlfriend. The teeth are weird, but considering how many times Batman has knocked them out, I guess it makes sense. The tattoos were a bit much, though. I can't see any tattoo artists living long enough to put all of that ink on him.
HOWEVER--- it's not a Joker movie, is it? NO! He's just a guy in the background who doesn't matter much to this story.

Killer Croc was great.
Boomerang was, well, not much like we know him from the comics, but he was fun.
Deadshot was great.
Harley was great. I DO wish that she had done the proper voice, but whaddya gonna do?
Amanda Waller was PERFECT.
Diablo was cool, too.
The villains were..odd.

I don't really know what you guys WANTED in this movie.
It had tons of action.
It had fast pacing.
It had fun characters.
It had a decent storyline.
It was funny in places.
The SOUNDTRACK was even fantastic. Someone asked if all of the music from the trailers was actually in the movie, and the answer is YES, plus a whole lot more.

So why did so many of you not like it? What was not to love? What more did you expect or want?

EDIT: Okay, I thought about it, and if I have one complaint, it was that the villain was a bit lame. Well, not lame, really. Extremely powerful and dangerous, actually. The problem is that the villain doesn't FEEL like a villain. The sense of urgent threat is lacking. There is no overarching menace. Heck, we hardly even know what the evil plot even IS until almost the end. They should have spent a bit more time on fleshing that out, I think.

Winter_Wolf

2016-08-05, 06:55 PM

Some good news and bad news for Suicide Squad. Good news: it's setting release records, trouncing Guardians of Galaxy for biggest opening night in August (to such a big degree that it'll likely beat them out for best August opening weekend).

Bad news? Leto's going OFF about how many of his scenes were cut, and Suicide Squad is most likely not getting a China release which will probably shave $75-90M off their total box office proceeds if BvS was any indication.

If Leto is as cheesed as he's making it out to be, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come back, which would be quite a bad bounce for the DCCU.

Let's be honest, for the amount of work he put into getting into the character's head, he's not wrong to be angry that most of his scenes were cut. I'm hopeful of a director's cut that includes the scenes. But then, I'm interested in seeing this movie because I want to see Joker, limited as his role may be.

Also, regardless of how bad people think it is, I've walked out on exactly one movie, and wanted to walk out of two others but refrained only because my rides weren't leaving. That's a fraction of one percent of all the movies watched over my life. The bar for awfulness is pretty high (low?) and even if I end up disappointed there's probably enough entertainment for me to feel like I got my money's worth. I made it through Bat Nipples, im sure I can make it through this. A dollar doesn't go that far these days, anyway.

Dienekes

2016-08-05, 07:28 PM

Some good news and bad news for Suicide Squad. Good news: it's setting release records, trouncing Guardians of Galaxy for biggest opening night in August (to such a big degree that it'll likely beat them out for best August opening weekend).

Bad news? Leto's going OFF about how many of his scenes were cut, and Suicide Squad is most likely not getting a China release which will probably shave $75-90M off their total box office proceeds if BvS was any indication.

If Leto is as cheesed as he's making it out to be, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't come back, which would be quite a bad bounce for the DCCU.

Oh no. The least interesting live action Joker I've ever seen might not come back. Whatever shall I do?

Anyway saw it. It's overwhelmingly mediocre. It wasn't Green Lantern bad. Hell I might rate it higher than some of those boring as hell Thor movies. But it isn't good. WB needed to knock it out of the park and instead got on first base.

The action was there, it wasn't exactly well choreographed. The jokes were ok, but it wasn't really trying to be funny like the trailers promoted. It seemed more like a Deadshot movie rather than an ensemble flick (which is a little saddening because honestly, despite his popularity I don't particularly care about Deadshot). The villain was dull and cliched.

Razade

2016-08-05, 09:39 PM

I honesty don't see why you guys are complaining so much.

Let me help you out then.

It's dark. Okay, there's that. Most of the action takes place at night and some in the rain, so yeah, okay, visually it's not a treat.

An action movie. That's hard to follow. Because of poor lighting, blue filter and driving rain. That's bad.

There isn't a lot of humor. There's maybe a dozen jokes in the whole movie, but most of them are pretty good. I laughed plenty.

Except the trailers, or so I hear, claimed it have more dark humor. It was touted to being reshot to add more humor. That's a problem.

The plot was a bit goofy, but it worked. You hear me? IT WORKED!!

It worked because we've seen it a thousand times. It was a boring, samey plot that brought nothing new to the genre. That's a huge problem.

The Joker was... ok, you got me on this one. This Joker was not very good. He wasn't altogether terrible, either. This isn't the manic zany Joker we know and love, but the depressed and bummed out one who clings to lucidity as best he can in the cause of rescuing his girlfriend. The teeth are weird, but considering how many times Batman has knocked them out, I guess it makes sense. The tattoos were a bit much, though. I can't see any tattoo artists living long enough to put all of that ink on him.
HOWEVER--- it's not a Joker movie, is it? NO! He's just a guy in the background who doesn't matter much to this story.

He actively took away from the film. He was a pointless part, his acting was awful. He was a detriment to the entire film.

Killer Croc was great.

Three lines. Barely any action given to him.

Boomerang was, well, not much like we know him from the comics, but he was fun.

Five lines. Really didn't do much Boomeranging. He was forgettable, he and Croc could have been any other villain and it wouldn't have mattered.

Deadshot was great.
Harley was great. I DO wish that she had done the proper voice, but whaddya gonna do?
Amanda Waller was PERFECT.

We agree.

Diablo was cool, too.

He was the next best person after the above.

The villains were..odd.

They were boring. They had the most flimsy of pretenses to be villains. It was another "kill all humans" plot. They weren't odd. They were barely in the film, they barely took anything to beat, they were just...so subpar.

I don't really know what you guys WANTED in this movie.

Something dark. Something brimming with dark, gallows humor. A movie that wasn't a standard "save the city". Give me terrorists, give me infiltartion and hitting targets. Give me something that feels different than every other super hero movie. Because this isn't a super hero movie. It's a super villain as "the good guys" movie. Make it rated R so we can get sex, violence and rock and roll. Give me god damned Deadpool again with a more serious tone. Anything than what we got. ANYTHING THAN WHAT WE GOT.

It had tons of action.

That was hard to see. Especially the final fight.

It had fast pacing.

With nothing going on. Could be fast all it wanted but if the film doesn't gel or offer anything it doesn't matter.

It had fun characters.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....that they did nothing with. No character growth. No character investment. A big meh even for the actors who did well.

It had a decent storyline.

No it didn't. It didn't.

It was funny in places.

Your personal opinion. Humor is subjective. I felt almost all the jokes fell really flat. No one in a packed theater I was in laughed once.

The SOUNDTRACK was even fantastic. Someone asked if all of the music from the trailers was actually in the movie, and the answer is YES, plus a whole lot more.

Also personal opinion. I've already said I liked the music in the film though.

So why did so many of you not like it? What was not to love? What more did you expect or want?

EDIT: Okay, I thought about it, and if I have one complaint, it was that the villain was a bit lame. Well, not lame, really. Extremely powerful and dangerous, actually. The problem is that the villain doesn't FEEL like a villain. The sense of urgent threat is lacking. There is no overarching menace. Heck, we hardly even know what the evil plot even IS until almost the end. They should have spent a bit more time on fleshing that out, I think.

At no point do we feel a threat from the villains. We're told their dangerous. We're never shown their dangerous. The big guy gets taken down more or less with ease. *Spoilers*Diablo dying really felt like a throw away and phoned in for cheap sympathy*End Spoilers*. They're given next to no screen time so we don't really know why they're doing what they're doing other than "we used to be Gods". That makes them bad villains.

Answer any of your questions?

Starbuck_II

2016-08-05, 10:48 PM

Going to see the movie tomorrow, how does this movie compare to the cartoon Suicide Squad movie (it was Assault on Arkham or something)?

They used King Shark instead of Killer Croc, which was weird, because King Shark can't die and why would he therefore be afraid little bomb in him. But he wasn't a genius so maybe he wasn't sure if his regeneration would be good enough this time.

Razade

2016-08-05, 10:54 PM

Chives

2016-08-06, 03:27 AM

As for the Gotham - Metropolis location, didn't they show a map of all the cities in Brave and the Bold? Aquaman was stuck on vacation or something...

Cheesegear

2016-08-06, 07:11 AM

It's dark. Okay, there's that. Most of the action takes place at night and some in the rain, so yeah, okay, visually it's not a treat.

In the dark, in the rain is one of my pet hates (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21030940&postcount=3), and instantly turns me off almost any action sequence.

There isn't a lot of humor. There's maybe a dozen jokes in the whole movie, but most of them are pretty good. I laughed plenty.

I'll echo what was said before, my theater was packed, only a few people laughed, only a few times.

The plot was a bit goofy, but it worked. You hear me? IT WORKED!!

Nope.

HOWEVER--- it's not a Joker movie, is it? NO! He's just a guy in the background who doesn't matter much to this story.

Word is, he's kind of supposed to, though. When Jared Leto - a guy who's in the movie - is telling you not to see it, and wait for the Director's Cut, something has gone horribly wrong.

The villains were..odd.

To say the least.

I don't really know what you guys WANTED in this movie.
It had tons of action.
It had fast pacing.
It had fun characters.
It had a decent storyline.
It was funny in places.

:smallsigh:
Action doesn't matter if you don't care about the people fighting. Revenge of the Sith had one of the longest action scenes ever made, and it sucked.
Fact pacing is bad if it glosses over major character development and plot points. If your 'pacing' is simply to go from one action scene to the next, or, from one set piece to the next, without introducing new story elements or important plot points, you may have fast pacing, but it is also bad pacing.

Characters, storyline and humor we're going to disagree on, mainly because of the terrible pacing and action scenes that don't mean anything.

The SOUNDTRACK was even fantastic.

Playing licensed songs isn't exactly a soundtrack. I refuse to praise a movie based on its ability to play songs that already exist ("GUYS! Hey Guys! Do you like this song!?" ...Yes, I do like that song, that's why it's on my music player and I can listen to it anytime I want. Try pandering harder.), unless said music is part of the plot (e.g; Star Trek Beyond). OSTs are entirely different. If there's an OST for Suicide Squad, I didn't notice it at all.

What more did you expect or want?

I wanted to care about the characters.
I wanted an engaging story.
I wanted Assault on Arkham.

Gray Mage

2016-08-06, 08:31 AM

I've seen it yesterday and I've liked it. I would say, however that Boomerang, Killer Croc and even Katana could have been scrapped alltogether and the movie would have been better for it (if Katana had more screen time she could have been more relatable with the rest of the cast, so she could have been better). Deadshot, harley and Amanda were great. Joker was weird and I'm not sure what to think of it yet.

I'd say it had plenty of comedy, but more sarcastic/dark humor.

All in all I'd give it a 6.5.

GloatingSwine

2016-08-06, 08:32 AM

Playing licensed songs isn't exactly a soundtrack. I refuse to praise a movie based on its ability to play songs that already exist ("GUYS! Hey Guys! Do you like this song!?" ...Yes, I do like that song, that's why it's on my music player and I can listen to it anytime I want. Try pandering harder.), unless said music is part of the plot (e.g; Star Trek Beyond). OSTs are entirely different. If there's an OST for Suicide Squad, I didn't notice it at all.

The music doesn't need to be "part of the plot", it needs to be chosen to enhance what's happening on the screen and in the narrative.

Kill Bill has one of the greatest soundtracks of ever, all of licensed music, because it's the right music.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-06, 08:44 AM

so I had to decide to see it or not tonight, and you guys almost talked me out of it...then I saw this review

https://youtu.be/BuiLDbyetsk

I think I will go make my own mind up

so I saw it now, and I think you guys are sooo off base. Heck even having to go to another video to decode the rating system of the guy I watch for reviews (he uses D&D currency) I disagree with him, this is at least electrum.

there were main and secondary characters (and boomerang) the main cast was Harley, Waller, Deadshot, El diablo, and Flagg... they worked perfectly.

secondary was Croc, who may not have said a lot but he was good, joker who starts off great, but I expected a bit more by the end, and katanna...who I wonder if people reviewing this movie understand she is the strong silent type.

You guys say "Hey the plot is recycled" I say the plot is CLASSIC...

I would give this 4 stars

ben-zayb

2016-08-06, 08:48 AM

I wanted to like it. I really did. But gah. Gah.Pretty much my reaction. I really want DC to succeed with both The Killing Joke and Suicide Squad, but DC just didn't deliver on the hype created by either.:smallsigh:

Waller is scary. Doesn't excuse her own plothole at the end of the movie, though.

Cheesegear

2016-08-06, 08:57 AM

The music doesn't need to be "part of the plot", it needs to be chosen to enhance what's happening on the screen and in the narrative.

IMO, playing a licensed song isn't impressive. People can sync a scene to a 'perfect' song on YouTube. A good director can illicit any emotion with the right scene, editing and music. Like I said, people on YouTube can do it, it doesn't look that hard (I can't do it myself, but judging from the dearth of AMVs alone, it seems like it's not particularly difficult, if you were so inclined) - providing you have the right song. Getting the right song is easy, providing you have the right license. If anything, the narrative enhances the music. I've seen scenes with the music completely removed, even dialogue removed, and if the actors can act, and the director can direct, you can get anything of anything.

If the narrative is bad, it doesn't matter what music you play. Which is what I'm saying. The songs don't mean anything, because the narrative doesn't mean anything, because the characters don't mean anything. Because it's bad.

Ronnoc

2016-08-06, 08:57 AM

so I saw it now, and I think you guys are sooo off base. Heck even having to go to another video to decode the rating system of the guy I watch for reviews (he uses D&D currency) I disagree with him, this is at least electrum.

there were main and secondary characters (and boomerang) the main cast was Harley, Waller, Deadshot, El diablo, and Flagg... they worked perfectly.

secondary was Croc, who may not have said a lot but he was good, joker who starts off great, but I expected a bit more by the end, and katanna...who I wonder if people reviewing this movie understand she is the strong silent type.

You guys say "Hey the plot is recycled" I say the plot is CLASSIC...

I would give this 4 stars

I wouldn't say it's a bad movie but it definitely had problems. Things I liked include your list of primary characters, the humor, and some of the action(I'll take dark and rainy over bourne style shakycam any day)

That said the plot was a major problem. The difference between taking an archetypal plot and turning it into a classic vs turning it into a cliche is in the execution. Suicide squad simply did not devote enough time or effort to developing it's supervillains to make its plot anything but a cliche.

LibraryOgre

2016-08-06, 09:33 AM

In the dark, in the rain is one of my pet hates (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21030940&postcount=3), and instantly turns me off almost any action sequence.

One time I think it worked well was in Thor... but that was well lit, for the most part, despite being in the dark and the rain, and a lot of the action took place in corridors.

Fawkes

2016-08-06, 10:01 AM

The music doesn't need to be "part of the plot", it needs to be chosen to enhance what's happening on the screen and in the narrative.

Kill Bill has one of the greatest soundtracks of ever, all of licensed music, because it's the right music.

Tarantino is a master at this. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill have amazing soundtracks.

There are other, non-Tarantino movies that have used licensed music effectively, but at the moment all I can think of is Guardians of the Galaxy.

Dienekes

2016-08-06, 10:05 AM

Tarantino is a master at this. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill have amazing soundtracks.

There are other, non-Tarantino movies that have used licensed music effectively, but at the moment all I can think of is Guardians of the Galaxy.

The first Kick-Ass did it pretty well. The second, not so well.

I'd also say in terms of music the Watchmen movie did pretty good. The opening with "Times they are a changin" was phenomenal.

Fawkes

2016-08-06, 10:12 AM

I don't remember Kickass's music, but yeah, Watchmen's intro was perfect. Best part of the movie.

Gray Mage

2016-08-06, 10:57 AM

Oh yeah. The end of credits scene was cool.

BiblioRook

2016-08-06, 12:18 PM

I'd also say in terms of music the Watchmen movie did pretty good. The opening with "Times they are a changin" was phenomenal.

Ugh, I still can't hear that song without cringing... :smallsigh:

Quiver

2016-08-06, 12:37 PM

I think, in the context of the film, I get why they went the direction they did with Leto's Joker. They seem to have decided to focus on the "clown Prince of crime" part of his moniker.
Heactually strikes me as an attempt at the film crew to mix and match the Nicholson (mob boss) and Ledger (anarchist) incarnations.

It's not an interpretation I like, to be sure, but I can see it as valid interpretation of the character, kind of like a punk version of the Penguin. The downside is that in making him "the boss", they've stripped out some of the anarchism that Ledger had, and make him less of a bogeyman type figure. The focus on crime also detracts from the "Prince" part of his moniker. He doesn't have the old-school class of the nor, Nicholson mob type, nor the manic energy of Ledger to compensate.

On the other hand, I did kind of like his...almost obsessive romance? I liked the moment in Harley's flashback when he came within inches of discarding her as a toy he was bored with.

Basically, I maintain my old position. I think he would work better as a punk inspired by the Joker, rather than the Joker himself, but hey. Whatever.

Razade

2016-08-06, 03:20 PM

so I saw it now, and I think you guys are sooo off base. Heck even having to go to another video to decode the rating system of the guy I watch for reviews (he uses D&D currency) I disagree with him, this is at least electrum.

What a surprise, the person who defended Dawn of Justice thinks this movie is good. Call the presses, water's wet.

secondary was Croc, who may not have said a lot but he was good, joker who starts off great, but I expected a bit more by the end, and katanna...who I wonder if people reviewing this movie understand she is the strong silent type.

You can have a "strong silent type" in a movie that has screen presence. Katana in this movie isn't the strong silent type she's the typical Asian insert who is there to look good but not say anything and do kung fu.

You guys say "Hey the plot is recycled" I say the plot is CLASSIC...

Classic? You'd call it classic? Classic is something profound that brought the height of human dignity to full force and rose above it. This was recycled, this was overdone. This was boring.

Fawkes

2016-08-06, 04:30 PM

I'd say the PREMISE is classic, at least - anyone remember The Dirty Dozen? - but I can't say anything about the actual plot, not having seen it.

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-06, 04:51 PM

All I'll say is that instead of a Director's Cut, I'm waiting for a Fan Cut that will, among other bits, excise Croc, Katana and Boomerang and hopefully give us more than a verse of a song.

Somewhere in the reviews I saw the line that this film was strangled by a noose made out of little ribbons labeled PG-13, and I agree. Deadpool did it better.

BiblioRook

2016-08-06, 05:06 PM

I'm actually still really quite surprise they didn't try to go for an R rating for Suicide Squad in the wake of Deadpool, I mean it almost seems like common sense. More sense to do it with Suicide Squad then Batman v. Superman in any case.

Razade

2016-08-06, 05:35 PM

Cheesegear

2016-08-06, 07:46 PM

I'd say the PREMISE is classic, at least - anyone remember The Dirty Dozen? - but I can't say anything about the actual plot, not having seen it.

Did...Did you just compare The Dirty Dozen to Suicide Squad?
No.
I refuse.

I'm going to hate myself for typing this, and I feel dirty for thinking it, but...
I can't even.

The Dirty Dozen is classic, Suicide Squad is cliche. There are massive differences between the two.

Keltest

2016-08-06, 07:54 PM

Fawkes

2016-08-06, 08:10 PM

Did...Did you just compare The Dirty Dozen to Suicide Squad?
No.
I refuse.

I'm going to hate myself for typing this, and I feel dirty for thinking it, but...
I can't even.

The Dirty Dozen is classic, Suicide Squad is cliche. There are massive differences between the two.

Yeah, and there's massive differences between Casablanca and Barb Wire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barb_Wire_(film)).

Do you honestly not see how the premise of Suicide Squad - criminals recruited by the government for dangerous missions - relates to The Dirty Dozen? This isn't about the quality of the movies, it's about the concept. Suicide Squad is pretty obviously inspired by Dirty Dozen.

I also haven't seen Suicide Squad.

Razade

2016-08-07, 03:23 AM

Yeah, and there's massive differences between Casablanca and Barb Wire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barb_Wire_(film)).

Do you honestly not see how the premise of Suicide Squad - criminals recruited by the government for dangerous missions - relates to The Dirty Dozen? This isn't about the quality of the movies, it's about the concept. Suicide Squad is pretty obviously inspired by Dirty Dozen.

I also haven't seen Suicide Squad.

You say without having seen the movie. Also the trope of "criminals as heroes" goes well back beyond The Dirty Dozen. I've also seen both movies and it isn't obvious to me that the two had anything close to an inspired concept between them.

Frozen_Feet

2016-08-07, 03:41 AM

Cheesegear

2016-08-07, 03:50 AM

You say without having seen the movie. Also the trope of "criminals as heroes" goes well back beyond The Dirty Dozen. I've also seen both movies and it isn't obvious to me that the two had anything close to an inspired concept between them.

Pretty sure TDD is actually a good example of it, though.
When it comes to the 'Classic vs. Cliche' debate, pretty sure TDD falls closer to the former while Suicide Squad is quite firmly in the latter category.

comicshorse

2016-08-07, 06:23 AM

Of course technically the Suicide Squad comic predates The Dirty Dozen :smallcool:

Deeply ambivalent about the movie. I loved some bits ; Harley Quinn, Amanda Waller (and glad they didn't make her young and gorgeous again) and some of the call outs to the original comics (yes I'm a huge comic nerd).
Others I hated ; Katanna was utterly wasted, the final fight was near incomprehensible due to the rain and lighting, the actress playing Enchantress was OK as June Moon but had no presence as the villain and some of the dialogue seemed shoe horned in ( I'm particularly thinking of Flag trying to hug Deadshot after the fight which seemed immensely out-of-character for Flag and fairly obviously just there to set up Deadshot with a one-liner)

Lorsa

2016-08-07, 07:10 AM

It was better than I expected, but it was no Deadpool.

I'd rate it the same as X-men: Apocalypse. It's primary problem is the same: too many characters, resulting in too thin characterization, especially on the antagonist side.

Amanda, Flag, Deadshot, Harley, Diablo were good. Joker was so-and-so, it felt like he should've been given twice the screentime he actually had. Croc, Boomerang, Katana were nearly left out. Motives for the Enchantress were decent, but her plot was rushed and cliched. The movie should've started with unrelated mission and have her defect at the end.

I watched it earlier this week as well, and this is pretty accurate description.

I found it enjoyable, but I agree that some characters felt... pointless. Not sure the Joker needed to be present more though, as he wasn't a member of SS anyway.

The major problems I found were the fact that the entire mission was one and the same, with basically no change of scenery or enemies. I agree with Frozen Feet that it would've been better with some other mission first and then ending up with defeating Enchantress (she could've slipped away and done her thing while people were busy fighting the first mission).

I also found the fighting scenes to be... lacking. Which isn't a good thing in a superhero movie.

The music was good though!

Fawkes

2016-08-07, 09:44 AM

You say without having seen the movie. Also the trope of "criminals as heroes" goes well back beyond The Dirty Dozen. I've also seen both movies and it isn't obvious to me that the two had anything close to an inspired concept between them.

Yes, I haven't seen the movie. I was very up front about this. That is why I am not making any value judgments about the quality of the movie.

"Criminals recruited by the government to be heroes on a suicide mission" is the only connection I was making between these movies. I am not saying anything controversial here. This is not an accusation of plagiarism. I know this concept is not exclusive to Dirty Dozen, it's just a good focal point. You're tilting at windmills.

Of course technically the Suicide Squad comic predates The Dirty Dozen :smallcool:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the original incarnation of the squad was made up of convicted supervillains. That was added when they rebooted the squad with Amanda Waller in the 80s or 90s.

BWR

2016-08-07, 10:04 AM

Saw it yesterday and quite liked it.
It had its problems, certainly, and it would not surprise me to find that the rumors of studio exec meddling are true. A pointless 'twist', some wasted characters (like Katana, who really just cluttered up the movie, and the Redshirt death), an annoyingly happy end for a couple characters and making the SS too sympathetic - by all means make them enjoyable but not terribly sympathetic. The action was blissfully free of shaky-cam but was instead cut too quickly and rather muddled. The climax was way too slow-motiony and dramatic music-y and I hope they fix that in whatever non-theatrical cut that comes out later.

Still, what they did well they did very well, the good characters were very good - Waller was the absolute best, with Harley a very close second. The Joker was an enjoyable new take on the character but he was given a tad too much screen time. The rest of the SS were pretty good and Smith wasn't quite as Will Smith-y as I had feared (though still far too much for my taste). I can't comment on how Enchantress was compared to her comic book origin but I liked the look and the portrayal in the movie. Cliché villains and plots are part and parcel of comics, both books and movies, and as long as they are done entertainingly (as they did here) I don't care if it's original or not.
All in all good movie, one I'm definitely picking up when it is released.

LaZodiac

2016-08-07, 11:04 AM

comicshorse

2016-08-07, 11:41 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the original incarnation of the squad was made up of convicted supervillains. That was added when they rebooted the squad with Amanda Waller in the 80s or 90s.

That's right the original incarnation got the name because of the nature of the missions they took on (hence my sneaky 'technically'). When it was recreated in 1987 it took on the idea of using convicted supervillains, though usually with some in-house superheroes along to keep an eye on them

BWR

2016-08-07, 11:42 AM

I've read through this entire thread and noticed two very interesting points that mesh very strangely, which actually excites me to see how bad this thing will be.

Diablo is the only Squad member that dies, but in the five pages this thread has had, only two people have even brought up Rick Flag and NO ONE has mentioned Slipknot AT ALL. I know the movie has too many characters to give cahracterization to everyone, but the fact that even people who've liked the movie have just FORGOT these dudes is a bad sign, especially given the apparent "only Diablo dies" part.

and the Redshirt death)
Sorry if I wasn't clear but that's exactly how bland and pointless the character was. Really, he didn't even rate being part of the squad in the movie. Flagg was so-so. Not good, not bad, just did his job.

On to other things, did anyone recognize the language Enchantress and her brother were speaking? I assume it was something Mesoamerican but I could be very wrong.

comicshorse

2016-08-07, 11:54 AM

I've read through this entire thread and noticed two very interesting points that mesh very strangely, which actually excites me to see how bad this thing will be.

Diablo is the only Squad member that dies, but in the five pages this thread has had, only two people have even brought up Rick Flag and NO ONE has mentioned Slipknot AT ALL. I know the movie has too many characters to give cahracterization to everyone, but the fact that even people who've liked the movie have just FORGOT these dudes is a bad sign, especially given the apparent "only Diablo dies" part.

Actually Slipknots fate is part of what I was referring to when I was talking about the 'call out to the original comics'. As it was pretty much exactly the same as in the comics
the only difference is in the comics Boomerang deliberately cons him into running as a test to see if the explosive charges actually exist and comments, after seeing SlipKnot get his arm blown off ' Oh they are real, thought as much ' :smallsmile:

Gray Mage

2016-08-07, 12:10 PM

I've read through this entire thread and noticed two very interesting points that mesh very strangely, which actually excites me to see how bad this thing will be.

Diablo is the only Squad member that dies, but in the five pages this thread has had, only two people have even brought up Rick Flag and NO ONE has mentioned Slipknot AT ALL. I know the movie has too many characters to give cahracterization to everyone, but the fact that even people who've liked the movie have just FORGOT these dudes is a bad sign, especially given the apparent "only Diablo dies" part.

Well, I'd say he served his purpose, but he was more of s plot point than a character. He is this movie's Assalt on Arkhan KGBeast. He only serves so the SS and the audience knows that Waller is serious and the threat of the explosives is real. Just like KGBeast isn't mentioned much when talking about AoA, slipknot isn't as well.

Fawkes

2016-08-07, 12:42 PM

I assume Slipknot must die in his first scene, given how little he appears in promotional materials.

Quiver

2016-08-07, 01:16 PM

Ya know, I sort of wish Slipknot was an actual badass. Would have been pretty cool if he was the Suicide Squads Aquaman; useless seeming, secretly badass.

Ramza00

2016-08-07, 01:31 PM

Inspired by a vox post.

What is the better Harley adventure. "Harley and Ivy" or "Harlequinade"

BiblioRook

2016-08-07, 01:43 PM

I assume Slipknot must die in his first scene, given how little he appears in promotional materials.

I actually found this pretty hilarious when looking at the speculation leading up to the movie and how this was one of the earliest points people were confident about; "Not really in the trailers any, has absolutely zero merchandise, yeah he's definitely dead in the opening act."

Dienekes

2016-08-07, 03:29 PM

Inspired by a vox post.

What is the better Harley adventure. "Harley and Ivy" or "Harlequinade"

Harlequinade. It's entirely opinion, but where Harlequinade really explored how dependent Harley was and how aweful her relationship was with the Joker yet how she was tied to it. Harley and Ivy was a silly little romp that tried to patch her up with the power of women! Not bad, exactly, but could have been done without making everyone else incompetent in the process.

Chives

2016-08-07, 04:28 PM

Do you honestly not see how the premise of Suicide Squad - criminals recruited by the government for dangerous missions - relates to The Dirty Dozen? This isn't about the quality of the movies, it's about the concept. Suicide Squad is pretty obviously inspired by Dirty Dozen.

I also haven't seen Suicide Squad.

I think one of the differences is that it's Suicide Squad. Two-thirds of the roster should have been dead at the end of it.

Starbuck_II

2016-08-07, 04:38 PM

I actually found this pretty hilarious when looking at the speculation leading up to the movie and how this was one of the earliest points people were confident about; "Not really in the trailers any, has absolutely zero merchandise, yeah he's definitely dead in the opening act."

He barely has any scenes before joinging the team: at least KGBeast has prior joining sequence in Assualt on Arkham.

To be fair, Katana had no prior scenes but she lasted up to the end.
Diablo had the best moments at the end.

But I agree Harley and Deadshot seemed to be the stars. Though Croc had his moments.

Boomerang needed more scenes. He was there sometimes, but other times he was wall flowered. It would make sense if he was the silent/foreign speaker like Katana, but eh. He made comments here and there though.

Back to the movie, there were lots of laughter through my theatre. So the jokes worked here in my city.

I did feel maybe there should have been a initial mission prior to this big one (a mini one, even if it would make movie longer), but guess they wanted high stakes in their movie.
Batman was big D, a jerk. Totally on Deadshot's side with that move. Normally, Batman acts more NG or LG, but that move was more LE or NE.
Is the batman in this universe cool with endangering children? He never seemed that callous in past versions

Legato Endless

2016-08-07, 05:59 PM

Basically the film is like if your DM was running a dirty dozen campaign but kept muddling some pretty straightforward plot lines due to being drunk. Editing? Scene composition? Pffff.

Meanwhile the PCs have all brought their edgy characters with 10 page criminal backstories but they spent the whole session fighting batches of identical mooks so no one spends any real time interacting in character or developing relationships.

Of the 10! PCs, three of the players and the chief NPC can actually roleplay. Could have been great, but alas.

Diablo had the best moments at the end.

His actor did a good job, but that last line he dropped about family was totally unearned.

Speaking of the easily ignored Col. Flagg, did anyone else find his relationship with his girlfriend pretty problematic? It's not Joker-Harley, but the fact that she's a virtual prisoner of his boss he rescued who keeps getting pressed into service she obviously doesn't want to do.

Razade

2016-08-07, 06:17 PM

I've read through this entire thread and noticed two very interesting points that mesh very strangely, which actually excites me to see how bad this thing will be.

Diablo is the only Squad member that dies, but in the five pages this thread has had, only two people have even brought up Rick Flag and NO ONE has mentioned Slipknot AT ALL. I know the movie has too many characters to give cahracterization to everyone, but the fact that even people who've liked the movie have just FORGOT these dudes is a bad sign, especially given the apparent "only Diablo dies" part.

I didn't forget about either of them. They were just there and neither were good or bad or anything. They don't warrant mention.

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-07, 11:38 PM

Of course technically the Suicide Squad comic predates The Dirty Dozen.

I wasn't aware Suicide Squad started during the Kennedy Administration.

LaZodiac

2016-08-07, 11:56 PM

Is the batman in this universe cool with endangering children? He never seemed that callous in past versions

Reminder that it's the Batman v. Superman movie's Batman, the one who kills people on screen. So yes, probably!

Razade

2016-08-08, 12:10 AM

I wasn't aware Suicide Squad started during the Kennedy Administration.

First mention of Suicide Squad was in 1959.

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-08, 12:11 AM

So the Eisenhower Administration.

BWR

2016-08-08, 12:49 AM

Speaking of the easily ignored Col. Flagg, did anyone else find his relationship with his girlfriend pretty problematic? It's not Joker-Harley, but the fact that she's a virtual prisoner of his boss he rescued who keeps getting pressed into service she obviously doesn't want to do.

On its own terms, yes, it's very bad. Narratively it works very well. We all got the idea it was manipulation by Walller that got them into the situation. She saw a young, very troubled girl, needed a competent handler, and put Flagg in charge. So you have a good-looking, badass soldier with a soft spot for a damsel in distress and a vulnerable desperate woman who needs any sort of support. Keep them mostly isolated and things will almost certainly happen. So Waller has two layers of control on the Enchantress.

BiblioRook

2016-08-08, 02:40 AM

Fri

2016-08-08, 05:45 AM

BiblioRook

2016-08-08, 06:10 AM

My question still stands.

Frozen_Feet

2016-08-08, 06:44 AM

So watching some reviews a point was briefly brought up that just stuck in my head. The Suicide Squad was put together to go up against threats on the level of Superman, Superman. Just how was that supposed to work again?

Enchantress.

Naturally, it backfires.

Speaking of the easily ignored Col. Flagg, did anyone else find his relationship with his girlfriend pretty problematic? It's not Joker-Harley, but the fact that she's a virtual prisoner of his boss he rescued who keeps getting pressed into service she obviously doesn't want to do.

Sure it's screwed up. It's purposefully so and the movie is well-aware of it as Waller's gloating about it demonstrates. :smallamused:

Cheesegear

2016-08-08, 07:07 AM

The Suicide Squad was put together to go up against threats on the level of Superman, Superman. Just how was that supposed to work again?

It's supposed to work because the audience isn't supposed to be poking holes. I imagine the original script had something less stupid in it, but, I don't know. You have to tie it into Batman V Superman, I guess.

It works because of suspension of disbelief. If you forget to turn that on, the plot is awful. Y'know...'Cause it is.

Enchantress.

A couple of the squad could go toe-to-toe with Superman (or someone like him)...For about five seconds.
We'd have to see on-screen Deadshot being given a case of Kryptonite bullets, they exist and do work against Clark.

But, Waller's justification for creating the Suicide Squad, is to defeat beings like Superman. So here's Harley Quinn. With a baseball bat. :smallsigh:

At least in Arrow, the team is created for the fact that they're about to cause an international incident and Task Force X (the Suicide Squad) gives the U.S. plausible deniability.
In AoA, who better to storm Arkham than guys who have already been there before? Admittedly, AoA's justification for the SS' existence is flimsy, but it works on a basic level.

Starbuck_II

2016-08-08, 07:21 AM

I think Harley and Croc supposed to be a meatshield taking a hit so the others can win.
Captain Boomerang has Batman level tech with his Boomerangs. Batman fought Superman and lived so Captain should be fine.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 07:34 AM

So watching some reviews a point was briefly brought up that just stuck in my head. The Suicide Squad was put together to go up against threats on the level of Superman, Superman. Just how was that supposed to work again? I mean aside from one guy that was part crocodile and another that could shoot flame the team was made of almost entirely normal (if skilled) non-super powered people, and even then half of them were armed with the likes of baseball bats and boomerangs.

Because that guy with the boomarangs and the woman with the bat ARE better then SEALs... because batman runs through a SEAL team like they were small children, and these two give him a run for his money.

Can they stop a kryptonian... No, not without luck and more prep then the US can give. Are they the best chance the US has...yea most likely.

What about the rest of the team, well Enchantress and El diablo can hurt kryptonians, and might (maybe) if they get lucky take one out.

Croc doesn't have the strength to go toe to toe, but again he is BETTER then any SEAL team member they have.

Deadshot is actially your best bet. He is smart and lucky and skilled...and he specializes in doing the impossible. He would need kryptonite bullets, AND he would need the others to keep big blue occupied, and/or surprise.

Katana has the magic sword, so she is the magic of Enchantress and El diablo with the better then SEAL team fighting of Boomerang and Quinn.

So yes this was the best bad idea they had for Zod 2.0... In fact if He El showed up to blow up the earth and recreate krypton I would want Batman, Wonder woman, Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman all on scene...they are your A line. However the squad is the best defense humanity could put up as a B squad.

If I were writing, or pitching movies for DC I would have the military take parts of the krytonian armors and word machine and try to back engeneer, when that fails say they had other ships (say Area 51) and try experiments...including one where a nuke is used underground on a dozen military test subjects... 3 survive and get powers from it Bombshell (airforce), Major Force (Marine) and Captian Atom (air force)... then have one of lead scientist fake his own death and go underground...because his 'firestorm protocals' were too dangerus.

DiscipleofBob

2016-08-08, 07:47 AM

As someone who's been very critical of the Snyderverse, someone who believes that Batman v Superman may be one of the worst superhero movies ever made and that Man of Steel was a ton of potential gone to waste...

I actually liked Suicide Squad. I wasn't expecting much after the critical reviews, but I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't perfect, its still nowhere near on the level as the good Marvel movies, but SS is certainly on a step in the right direction. Unlike BvS, nothing that was bad was offensively bad. Even Jared Leto's Joker. Not my favorite at all, but it was easy to see Leto was doing his own flavor of Joker, which is what Nicholson and Ledger did too.

I was pleasantly surprised by Will Smith and Margot Robbie.

The only character that seemed pointless was Boomerang. He wasn't funny, and the only thing he brought to the movie was a Flash cameo.

Most importantly, I already am seeing a much better Batman from Affleck in the few minutes of this movie than the entirety of BvS.

They might actually salvage this cinematic universe yet. Just got to get past them screwing up Wonder Woman's origin.

Fawkes

2016-08-08, 08:36 AM

http://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1428_4_117.jpg

This is beautiful.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 08:45 AM

LaZodiac

2016-08-08, 09:28 AM

Alternatively you could go with the actual origin of the Suicide Squad. You're all a bunch of scum criminals, so we're sending you on suicide missions. If you succeed, congrats, you've saved the day and get time taken off your sentence. If you fail, congrats, you improved the world just as much as if you'd saved it, because you're that big of a nuisance to peace in our times.

lord_khaine

2016-08-08, 09:34 AM

If you really want a SS that could stop Zod 2.0, you need a much more powerful team...

Indeed, that team might actually be able to survive at least the collactoral damage when someone at the kryptonian power level, like Doomsday, randomly smashes buildings or blows up stuff that gets to close.
Of course, putting Captain Atom in might be cheating a little, since as i recall he is upper tier JLA member power wise.

Still, i do think it is a weird idea that the suicide squad should be used like that. Found it much more fitting when they were used for undercover black ops in the comic and cartoons.

DiscipleofBob

2016-08-08, 09:35 AM

If you really want a SS that could stop Zod 2.0, you need a much more powerful team...

Replace Flag with Captain Atom is a VERY good start.
Keep Katana as his back up

Captain Boomarang is a great idea...if you go with Owen Cap Boomarang 2
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Owen_Mercer_(New_Earth)

Replace Croc with King shark...the demi god version with hyper regen.

Replace Harley with Killer Frost (well having both wouldn't hurt)

Replace Slipnot with Bane

Deadshot is good, but replaceing him with Deathstroke would be better still

you have a MUCH more powerful team now...the only problem, it's a less fun team.

The problem with a more powerful team is whether you can control them with the explosives, or even capture them in the first place. If any of your members have healing factors that could conceivably resist or regenerate the damage then you've lost your leverage.

Captain Atom is probably a lot more likely to grow a conscience about the whole thing than Rick Flag.

Fact is forming a Squad capable of going toe-to-toe with Leaguers is difficult because form a Squad that's too powerful and you can't control them. See Enchantress.

And the only real reason Slipknot was on the team was so someone could attempt an early escape and show what happens when they decide to press the explode button.

If I had to put together a Snyderverse Suicide Squad for the express purpose of taking on the Justice League...

Rick Flag as the handler
Deadshot to lead the team, equipped with various specialized firearms like Kryptonite bullets.
Harley Quinn for the wild card and distraction factor.
Black Manta to handle Aquaman
Scarecrow to damage the JL psychically with fear gas and get them to make the necessary mistakes.
Cheetah to handle Wonder Woman
Count Vertigo to disorient Leaguers, particularly Flash
Livewire to handle Cyborg (assuming EMPs work on him in this universe)
Bloodsport, a minor villain who can teleport any weapon to his hand and once fought Superman using a Kryptonite needle gun, as a backup to Deadshot.
Metallo, since the bomb can just be connected to his hard drive, in case Superman needs to be distracted more.
Clock King, to manage everyone from a distant computer and time everything perfectly.

Yes that's a large team, but this is the League we're talking about. And these are all people who could conceivably have been caught and wired up with explosives at Belle Reve.

If you need to take out the Justice League, assume Flash will rush in without thinking and lay a trap with Harley Quinn, Vertigo, and Scarecrow. The former should be able to distract Flash long enough for the other two to disorient him with vertigo powers and fear gas.

Then have Metallo, Harley Quinn, Cheetah, Black Manta, and Livewire handle the other five Leaguers. Bring on one of the backup members if Green Lantern is there as well. While each Leaguer is distracted with someone nemesis-ingly enough, Deadshot, Scarecrow, and Vertigo take out Batman, Cyborg, and Aquaman in that order. Superman is taken out by Kryptonite applied by Metallo, Deadshot, and/or Bloodsport.

Which leaves Wonder Woman who may be the hardest to deal with without a definitive weakness, but also someone who can be distracted the longest with a cat-and-mouse game with Cheetah. Depending on how his powers are interpreted, Bloodsport might be able to disarm Wonder Woman. Or if she has her really outdated weakness to being tied up by a man, Slipknot might actually be viable.

With the whole thing being micro-managed by Clock King and with everyone under threat of explosives to follow every order to the letter, they might actually stand a chance against a Leaguer.

Now if a Superman-level threat shows up without any convenient weaknesses... Well there's not much you can do there.

Gray Mage

2016-08-08, 09:43 AM

I think the team to fight superman level threats was just Waller selling them so the team would be sanctioned. When the chips are down their mission is to bail Waller out, not defeat Enchantress. The only reason they face her is because she has Waller and due to Flag's love interest being in danger (at least that's why I interpreted Deathshot's, Harley's and Diablo's motivation in the end).

lt_murgen

2016-08-08, 10:24 AM

Everyone discounts Harley, but remember that she was a brilliant psychiatrist before she went nuts. In fact,

She was the one who played on Enchantresses ego to get close enough for the killing blow. Anyone else would have aroused suspicion.

Xihirli

2016-08-08, 10:25 AM

The part where she leaned down right next to the sword was suspicious as all get out. The Enchantress was fooled because she was an idiot, not because Harley was brilliant.

Cheesegear

2016-08-08, 10:26 AM

Alternatively you could go with the actual origin of the Suicide Squad.

You could. But they didn't.

I think the team to fight superman level threats was just Waller selling them so the team would be sanctioned.

Then the board are a bunch of idiots, and the reason this movie works is because of Idiot Balls, and no-one knowing anything about anything.
Yeah. Much better movie.

Xihirli

2016-08-08, 10:26 AM

But that's a complaint you can have with movies people generally agree are good, too.
"The villains seem to be sabotaging their own plans."

Am I describing Return of the Jedi, every Harry Potter movie, any of the Bond films, or Avengers?

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 10:29 AM

laotze

2016-08-08, 10:30 AM

At least SS can take consolation in having had unequivocally the best trailer of 2016.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 10:32 AM

You could. But they didn't.

Then the board are a bunch of idiots, and the reason this movie works is because of Idiot Balls, and no-one knowing anything about anything.
Yeah. Much better movie.

we just saw a series of major threats to the US...we want to put togather a team of specilforces

"No, that wouldn't help"

"You have a better idea?"

silence....

not an idiot ball at all. Deadshot is EXACTLY the type of merc in the real world we recruit out of prisions...people like boomerang get deals too. I'm sure someone like El Dioblo would be shot or recruit...same with corc... it's enchantress (WAY TOO DANGERUS) and harly (nuts) who make the least sense...

Cheesegear

2016-08-08, 10:33 AM

Am I describing Return of the Jedi, every Harry Potter movie, any of the Bond films, or Avengers?

Weird. I don't really like any of those films, either.
Maybe stupid villains ruin movies for me?

Xihirli

2016-08-08, 10:49 AM

Weird. I don't really like any of those films, either.
Maybe stupid villains ruin movies for me?

I mean, I liked Avengers. But yeah, other than that, villains going out of their way to sabotage their own schemes really make me a lot less impressed when the hero wins.

Fawkes

2016-08-08, 11:12 AM

At the risk of taking this thread even further off topic, what self-sabotage are we talking about in Return of the Jedi?

Frozen_Feet

2016-08-08, 11:35 AM

In RoJ, the climactic showdown between Luke, Vader and Palpatine ends because Palpatine and Vader have been silently undermining and opposed to each other for two whole movies, and the order to kill Luke is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Fawkes

2016-08-08, 11:37 AM

See, that's not self-sabotage, that's counter-sabotage.

comicshorse

2016-08-08, 11:39 AM

Well, that's unexpected

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37008775

lord_khaine

2016-08-08, 01:12 PM

Whatever they paid the guy who made the second trailer, its not enough :smallamused:

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-08, 01:54 PM

Warner's use of pre-sales to boost opening weekend continues to pay off, I see. I'd also expect ~60% drop this next weekend.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 02:16 PM

Well, that's unexpected

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37008775

not really, when I was a kid it was common for audiances to disagree with critics...it changed for a while but I think the whole DC movie thing is going to be this way. You can't trust critics anymore

AvatarVecna

2016-08-08, 02:34 PM

http://www.superdickery.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1428_4_117.jpg

To paraphrase a better internet comedy writer than myself:

"I shall take out the Flash, fastest man alive, by throwing a slow-moving hand-held projectile weapon at him that will then return to me! And because I've already forgotten the last part of the previous sentence, I'll attach bombs to this weapon! This plan cannot fail!"

Xihirli

2016-08-08, 02:38 PM

See, that's not self-sabotage, that's counter-sabotage.

I was thinking of when the Emperor allowed the alliance to take the ACTUAL plans to the death star and learn the placement of the ACTUAL shield generator... on purpose.

LokeyITP

2016-08-08, 02:49 PM

Curious how promotional tickets are handled when counting box office? Seemed the cell plans around here were giving tickets away like candy (probably to spam ads or something).

BiblioRook

2016-08-08, 02:52 PM

So saw the movie and probably my main thought is this. Haley is... kind of pointless. Don't get me wrong she's amusing I guess (ymmv) and I get that shes popular and pretty core the the concept of the Suicide Squad and that it would be hard to make a movie about it without involving her, but for the sake of the movie she seemed to have no real place on the team and was only included for fan-service (both kinds). Also without her there wouldn't be an excuse for Joker antics and if you took her out you basically would have lost like half the film. It's been said plenty already but really a majority of the team seemed utterly unnecessary. Basically there was Deadshot and Diablo and the rest were there more to pad numbers to the team and quip. I don't remember if it was mentioned here or in one of the reviews I watched but for a movie called Suicide Squad it really felt like the movie could have used, I don't know, more death. I mean as is being discussed, this team is wholly outmatched by the kinds of threats that they are expected to go up against, Enchantress included, but still by and large walk away from it unscathed. At the very least I kind of expected them to do the trope at the end where the members of the group get picked off one-by-one as the group progressively faces challenges specifically catered to individuals in the group that only they can resolve, but no.
I have to say though the one that annoyed me the most easily was Flagg. Ugh he just aggravated me every step of the way, from his false bravo goading on the likes of Deadshot about how he was so much better then him to his general uselessness when things got going (he had to be rescued, twice!) culminating in being the reason the team rallys together in the end despite being nothing but unlikable to that point. And yes, his relationship with Moon felt really kinda messed up and forced.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 02:53 PM

I just saw that 42% of the positive response to the move is female...

maybe this was just the superhero movie woman like me like???

AvatarVecna

2016-08-08, 03:11 PM

I just saw that 42% of the positive response to the move is female...

maybe this was just the superhero movie woman like me like???

Out of curiosity, where did you find statistics of approval by gender? If you've got a link, it sounds like something I'd be interested in.

BiblioRook

2016-08-08, 03:12 PM

Kitten Champion

2016-08-08, 03:13 PM

I was thinking of when the Emperor allowed the alliance to take the ACTUAL plans to the death star and learn the placement of the ACTUAL shield generator... on purpose.

That's a good point. I mean, I could see him giving up the plans for the Death Star II to give the Rebels enough enticement to bring their combined forces against it, while secretly being further along in its development than reported as it was, but it would've cost them nothing (relative to building a moon-sized weapon) to set up a few back-up shields and not advertise it. Arrange them at a significant distance from one another and camouflage them.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 03:28 PM

Out of curiosity, where did you find statistics of approval by gender? If you've got a link, it sounds like something I'd be interested in.
https://youtu.be/sXrUl_QjKMI?t=4m40s

I find it hard the believe that Harley Quinn is the kind of female superhero character that woman would rally behind, but then again I've unfortunately seen evidence of the contrary ( have after all been to Comic-Con). Amanda Waller I can understand, but not Harley (or more specifically, this version of Harley). I eagerly await the likes of Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel to really help flesh out some getting some major female superheros on the screen worth looking up to. I just really don't understand Harley's popularity at all.

this version of Harley Quinn has more agency then the cartoon one. I would most likely be more Harley then waller, or wonderwoman...but I wish I were more wonder woman

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-08, 03:52 PM

I find it hard the believe that Harley Quinn is the kind of female superhero character that woman would rally behind, but then again I've unfortunately seen evidence of the contrary ( have after all been to Comic-Con). Amanda Waller I can understand, but not Harley (or more specifically, this version of Harley). I eagerly await the likes of Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel to really help flesh out some getting some major female superheros on the screen worth looking up to. I just really don't understand Harley's popularity at all.

For female cosplayers, Harley definitely is more popular than WW.

I really don't see a problem here. I mean there are "troublesome" aspects but she has a lot of things going for her.
Yes she is caught in a destructive relationship but she is getting out of it (depending on the writer of course, but anyway), she is an on again off again lesbian relationship with a woman who really supports her (or depending on the writer is "just" in a strong friendly relationship with a woman who really supports her), she's wild and unhinged, something a lot of women feel society is definitely saying "No" to when it comes to women, she dresses as she likes (yes the movie version, like some of the games, have her on an extreme side, but basically she's not showing that much more skin than the average girl on a hot day in Scandinavia. And arguing against her dress code opens up a whole ugly kind of worms anyway: Short version - is she sexualized? Or is she just dressing the way she likes? And isn't arguing against the latter removing her agency?).

She is also on the right side of the edge of crazy-evil most of the time, just like Deadpool*. There is a reason why when that one comic came out where she gunned down unarmed innocent people, including children, never was accepted as canon by anyone, really..

*Boy, the number of crossover / shipping-fics out there for those two... :smallbiggrin:

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-08, 04:17 PM

she dresses as she likes (yes the movie version, like some of the games, have her on an extreme side, but basically she's not showing that much more skin than the average girl on a hot day in Scandinavia. And arguing against her dress code opens up a whole ugly kind of worms anyway

I grew up in Georgia. I was 15 years old wearing a tank top that exposed my midriff and cut off jeans that had pockets hanging out... You can see MUCH more if you go to the pool or beach with me. I can't remember the last time I was at a beach and was the woman showing the most skin.

BiblioRook

2016-08-08, 04:28 PM

...she dresses as she likes (yes the movie version, like some of the games, have her on an extreme side, but basically she's not showing that much more skin than the average girl on a hot day in Scandinavia. And arguing against her dress code opens up a whole ugly kind of worms anyway: Short version - is she sexualized? Or is she just dressing the way she likes? And isn't arguing against the latter removing her agency?).

Presentation has a lot to do with it. If they went ahead and dressed, say, Katana in the kind of outfit Harley wears as she is in the movie I actually imagine most wouldn't pay to much mind to it. Harley on the other hand gets a zoom in on her butt as she bends over, or is filmed as she changes clothing, or gets offered as a 'sexual perk' to a colleague (and gets offended when he tries to be respectable about it, which he gets punished for). I can't speak for how she is outside the movie but from what I hear it still tends to be pretty bad, and not just in a general 'sexulization in superhero comics' way, specifically bad even for that.

Calemyr

2016-08-08, 04:34 PM

Personally, I really enjoyed the movie. It has been a very long time since I actually enjoyed a DC film, but this really hit the nail on the head.

The breakaway characters were, unsurprisingly, Deadshot (because Will Smith) and Harley (because Harley Quinn). Both are fun to watch in their own ways, though Deadshot is always Will Smith, while the lady who plays Harley just dissolves into the role. A lot of the characters didn't have a major role to play, but everyone had moments to shine. Except for Katana. She's kinda just there for the most part.

Personally, Amanda Waller is one of my favorite female characters in comic books. Probably my #1 spot, honestly. I love her for many reasons, starting with the fact that she's not a supermodel (we need more of that) all the way up to the fact that she can stare down the Batman and he's the one who will flinch. Waller does whatever she believes is right even when she knows her methods are immoral. And that's the Waller that shows up for this movie. She does a few things that are pretty brutal, even for her, but she remains this paragon of ruthless incorruptibility.

I love the fact that they managed to keep the villain out of the trailers. Glad to see someone learned from the Batman vs Superman debacle.

I even found the 3D pleasant. Civil War was just torture for the jarring, incoherent action that made my eyes hurt, especially in the first third. (Note to self: Shaky cam is not sufficient to make a mundane hero like Black Widow engaging in a fight, it just makes watching her painful.) Suicide Squad, on the other hand, was much easier on the eyes.

And while it is true that it's a funnier movie than most of DC's fare, it maintains the dark and gritty style. The colors are dark and muted, the camera work is brooding and dramatic, and it just looks like a DC movie. The best part, in my opinion, is that the humor is established through the characters, not in spite of them.

If you buy the "three faces of Joker" theory (Clown, Kingpin, Psychopath), Leto's is definitely the Kingpin archetype. His actions and methods are odd, but not irrational - all predicated on a logic unique to him. He's basically the Jack Nicholson version with a dash of Heath Ledger for seasoning. I definitely hope Leto gets to play this Joker more, as it'll be interesting what he'll do when he's a major character rather than side plot. He's not well used in Suicide Squad, but he definitely shows his potential for future movies.

Ultimately the movie is not high art, but a very good dumb-fun popcorn flick. I definitely do not regret seeing it.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-08, 04:36 PM

Presentation has a lot to do with it. If they went ahead and dressed, say, Katana in the kind of outfit Harley wears as she is in the movie I actually imagine most wouldn't pay to much mind to it. Harley on the other hand gets a zoom in on her butt as she bends over, or is filmed as she changes clothing, or gets offered as a 'sexual perk' to a colleague (and gets offended when he tries to be respectable about it, which he gets punished for). I can't speak for how she is outside the movie but from what I hear it still tends to be pretty bad, and not just in a general 'serialization in superhero comics' way, specifically bad even for that.

Again, comics vary a lot depending on the writer, and yes, the fanserivice, the little I have seen, in the movie is a little (or a lot) unnecessary. Thing is though, not all women have a problem with it (it was at it's worst in the games btw). After all she is one of the most cospayed non-anime characters by women.

Also, the movie is supposed to be the first of several. As far as I can tell she starts off fairly broken in the movie and it is not realistic that she would have come as far by the end of the movie as she has in the comic.

Dienekes

2016-08-08, 04:50 PM

For female cosplayers, Harley definitely is more popular than WW.

I really don't see a problem here. I mean there are "troublesome" aspects but she has a lot of things going for her.
Yes she is caught in a destructive relationship but she is getting out of it (depending on the writer of course, but anyway), she is an on again off again lesbian relationship with a woman who really supports her (or depending on the writer is "just" in a strong friendly relationship with a woman who really supports her), she's wild and unhinged, something a lot of women feel society is definitely saying "No" to when it comes to women, she dresses as she likes (yes the movie version, like some of the games, have her on an extreme side, but basically she's not showing that much more skin than the average girl on a hot day in Scandinavia. And arguing against her dress code opens up a whole ugly kind of worms anyway: Short version - is she sexualized? Or is she just dressing the way she likes? And isn't arguing against the latter removing her agency?).

She is also on the right side of the edge of crazy-evil most of the time, just like Deadpool*. There is a reason why when that one comic came out where she gunned down unarmed innocent people, including children, never was accepted as canon by anyone, really..

*Boy, the number of crossover / shipping-fics out there for those two... :smallbiggrin:

Seriously have they tried to show that her relationship with Ivy is a good thing? Damn it comics, you're missing the point of both characters. Harley moves from abusive relationship to abusive relationship because she's attracted to power hungry murderers who give her attention and she wants to "change them" but is ultimately shaped by them in various terrible ways. She's a tragedy about relationships.

Ivy is not the answer, nor is she really supportive. Sure, she's better than the Joker, but she still pushes Harley to murder and destroy for her goals. Ivy is a vile person that leads Harley along almost as much as the Joker. Don't make their relationship good, comics. Or if you want to show Harley making progress don't make Ivy the answer. She's horrible. Make Harley learn to be independent.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-08, 05:14 PM

Seriously have they tried to show that her relationship with Ivy is a good thing? Damn it comics, you're missing the point of both characters. Harley moves from abusive relationship to abusive relationship because she's attracted to power hungry murderers who give her attention and she wants to "change them" but is ultimately shaped by them in various terrible ways. She's a tragedy about relationships.

Ivy is not the answer, nor is she really supportive. Sure, she's better than the Joker, but she still pushes Harley to murder and destroy for her goals. Ivy is a vile person that leads Harley along almost as much as the Joker. Don't make their relationship good, comics. Or if you want to show Harley making progress don't make Ivy the answer. She's horrible. Make Harley learn to be independent.

See... Independence and independence is two different things. I don't see Harley as better off alone, which is what your definition of Independence seems to indicate.
And the most of the actual good writing I have seen about their relationship is positive. Like... (Barely SFW, but shows a good point)
http://www.comicbookresources.com/imgsrv/imglib/0/0/1/harley-and-ivy-6a3c8.jpg

Dienekes

2016-08-08, 05:22 PM

See... Independence and independence is two different things. I don't see Harley as better off alone, which is what your definition of Independence seems to indicate.
And the most of the actual good writing I have seen about their relationship is positive. Like... (Barely SFW, but shows a good point)
http://www.comicbookresources.com/imgsrv/imglib/0/0/1/harley-and-ivy-6a3c8.jpg

Independence from mass murdering psychopaths, yes.

They've really neutered Ivy's character to make her interact with Harvey in that way. Ivy uses (and in many ways abuses) Harvey to get a partner in self-gratifying destructive crime. Often against what Harley claims she wants to do, usually to help Ivy's agenda of renewing nature or attacking corporations.

That's why the relationship should not be what is good for Harley. Poison Ivy is a horrifying bitch who repeatedly has used sex and rape drugs to get what she wants, from everyone, including Harley.

Why they changed her to make their relationship functional I have no idea. Ivy doesn't (or at least didn't) really care about Harley except in finding her kind of pathetic, especially with her emotional dependence on the Joker (who, admittedly, is far worse than Ivy).

Cheesegear

2016-08-08, 07:15 PM

Seriously have they tried to show that her relationship with Ivy is a good thing? Damn it comics, you're missing the point of both characters. Harley moves from abusive relationship to abusive relationship because she's attracted to power hungry murderers who give her attention and she wants to "change them" but is ultimately shaped by them in various terrible ways. She's a tragedy about relationships.

That's why I felt that Assault on Arkham was actually quite refreshing.
Harley Quinn x Deadshot didn't seem doomed to fail. Deadshot is a mercenary who works for whoever pays him the most cash. But, he's not a bad guy. Deadshot is obviously filling some void in his life where his daughter should be, but, that's more abusing himself, than abusing Harley, and he was almost a nice guy, when around Harley.

Unfortunately, that relationship was doomed, because Harley is insane and self-destructive, and there's no way that what happened in AoA, wasn't going to happen. I feel like I should've seen it coming, but I didn't.

LokeyITP

2016-08-08, 08:55 PM

https://youtu.be/sXrUl_QjKMI?t=4m40s
Link says audience composition, not whether they liked it or not.

Legato Endless

2016-08-08, 09:38 PM

this version of Harley Quinn has more agency then the cartoon one.

That seems dubious. Any agency she has is on deposit from her boyfriend. Beyond her thinly established rapport with Deadshot, and being a government tool, she's mostly Joker's toy.

Jump into the acid to prove your love....okay.

Oops. Bye guys, puddins calling.

The film alleges she can be with whoever she wants, theoretically do whatever she wants, but really she lives in his orbit.

BiblioRook

2016-08-08, 09:56 PM

Dienekes

2016-08-08, 10:09 PM

That seems dubious. Any agency she has is on deposit from her boyfriend. Beyond her thinly established rapport with Deadshot, and being a government tool, she's mostly Joker's toy.

Jump into the acid to prove your love....okay.

Oops. Bye guys, puddins calling.

The film alleges she can be with whoever she wants, theoretically do whatever she wants, but really she lives in his orbit.

Well, Harley isn't really supposed to have agency, in the normal character sense. Remember, she's an example of an abused girlfriend. The kind of girl who keeps going back to the man who is misusing and controlling her. Which is, unfortunately, a real thing.

But really, what was so odd about the presentation of the characters is how they worked together. Every action the Joker takes is because he seems to value Harley. Well, no. The Joker doesn't care about Harley except for when she amuses him. He is more than willing to beat her to a pulp for messing up a punch-line.

At least originally, I have nothing wrong with the character developing beyond the abused girlfriend role. Actually it would be very nice if done well. She's one of the few true Bat-villains that could be redeemed and have it feel earned. But not because of freaking Poison Ivy. The insane rape happy eco-terrorist. It's like writers just see "ooh pretty lesbians, let's ignore all the horrible parts of their characters to make it seem sweet." No. Go with Montoya and Kane if you want to get a functional relationship. Or if you need to pair Harley with someone, pick someone whose shtick isn't manipulating people to do what they want, and isn't supposed to see people as anything beyond tools for her plant revolution.

This. One of the scenes that annoyed me was when she rejoins the squad after escaping because she thought the Joker was dead. I mean sure that's depressing but freedom is freedom, it didn't seem like the answer was to go right back into the government agency the Joker broke you out of, if anything I would think it would be disrespectful considering it would mean his sacrifice would have been completely in vain.
"Welp, my boyfreind is dead, might as well go back to that task force that means ether certain death or imprisonment."

The movie had a lot of moments that weren't earned.

Harley randomly coming back on top of the cop cars is one thing, especially since she has no way of knowing that the rest of the army wouldn't kill her on sight, since that's exactly what they were just trying to do.

But even more egregious was Captain Boomerang, who literally flees as soon as Flagg breaks the detonator, and the very next seen he just walks in line with the rest of them for literally no reason.

The movie had so many beats that were obviously set up to be big emotional moments, but because there was no reason to care about the characters, and we didn't actually see them grow dependent on each other, beyond a few bits of stereotypical dialogue all of it just feels unearned.

Legato Endless

2016-08-08, 10:40 PM

Well, Harley isn't really supposed to have agency, in the normal character sense. Remember, she's an example of an abused girlfriend. The kind of girl who keeps going back to the man who is misusing and controlling her. Which is, unfortunately, a real thing.

Right, but the film is trying to entail otherwise.

But really, what was so odd about the presentation of the characters is how they worked together. Every action the Joker takes is because he seems to value Harley. Well, no. The Joker doesn't care about Harley except for when she amuses him. He is more than willing to beat her to a pulp for messing up a punch-line.

It's not odd, it's just the narrative trying to have things both ways. It's the same as Ivy's romance. Let's show that these monstrous people are still really just like average people. They're basically lovable scamps like the implied reader when they aren't killing/raping/abusing the mundane cutouts that people their world. It's the story not being willing to own exactly what the implications of certain behaviors are and how they would create a disconnect from a person whose life isn't similarly defined. Being that kind of person has a price. You can't just turn all that off when you go home.

But no, don't you get it? Joker LOVES her. So really, it's all okay. He can't help it. Everything he does he does for her. And yeah, that's the issue. The comics and TAS were bold enough to show exactly what kind of people they are. How the only positive outcome is severing all ties. But this film is fairly apologetic about it. It's just a Bonnie and Clyde routine. Look how he sacrifice himself for her. The film isn't brave enough to wink about the real implications. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NOjkmkanrc)

At least originally, I have nothing wrong with the character developing beyond the abused girlfriend role.

The disturbing fact is, abuse and agency aren't mutually exclusive. You can easily be both. Harley could go in a lot of directions, I'm don't personally care which so long as the narrative isn't soft defending whatever ugliness is implicit in it.

Olinser

2016-08-08, 11:16 PM

So watching some reviews a point was briefly brought up that just stuck in my head. The Suicide Squad was put together to go up against threats on the level of Superman, Superman. Just how was that supposed to work again? I mean aside from one guy that was part crocodile and another that could shoot flame the team was made of almost entirely normal (if skilled) non-super powered people, and even then half of them were armed with the likes of baseball bats and boomerangs.

The original justification for the Suicide Squad was that most of the Justice League had retired because they got tired of the BS of it.

This incarnation of Suicide Squad certainly is a bit weak power-wise, but remember we're in MOVIE universe. In THIS universe actual known threats of Superman level have numbered a grand total of 3 - Superman himself, Zod and co, and Doomsday. The people in charge of making Suicide Squad have no real metric for measuring how effective the Squad might be against a Kryptonian in a fight because they're all gone. It's not like Superman has submitted to strength tests, they're probably aware that he's stronger than Croc, for instance, but have no way of quantifying by how much. And now with Superman dead they have to organize SOME plan in case more Kryptonians come calling. And the impression I got was this was like Plan Q on the 'most likely to succeed' list.

It's not entirely unreasonable. Frankly they have no idea how effective the couple with actual powers might be against a Kryptonian level threat. Would Katana's sword cut one? Would El Diablo's flames hurt one? Only one real way to find out - send them out to fight one. Presumably if they were facing an actual high level threat Deadshot and the rest of the 'normals' in the squad would have been given some variety of experimental weaponry supposed to be effective against Kryptonians and told to use it and hope for the best.

After all - assuming that they had knowledge of the fight, Batman just proved conclusively that a normal human with sufficient preparation and proper equipment COULD win a fight against a Kryptonian.

Anteros

2016-08-09, 04:04 AM

Deadshot is a mercenary who works for whoever pays him the most cash. But, he's not a bad guy.

He murders so many innocent people, even when he doesn't have to in order to finish his missions. He's not Joker evil, but his death count is still in the hundreds at least.

Ramza00

2016-08-09, 04:58 AM

Question does it bother anyone that deadshot's cybernetic eye is on the wrong eye? (it is his right eye in the comics, and his left eye on will smith)

Razade

2016-08-09, 04:59 AM

Question does it bother anyone that deadshot's cybernetic eye is on the wrong eye? (it is his right eye in the comics, and his left eye on will smith)

No. Why would it? That's like complaining about an actor not being the "correct" "race". Utterly pointless to care about in the most extreme of cases. This isn't one of those. I'm sure a ton of comic book nerds got a wedge up their butt about it though.

Cheesegear

2016-08-09, 05:15 AM

Question does it bother anyone that deadshot's cybernetic eye is on the wrong eye? (it is his right eye in the comics, and his left eye on will smith)

I assumed that it was some kind of concession; A right-handed shooter that already has a scope, doesn't need an eyepiece on the right eye. Could've been the Ayer's or the costume designer's choice. Or maybe it was Will Smith himself, who might be right-eye dominant, couldn't see properly if his eye was covered by a reticle...Thing. Costumes have been changed for the physical limitations of the actor for a lot less justification.

But, it doesn't matter. If that's the thing you're concerned about...How come Harley Quinn's costume is...That? Instead of what she wears in the comics?

Ramza00

2016-08-09, 05:16 AM

No. Why would it? That's like complaining about an actor not being the "correct" "race". Utterly pointless to care about in the most extreme of cases. This isn't one of those. I'm sure a ton of comic book nerds got a wedge up their butt about it though.

Wow, way to create a hostile forum environment.

1) Insinuating that the reason why it may bother someone has anything to do with race and whitewashing, this is almost putting words into a person's mouth.

2) Why did you have to create a mental image of a person being raped with a wooden object? Is this really necessary? Talk about changing the tone of the conversation.

----

It bothers me for it seems like a needless change and whenever you see photos or images of deadshot in the comics / other mediums vs will smith it just jumps out at you that they switched the cybernetic eye.

Compare

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/f/f1/Floyd_Lawton_DCAU_001.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20091119212405

http://media.comicbook.com/uploads1/2014/08/batman-assault-on-arkham-captain-boomerang-deadshot-104521.png

http://comicattack.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/deadshot_03.jpg

Vs

http://img.cinemablend.com/cb/f/b/c/8/0/7/afbc807d108fd427870ac2c6eb143a9032e8b899dafd82e9d6 6c4013d5ae8e737.jpg

It is naturally un-nerving. Just like it is un-nerving you looking at photos of your face vs a mirror image (mirrors flip left vs right), or its unnerving hearing your voice in your head vs a voice of you in a recording (you hear your own voice both via your ears and your jawbone and this in turn makes your voice sound deeper inside of your head and higher pitch in audio recordings)

Cheesegear

2016-08-09, 05:21 AM

It bothers me for it seems like a needless change and whenever you see photos or images of deadshot in the comics / other mediums vs will smith it just jumps out at you that they switched the cybernetic eye.

I read the comics, I've seen AoA, I've seen Arrow, and it didn't jump out at me at all. It's not anything worth caring about.

It is naturally un-nerving.

More un-nerving than Harley's entire costume?

Ramza00

2016-08-09, 05:41 AM

More un-nerving than Harley's entire costume?

I am responding to your original quote in reverse order.

No Harley costume is not un-nerving. when I am using this word I am saying something just seems off and not right. Harley Quinn is obvious something is not right about her, just like it is obvious that Jared Leto's version of the joker does not have a 9 to 5, 5 days a week wall street job but on the weekends he commits crime in Gotham. Harley Quinn's costume in succeed squad looks like they took a 14 year old boy to the mall and have him design how his blond girlfriend should dress up.

14 year olds are scary, nods, thank god it is only a single year of your life and most people grow out of it.

I read the comics, I've seen AoA, I've seen Arrow, and it didn't jump out at me at all. It's not anything worth caring about.

I describe it as something seemed off but it did not instantly come at me what was wrong, instead it festered and gnawed at my mind till it became self obvious.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-09, 05:43 AM

Independence from mass murdering psychopaths, yes.

They've really neutered Ivy's character to make her interact with Harvey in that way. Ivy uses (and in many ways abuses) Harvey to get a partner in self-gratifying destructive crime. Often against what Harley claims she wants to do, usually to help Ivy's agenda of renewing nature or attacking corporations.

That's why the relationship should not be what is good for Harley. Poison Ivy is a horrifying bitch who repeatedly has used sex and rape drugs to get what she wants, from everyone, including Harley.

Why they changed her to make their relationship functional I have no idea. Ivy doesn't (or at least didn't) really care about Harley except in finding her kind of pathetic, especially with her emotional dependence on the Joker (who, admittedly, is far worse than Ivy).

They changed it because just like Harvey herself, they imported the relationship from BTAS. Sounds to me like you really don't have an argument other than "They changed it (well her) so it sucks".

Cheesegear

2016-08-09, 06:10 AM

I describe it as something seemed off but it did not instantly come at me what was wrong, instead it festered and gnawed at my mind till it became self obvious.

Feels like that's on you, then.

As Razade already pointed out - and so did I - it's not worth complaining about. There are so many problems with Suicide Squad as it is, that Deadshot's eyepiece being on the wrong eye, is so far down the list that it. Doesn't. Matter. If a script can change someone's entire race, without affecting the story at all, changing the side of the eyepiece is...Not relevant.

If you're getting hung up on something so minor, then that's you, being hung up on something so minor.

Ramza00

2016-08-09, 06:22 AM

Feels like that's on you, then.

As Razade already pointed out - and so did I - it's not worth complaining about. There are so many problems with Suicide Squad as it is, that Deadshot's eyepiece being on the wrong eye, is so far down the list that it. Doesn't. Matter. If a script can change someone's entire race, without affecting the story at all, changing the side of the eyepiece is...Not relevant.

If you're getting hung up on something so minor, then that's you, being hung up on something so minor.

I will make sure that if Inspector Gadget ever gets a live action remake that I will submit a petition that Dr. Claw's cat should be switched to a Jack Russell Terrier. I will scour the internet and get enough signatures that the movie executives will feel compelled to do this obvious change that will improve the movie.

I mean if we are to identify all the silly ideas in an Inspector Gadget movie, the species of the evil villain's pet really should not matter :smallwink:

Cheesegear

2016-08-09, 06:25 AM

I mean if we are to identify all the silly ideas in an Inspector Gadget movie, the species of the evil villain's pet really should not matter :smallwink:

The villain's pet wouldn't matter. Because that's the direction that they chose to go in.
Deadshot's eyepiece, most likely, has some arcane production story that we know nothing about. My best guess, is that Will Smith simply didn't want the eyepiece on his right eye.

Dienekes

2016-08-09, 07:42 AM

They changed it because just like Harvey herself, they imported the relationship from BTAS. Sounds to me like you really don't have an argument other than "They changed it (well her) so it sucks".

No the argument was change should happen if it makes sense for the characters to behave and develop for those changes to work.

Ivy is using Harley. Ivy is a manipulative serial rapist. I know Ivy and Harley had a thing in BTAS, trust me, I've seen every episode multiple times. Here's what happens that episode. Joker is a **** to Harley, Harley wanders off meets Ivy who then gets her to go on a crime spree. Then at the end, she is disgusted with Harley for going back to the Joker, because she can no longer get any use from her newest toy. And that's the end of their relationship.

Ivy in the comics is even worse. They don't really have her rape anyone in the kids tv show. When that is kind of her shtick in the comics.

Make Harley develop, sure. But make that development make sense for both characters. Just rewriting someone to squeeze a relationship that doesn't make sense is bad writing. When that relationship completely misses the point of both characters that is even worse writing.

Seriously, Ivy? It could have been pretty much any female villain except Ivy and be better. Her goal is to murder all humans in a plant based genocide.

Of course it would be even better if we stop trying to romanticize lunatics, serial killers, and obviously abusive dysfunctional relationships. Cool? Cool.

lord_khaine

2016-08-09, 08:39 AM

After all - assuming that they had knowledge of the fight, Batman just proved conclusively that a normal human with sufficient preparation and proper equipment COULD win a fight against a Kryptonian.

Wll yeah, maybe a kryptonian that did not want to fight. The outcome had most likely been a bit different if it had been against Zod.

DiscipleofBob

2016-08-09, 09:30 AM

The villain's pet wouldn't matter. Because that's the direction that they chose to go in.
Deadshot's eyepiece, most likely, has some arcane production story that we know nothing about. My best guess, is that Will Smith simply didn't want the eyepiece on his right eye.

I'd guess it was probably more like...

"Hey, I was looking at some source material and just realized we have Mr. Smith's eyepiece on the wrong eye."
"Huh. I hadn't noticed."
"Do we have to back and change it?"
"Show of hands who cares."
(crickets)
"I guess we'll keep it as is."

I mean at the absolute worst one could argue whether or not the eyepiece needed to be over a dominant eye in order to aim, but Deadshot appears to be ambidextrous when it comes to firearms.

No the argument was change should happen if it makes sense for the characters to behave and develop for those changes to work.

Ivy is using Harley. Ivy is a manipulative serial rapist. I know Ivy and Harley had a thing in BTAS, trust me, I've seen every episode multiple times. Here's what happens that episode. Joker is a **** to Harley, Harley wanders off meets Ivy who then gets her to go on a crime spree. Then at the end, she is disgusted with Harley for going back to the Joker, because she can no longer get any use from her newest toy. And that's the end of their relationship.

Ivy in the comics is even worse. They don't really have her rape anyone in the kids tv show. When that is kind of her shtick in the comics.

Make Harley develop, sure. But make that development make sense for both characters. Just rewriting someone to squeeze a relationship that doesn't make sense is bad writing. When that relationship completely misses the point of both characters that is even worse writing.

Seriously, Ivy? It could have been pretty much any female villain except Ivy and be better. Her goal is to murder all humans in a plant based genocide.

Of course it would be even better if we stop trying to romanticize lunatics, serial killers, and obviously abusive dysfunctional relationships. Cool? Cool.

Actually Ivy's usually played up as more of a morally gray antihero/antivillain these days depending on the writer and situation. She's much less genocidal than when she started. During No Man's Land she even took in orphans and helped supply fruits and vegetables to refugees.

Then there's everything involving the Green and that while primal forces section of the DC Universe.

The last Poison Ivy book I read, granted I forget the year of publication, she was back to working in the lab alongside human scientists who were her friends.

She still prefers plants to people, but like Harley Quinn she's often more good than evil, though she does straddle the line. It's implied that while they're no longer together, the relationship between Harley and Ivy was good for both of them. Harley gets an alternative to her Mistuh J and is able to stand up to him more often, and Ivy lightened up to where she's no longer genocidally crazy.

Now I haven't seen Ivy in the most recent DC Rebirth comics yet, and all I know about Harley is she's on the Suicide Squad with a movie-esque lineup.

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-09, 10:00 AM

That's getting to be pretty common with the comics. The movie tail is wagging the whole publishing dog. I figure the next cosmic reboot in Marvel is going to rip the universe into separate Avengers and X-Men continuities.

Ramza00

2016-08-09, 10:24 AM

No the argument was change should happen if it makes sense for the characters to behave and develop for those changes to work.

Ivy is using Harley. Ivy is a manipulative serial rapist. I know Ivy and Harley had a thing in BTAS, trust me, I've seen every episode multiple times. Here's what happens that episode. Joker is a **** to Harley, Harley wanders off meets Ivy who then gets her to go on a crime spree. Then at the end, she is disgusted with Harley for going back to the Joker, because she can no longer get any use from her newest toy. And that's the end of their relationship.

She is disgusted with harley for harley keeps on making the exact same bad decisions, harley knows she is doing this, but does this anyway.

Ivy is disgusted for this is what many people call the definition of insanity, Harley knows it is a bad relationship but does it anyway.

-----

(warning this part I am indenting is getting way too close to politics, I appoligize I am not trying to talk poltics but instead how we view society has changed in the last twenty years.)

Now Ivy being disgusted and Ivy wanting Harley to change her relationship status with Mr. J is not a feminist or non feminist position in modern society, but it used to be considered a feminist perspective in the 70s to 90s that if a man treats you like crap and you are married to him, and this does not change then you need to get out of this relationship if you are married. A great chart that demonstrates the change of culture involving divorce is this link / picture

http://www.businessinsider.com/marriage-divorce-rates-america-2015-12

Notice the surge of divorce from the 1970s to mid 1990s, but from the mid 1990s to today divorce rates are lower today than they used to be. In fact today's divorce rate in the US is almost the rate it was in the 1950s

Now technical Harley and Mr. J are not a married couple, but they sure do act like it. When the episode aired in 1993 this was a time where many people were bemoaning the changing relationship between men and women, and lots of people were complaining that women were divorcing needlessly.

Am I going political and imparting my viewpoint onto the episode where it does not exist? The answer to this is no. Take for instance when Poison Ivy and Harley tie up batman. They made a point to tie him up to the kitchen table and the plan was for him to be drowned in the bottom of a lake (part of a toxic waste dump). Poison Ivy talks about how it is fitting that batman is imprisoned by the tools of female domestic slavery. And you see on the table that the weights are a vaccum cleaner, an iron, a coffee maker, a (food) stand mixer, etc. One of the themes of this episodes is whether women are prisoners to marriage but also whether society itself makes women into a prisoners. One of the great gags at the end of the episode is Ivy stating no man can ever hold them prisoners, only for a female cop to shoot out the car's tire that Harley and Ivy were driving and the female cop was the one who arrested them.

------

I am now dropping this conversation for it is getting way too close to politics.

Dienekes

2016-08-09, 10:36 AM

Actually Ivy's usually played up as more of a morally gray antihero/antivillain these days depending on the writer and situation. She's much less genocidal than when she started. During No Man's Land she even took in orphans and helped supply fruits and vegetables to refugees.

Then there's everything involving the Green and that while primal forces section of the DC Universe.

The last Poison Ivy book I read, granted I forget the year of publication, she was back to working in the lab alongside human scientists who were her friends.

She still prefers plants to people, but like Harley Quinn she's often more good than evil, though she does straddle the line. It's implied that while they're no longer together, the relationship between Harley and Ivy was good for both of them. Harley gets an alternative to her Mistuh J and is able to stand up to him more often, and Ivy lightened up to where she's no longer genocidally crazy.

Now I haven't seen Ivy in the most recent DC Rebirth comics yet, and all I know about Harley is she's on the Suicide Squad with a movie-esque lineup.

Oh I know from what's been posted that Ivy has been thoroughly toned down. I didn't realize it was this bad though. Bah, I hate it when they take good villains and neuter them because they're pretty and popular.

Fine, I admit defeat, somewhere along the line Ivy apparently was changed so she isn't a mass murdering serial rapist, who has literally used children to feed to her plant abominations anymore. Whatever.

At least I still have the Joker. They certainly won't make him actually start caring about Harley. Except, you know, in this movie. But they better not make that transition anywhere.

Calemyr

2016-08-09, 10:41 AM

At least I still have the Joker. They certainly won't make him actually start caring about Harley. Except, you know, in this movie. But they better not make that transition anywhere.

But does he? Really? Or does he view Harley as a work of art that he's molded to his view of perfection?

Dienekes

2016-08-09, 10:49 AM

But does he? Really? Or does he view Harley as a work of art that he's molded to his view of perfection?

You can try to wiggle your own interpretation onto him as much as you want, to get your own fan canon view. And, while, personally, I like your view better than what I got out of the viewing experience, all I saw was that every action the Joker takes in this movie (after the beginning transformation scene) was to aid, save, and protect Harley.

Calemyr

2016-08-09, 10:53 AM

You can try to wiggle your own interpretation onto him as much as you want, to get your own fan canon view. And, while, personally, I like your view better than what I got out of the viewing experience, all I saw was that every action the Joker takes in this movie (after the beginning transformation scene) was to aid, save, and protect Harley.

Yep. But is it meant to be genuine affection, or is that just another fan interpretation? Valid, certainly, no more valid than others?

Dienekes

2016-08-09, 11:04 AM

Yep. But is it meant to be genuine affection, or is that just another fan interpretation? Valid, certainly, no more valid than others?

Well, without further evidence to prove either way, I usually go with the one that requires the least explaining. Because providing these details to thoroughly explore the motivations is the job of the writers. Actually caring for, admittedly, his creation of Harley is what all his actions seem to show. If it was not meant to be genuine affection, perhaps, not presenting it as such would make your interpretation the correct one. But since they didn't, I'd stick with he actually cares in his own deranged way.

Velaryon

2016-08-09, 11:39 AM

Saw the film Sunday night. It's... a mixed bag, to say the least.

Pros:
-Will Smith playing Will Smith and calling it Deadshot is probably not accurate to the comics, but it's enjoyable enough that I don't care.
-Margot Robbie is not amazing as Harley Quinn, but much better than she looked from the trailers.
-El Diablo was pretty awesome, once he got past the moping and actually started doing stuff and explaining his backstory.
-Amanda Waller is a stone cold badass, but also makes Nick Fury look like a positively nice and trustworthy dude.
-Visuals were mostly pretty good, and the action was entertaining.
-Killer Croc has moments of funny that are clearly inspired by MCU's take on the Hulk.
-The music was well-chosen, although there was a bit too much of it, especially early on. Clearly some exec watched Guardians of the Galaxy and concluded that the film's success was largely attributable to spamming classic songs throughout the entire movie.

Cons:
-Half the squad were absolutely pointless. They honestly could have just left out Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, and Katana (and that Slipknot guy whose name I had to look up because he was too insignificant to remember).
-I know DC has some goofy and stupid character names, but Captain Boomerang? Really?
-The plot doesn't hold up to even the tiniest amount of critical thought. Yes, it's a popcorn movie where you're advised to turn off your brain, but some of it was just really dumb.
-Did Enchantress's brother even have a name? Or a personality? Goals of his own? Any reason at all to be in the movie other than as a plot device to explain how Enchantress got out from under Waller's thumb?
-Jared Leto's Joker is pretty terrible. While the acting and characterization are definitely not up to the standards of Nicholson or Ledger, it's still the look that really kills it here. I don't know what they were thinking and it just doesn't work for me.

Overall it was worth the watch, but not something I feel compelled to watch again. In comparison to BvS: Dawn of Justice (which I just watched last night so it's fresh in my mind), I'd say Suicide Squad is more consistent and slightly better. Also, the lack of gun-toting, criminal-branding, murderous Bat-fleck (sure, he appears but he isn't doing the previously mentioned un-Batman-like things in this film) helps a lot.

I'm using the Ultimate Edition of BvS as my basis for comparison, so I don't know what all was cut from the theatrical release. Either way, both films are leagues above Man of Steel, which set my expectations low enough that I was able to enjoy both films to an extent.

AvatarVecna

2016-08-09, 04:14 PM

I know DC has some goofy and stupid character names, but Captain Boomerang? Really?

Captain Boomerang is admittedly difficult to take seriously for a lot of reasons (for starters, because he's one of the Flash's rogues, as opposed to somebody that could actually be reasonably fought using super-science boomerangs), but there's worse. Did you know Superman has a villain called...I think it's the Puzzler? I know what you're thinking, "sounds like a Riddler ripoff", but it's actually even dumber than that. Puzzler (or whatever they're called) is a villain that's essentially a human-shaped three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle; their gimmick is that, when you beat them up, they break apart, but they can put themselves back together (they also make puzzle-based puns, because of course they do). They're not particularly strong or fast compared to a normal person, they're just kinda hard to actually hurt. Superman tolerates this nonsense for a period of time too small for current science to accurately measure, and proceeds to take Puzzler apart and then trap their face under a trash can so their body can't reform around it. Or hey, we could bring up Calendar Man, a Batman villain who's plan for outwitting the world's greatest detectives is to make both his crimes and the days they'll be committed about as predictable as possible.

Not that Marvel is much better on the "stupid villain" front. There's a dude in Marvel who's a third-tier super-scientist who made some kind of laser gun that temporarily blinds his opponents when he fires it. He decides that this technology is sufficiently useful for him to take on Daredevil and Spider-Man at the same time. Take a wild freaking guess how that fight went.

comicshorse

2016-08-09, 04:21 PM

I see your Puzzler and raise you Arm Fall Off Boy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm-Fall-Off-Boy

LaZodiac

2016-08-09, 04:28 PM

temporarily blinds his opponents. Daredevil and Spider-Man.

I give the boy points for gumption but hooo jeez that's...that's just not good.

Velaryon

2016-08-09, 04:28 PM

Captain Boomerang is admittedly difficult to take seriously for a lot of reasons (for starters, because he's one of the Flash's rogues, as opposed to somebody that could actually be reasonably fought using super-science boomerangs), but there's worse. Did you know Superman has a villain called...I think it's the Puzzler? I know what you're thinking, "sounds like a Riddler ripoff", but it's actually even dumber than that. Puzzler (or whatever they're called) is a villain that's essentially a human-shaped three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle; their gimmick is that, when you beat them up, they break apart, but they can put themselves back together (they also make puzzle-based puns, because of course they do). They're not particularly strong or fast compared to a normal person, they're just kinda hard to actually hurt. Superman tolerates this nonsense for a period of time too small for current science to accurately measure, and proceeds to take Puzzler apart and then trap their face under a trash can so their body can't reform around it. Or hey, we could bring up Calendar Man, a Batman villain who's plan for outwitting the world's greatest detectives is to make both his crimes and the days they'll be committed about as predictable as possible.

Not that Marvel is much better on the "stupid villain" front. There's a dude in Marvel who's a third-tier super-scientist who made some kind of laser gun that temporarily blinds his opponents when he fires it. He decides that this technology is sufficiently useful for him to take on Daredevil and Spider-Man at the same time. Take a wild freaking guess how that fight went.

I can only assume that the puzzle-based puns help him cope with the existential horror of being a "super" villain whose name is Puzzler. It's probably a better coping mechanism than the drug habit(s) he would no doubt have otherwise.

It's true that Marvel has its share of facepalm-worthy character names, but they tend to either have fewer of them, or at least have quietly swept most of them under the rug several decades ago. I'm sure that a few have slipped through, though.

AvatarVecna

2016-08-09, 04:35 PM

I give the boy points for gumption but hooo jeez that's...that's just not good.

Being totally fair, it's not like he called them out to fight, but I think he just went running through their part of New York high on power, and didn't stop to think through the implications of their power sets countering his.

I can only assume that the puzzle-based puns help him cope with the existential horror of being a "super" villain whose name is Puzzler. It's probably a better coping mechanism than the drug habit(s) he would no doubt have otherwise.

It's true that Marvel has its share of facepalm-worthy character names, but they tend to either have fewer of them, or at least have quietly swept most of them under the rug several decades ago. I'm sure that a few have slipped through, though.

Yeah, Marvel is better about dealing with the crap properly. Hell, apparently the Punisher takes time out of his daily routine to make sure there's no scrubs bothering Daredevil, since he's eliminated a handful of bottom-tier villains who were trying to fight DD.

comicshorse

2016-08-09, 04:41 PM

Yeah, Marvel is better about dealing with the crap properly. Hell, apparently the Punisher takes time out of his daily routine to make sure there's no scrubs bothering Daredevil, since he's eliminated a handful of bottom-tier villains who were trying to fight DD.

A Supervillain, The Scourge, was created specifically to destroy unwanted marvel villains in the late 80's. Think he got upwards of 40

Rodin

2016-08-09, 04:42 PM

I see your Puzzler and raise you Arm Fall Off Boy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm-Fall-Off-Boy

If you had not actually linked that, I would not have believed that was a thing and thought you were pulling my leg. Which would then fall off. :smallbiggrin:

Oh comic books. There are so many times when I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the writers' room where they decided that THIS is a good idea.

Arm Fall Off Boy seems like the sort of thing that gets written at 2 AM while utterly blitzed when the author suddenly remembers that he has a deadline.

Velaryon

2016-08-09, 04:47 PM

If you had not actually linked that, I would not have believed that was a thing and thought you were pulling my leg. Which would then fall off. :smallbiggrin:

Oh comic books. There are so many times when I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the writers' room where they decided that THIS is a good idea.

Arm Fall Off Boy seems like the sort of thing that gets written at 2 AM while utterly blitzed when the author suddenly remembers that he has a deadline.

Maybe Arm Fall Off Boy was created on a dare? Or just trying to see whether the editors were paying attention (they clearly weren't).

Fawkes

2016-08-09, 05:00 PM

If I recall correctly, Arm-Fall-Off-Boy was introduced trying out for the Legion of Super-heroes, which regularly held interviews for new super-powered team members, usually with people with stupid powers.

Ceiling_Squid

2016-08-09, 05:02 PM

If it's any consolation, Arm Fall Off Boy was literally created to be useless. His appearance in comics involves him applying to (and subsequently being rejected by) a superhero team.

Then he came back with a (marginally) better name: "Splitter". He was once again rejected, after failing to make the cut during tryouts.

Edit: Fawkes beat me to it.

Starbuck_II

2016-08-09, 05:59 PM

Dienekes

2016-08-09, 07:00 PM

On the members:

Katana was needed as Enchantress was resist to non-magical damage, the sword is magical. Granted, they could have stolen he sword and have someone else use it, but she is best with it.

Croc is good for swimming missions. Plus, tough and strong.

Boomerang has Batman batarang powers, (remember he used his boomerang to scout the building safely).

There's a difference between the show shoehorning an action for a character to take and the character actually being important to the narrative.

The story could have said "we need to cut out her heart, it's her only weakness!" and then Katana has no purpose in the story. By the same token, Croc is only useful because the show just so happened to require people to go scuba diving for the mission to be successful, because, random events happened to make that necessary because the writers wanted him to do something.

Boomerang actually does serve a narrative purpose. He was the guy that continuously tested the limits and rebelled against the status quo tricking others to die so he could figure out what's going on. He is the "token villain" of the villain team. And while they played with that a few times (tricking slipknot to commit suicide and leaving as soon as Flagg smashes the detonator). But they don't actually really play it up. He just comes back the next scene for no reason.

JeminiZero

2016-08-09, 08:45 PM

I've not watched the movie, but I just wanted to add this:

Deadshot's eyepiece, most likely, has some arcane production story that we know nothing about. My best guess, is that Will Smith simply didn't want the eyepiece on his right eye.

Alternatively, it could be a setup for an I'm not left eye dominant (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IAmNotLeftHanded) long con somewhere down the line. :smalltongue:

Olinser

2016-08-09, 09:35 PM

There's a difference between the show shoehorning an action for a character to take and the character actually being important to the narrative.

The story could have said "we need to cut out her heart, it's her only weakness!" and then Katana has no purpose in the story. By the same token, Croc is only useful because the show just so happened to require people to go scuba diving for the mission to be successful, because, random events happened to make that necessary because the writers wanted him to do something.

Boomerang actually does serve a narrative purpose. He was the guy that continuously tested the limits and rebelled against the status quo tricking others to die so he could figure out what's going on. He is the "token villain" of the villain team. And while they played with that a few times (tricking slipknot to commit suicide and leaving as soon as Flagg smashes the detonator. But they don't actually really play it up. He just comes back the next seen for no reason.

The term you were looking for was 'Eigen Plot' (although it has recently been re-named for some stupid reason).

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotTailoredToTheParty?from=Main.EigenPlot

DiscipleofBob

2016-08-09, 11:03 PM

Katana was supposedly there to help Flag keep people in line but we really didn't get to see that happen. Plotwise she was just an excuse to carry a magical Macguffin to beat Enchantress. Honestly she could have been killed off fighting mooks or Joker or something and would have had the same impact.

In-universe I'm not sure why Boomerang was on the team. He didn't offer anything that other members didn't do better. It'd be different if he had actually given Flash some trouble before his incarceration. Then his position would make sense. Meta plot wise, Boomerang was supposed to be annoying comic relief and pseudo-Deadpool, but he ended up being annoying and useless. No idea why he came back. Maybe if he had some kind of throwaway line like "I'm Boomerang. When people throw me away I can't help but come back."

In the comics, not only is Boomerang more useful, he's like the team's Starscream. He's always either trying to take Deadshot's position leading the team, betraying the team, or pretending to betray the team.

Croc was the team brute. He's the only one with reliable super strength. Sure he's not Superman-level, but he's the best they've got.

ben-zayb

2016-08-10, 07:08 AM

Is there even an in-story explanation of calling Enchantress that name? There's only one person enamored, and even that was more on the alter ego.

Frozen_Feet

2016-08-10, 08:28 AM

Just counting the manipulative illusions and the "I'll make your dream come true" talk to Harley, yes.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-10, 11:57 PM

Oh I know from what's been posted that Ivy has been thoroughly toned down. I didn't realize it was this bad though. Bah, I hate it when they take good villains and neuter them because they're pretty and popular.

Fine, I admit defeat, somewhere along the line Ivy apparently was changed so she isn't a mass murdering serial rapist, who has literally used children to feed to her plant abominations anymore. Whatever.

At least I still have the Joker. They certainly won't make him actually start caring about Harley. Except, you know, in this movie. But they better not make that transition anywhere.

I know we all have different favorite characters, and I understand the feeling; I still haven't forgiven certain people for what they did to Spider Man.
That said I find it kind of funny that it's okay to debate which Joker you like best, but other characters are not allowed to change?

Also... I haven't followed the comics that closely for many years but this description still seems off to me:
"Ivy apparently was changed so she isn't a mass murdering serial rapist, who has literally used children to feed to her plant abominations anymore. Whatever." She must have taken a sharp turn somewhere. And then obviously she took an equally sharp turn the other way.

I don't recall that description fitting Ivy back when I read them, including back issues and dad's old comics... Mass murdererer, Okay. The rest? Not that much. For most of her time she has been one of three things to a varying degree:

Echo Terrorist, Strawman Feminist, Seductress.
Or to put it more clearly: Murdering people because they're stepping on plants, Murdering people because they're men, and trying to seduce batman.

Ravian

2016-08-11, 02:18 AM

Didn't think I was going to see this movie after the reviews, but some friends wanted to take a look so I went along.

It was bad. Really bad.

Most of the team is completely forgettable. Only Deadshot, Harley and Diablo have much of any presence in the film, the others could practically be replaced with lamps.

This compounds with the fact that a good deal of the team is functionally pointless as well. I really question the reason why you'd want a good number of these people on a team. Deadshot and Diablo are obvious, but for all of Harley's combat ability, she's insane, and not easily controlled. Killer Croc is big and strong, but still fairly low-tier on the strength scale for a superhero world. Katana is theoretically good at fighting, but her impact really didn't extend beyond providing a necessary macguffin for another character to use.

Boomerang is just absolutely pointless though. I'm actually surprised how little he actually threw his boomerangs as well. Most of the time he seemed more like a dude with oddly shaped knives he stabbed people with. His one contributing factor was his recon boomerang, which was really only useful because the plot decided it was useful.

The story was beyond dumb. You'd really think that Waller would put better precautions on things when she's trying to blackmail a teleporter. (The proximity alarm for her case was good, but you wonder why she didn't extend similar protection to her house, even just some video cameras to alert her in case she broke in.) Not to mention that her reason for sticking around in the city was ridiculous, why does she have to study something that dangerous within the city?

Joker could also have been completely cut. He should be there to give context to Harley's character. Instead she's back with the team after his stunt in the span of 10-15 minutes.

I also feel like we were really missing some scenes where these people actually became a team. For most of the movie I really feel like no one likes each other. Then Deadshot becomes extremely sentimental for Harley for reasons I really can't explain. (Despite him essentially choosing her over his daughter in the "I missed scene") Then comes the Bar scene and suddenly it feels like everyone has bonded and they're one big happy family.

And honestly, the movie didn't feel fast paced at all. It felt slow to me. Character introductions are very spread out and interspersed with the Enchantress side-plot. And none of it is very exciting, mostly being backstory and such. To the point where it takes about an hour before the suicide squad is actually on site and doing interesting stuff.
But once they're there, it mostly feels like some sort of zombie war movie as they crawl through heaps of Fungus zombies in rather repetitive scenes. Then we get to the bit with Joker and Harley's stunt which goes nowhere.
And then there's the Climax which is just so badly choreographed and boring. I was really just begging for it to end, and practically screamed when Joker showed up to bust Harley out, because I was worried for a moment that it was going to just keep going.

I can't recommend this movie in any way. It's not good as a story, and the action feels way too repetitive to be interesting as a fun popcorn movie.

Dienekes

2016-08-11, 07:31 AM

I know we all have different favorite characters, and I understand the feeling; I still haven't forgiven certain people for what they did to Spider Man.
That said I find it kind of funny that it's okay to debate which Joker you like best, but other characters are not allowed to change?

Also... I haven't followed the comics that closely for many years but this description still seems off to me:
"Ivy apparently was changed so she isn't a mass murdering serial rapist, who has literally used children to feed to her plant abominations anymore. Whatever." She must have taken a sharp turn somewhere. And then obviously she took an equally sharp turn the other way.

I don't recall that description fitting Ivy back when I read them, including back issues and dad's old comics... Mass murdererer, Okay. The rest? Not that much. For most of her time she has been one of three things to a varying degree:

Echo Terrorist, Strawman Feminist, Seductress.
Or to put it more clearly: Murdering people because they're stepping on plants, Murdering people because they're men, and trying to seduce batman.

She tries to seduce Batman and others with various chemicals usually passed by kissing or smell that makes anyone want to do what she asks. Several times she has also had sex with the people she has used those chemicals on. Include Batman.

That's a rapist. By definition. The chemical part of her seduction has been with her forever.

As to why I think making their relationship functional is wrong. It's because we should not be romanticizing these people. Especially when their purpose is basically about pointing out what's wrong with relationships whether you're being controlled like Harley or the controlling one like Ivy.

HardcoreD&Dgirl

2016-08-11, 10:12 AM

She tries to seduce Batman and others with various chemicals usually passed by kissing or smell that makes anyone want to do what she asks. Several times she has also had sex with the people she has used those chemicals on. Include Batman.

That's a rapist. By definition. The chemical part of her seduction has been with her forever.

As to why I think making their relationship functional is wrong. It's because we should not be romanticizing these people. Especially when their purpose is basically about pointing out what's wrong with relationships whether you're being controlled like Harley or the controlling one like Ivy.

there is this weird double standard where women, or I guess hot women can't rape...because duh what guy doesn't really want it?

Personal note, I must not be anywhere near as HOT as I think because I have been turned down...so I guess not all guys want it

Rogar Demonblud

2016-08-11, 11:02 AM

there is this weird double standard where women, or I guess hot women can't rape...because duh what guy doesn't really want it?

Personal note, I must not be anywhere near as HOT as I think because I have been turned down...so I guess not all guys want it

That has less to do with your personal attractiveness and the ever increasing paranoia all genders are afflicted with. I blame all the prank videos on YouTube.

Avilan the Grey

2016-08-11, 02:50 PM

She tries to seduce Batman and others with various chemicals usually passed by kissing or smell that makes anyone want to do what she asks. Several times she has also had sex with the people she has used those chemicals on. Include Batman.

That's a rapist. By definition. The chemical part of her seduction has been with her forever.

As to why I think making their relationship functional is wrong. It's because we should not be romanticizing these people. Especially when their purpose is basically about pointing out what's wrong with relationships whether you're being controlled like Harley or the controlling one like Ivy.

I give you that point.
Regarding your point... I don't really see the problem. I really don't.

Also appart from the fact that Ivy has a big chip on her shoulder towards men...
oh and Even Evil Has Loved Ones (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes) and about 1000 other tropes.

Morph Bark

2016-08-11, 03:22 PM

I honestly wonder what the Suicide Squad film was originally going to be. They did a lot of reshooting after Batman v Superman got a bad response, changing the tone of the film a lot, and shortly after BvS they began to release brighter-looking trailers with a more upbeat soundtrack.

Dienekes

2016-08-11, 04:57 PM

there is this weird double standard where women, or I guess hot women can't rape...because duh what guy doesn't really want it?

Personal note, I must not be anywhere near as HOT as I think because I have been turned down...so I guess not all guys want it

Yeah it is weird and a little gross. Especially with cases like Talia who mind controlled Bruce raped him, and had a son. The most we've gotten to a confrontation about this is Batman saying "You used me." And then admitting that his time being mind controlled wasn't all bad, alluding to said rape. Ughh, comics. Come on.

Even more annoying to me, personally, is the tendency among writers to try to redeem (or even more, toned down so we're actually supposed to kind of root for them) villains usually who have no purpose being redeemed but only if those villains are pretty females.

Sure we get a few like Magneto whose arc has always been on the verge of redemption and failing. But then we get others, your Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Enchantress, Giganta, the mord sith, Elektra, Cheshire, ****ing Emma Frost, Morgana, Mirage, Irene Adler (in like every version except the original), Talia, even in legend Morgan le Fay randomly switches sides for no reason, every female cylon in BSG, Lady Shiva, Lady HYDRA. Now some of these transitions were better than others, admittedly. But in general if you create an attractive female villain she will either be neutered as a villain or turn good.

And worst of them are when said villains have done complete atrocities in the same continuity and it's just forgotten. Some of those listed villains are mass murders, have nuked cities, or attempted genocide. But forget all that, they're kinda good now guys!

It really is just ****ty writing. And you will rarely if ever find it done with the ugly looking or male villains (though I'm sure some exceptions exist. I know Juggernaut for instance had an attempt at goodness but that was at least somewhat a development of his previous character, and let's be clear Juggs was never really more than a petty thug. Of course they then turned him evil again for no reason if I remember correctly. Honestly I've given up on making sense of the X-Men a long time ago).

I give you that point.
Regarding your point... I don't really see the problem. I really don't.

Also appart from the fact that Ivy has a big chip on her shoulder towards men...
oh and Even Evil Has Loved Ones (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes) and about 1000 other tropes.

Ok, here's why. It's not that they can't have people important to them it's that these vile people are considered good for them. Worse when the harm of bad relationships is the focus of these characters, to then glorify a really really bad relationship is morally problematic and just misses the point. Hell even in the link the token picture was Mr Freeze whose story is how his obsession corrupted and destroyed him. There's a reason when Nora was finally revived she straight up rebuked him for both what he has become and what he had changed her into.

And honestly now, on Ivy and Harley, what about Ivy's personality before Harley makes her a good match for this story. The original tv show just paired them because they were trying to shove in a woman's power message in a very ham handed way.

This is the woman who created a personal harem of drug addled zombies.

If the person who "fixed" Harley was someone as morally disgusting but let's say they weren't a sexy redhead. Let's say it was Mr Pyg would you really be defending it? Cuz of the two, as grotesque as Mr Pyg is, Ivy has done far worse ****.

LaZodiac

2016-08-11, 06:20 PM

It's almost as if some writers write characters badly.

Ranxerox

2016-08-11, 06:35 PM

Even more annoying to me, personally, is the tendency among writers to try to redeem (or even more, toned down so we're actually supposed to kind of root for them) villains usually who have no purpose being redeemed but only if those villains are pretty females.

Sure we get a few like Magneto whose arc has always been on the verge of redemption and failing. But then we get others, your Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn, Enchantress, Giganta, the mord sith, Elektra, Cheshire, ****ing Emma Frost, Morgana, Mirage, Irene Adler (in like every version except the original), Talia, even in legend Morgan le Fay randomly switches sides for no reason, every female cylon is BSG, Lady Shiva, Lady HYDRA. Now some of these transitions were better than others, admittedly. But in general if you create an attractive female villain she will either be neutered as a villain or turn good.

Actually, unless they are Mephisto, the Red Skull or Darkseid, if they hang around long enough every villain get a redemption or failed redemption story. Doctor Doom has been a hero. Doc Ock did a stint as an anti-hero in Superior Spider-Man. The Rhino got a redemption arc where he tried to go straight and settle down. Gladiator started out as a ruthless killer before becoming the guy who makes Daredevil's costumes. Lex Luthor has fought alongside Superman. In the TV series Gotham, Oswald Cobblepot has at times been a sympathetic character. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Writers when dealing with villains that have been around a long time struggle with something new that they can do with the character. This pretty much insures that sooner or latter one will write a story that either reforms the villain or at least tries to explain why the character is the way they are. Now I grant you that sexy female characters tend to stay reformed or semi-reformed longer than male characters, but even they sometimes relapse. The gravitational pull of the comic book status quo is hard to resist.

Dienekes

2016-08-11, 07:08 PM

Actually, unless they are Mephisto, the Red Skull or Darkseid, if they hang around long enough every villain get a redemption or failed redemption story. Doctor Doom has been a hero. Doc Ock did a stint as an anti-hero in Superior Spider-Man. The Rhino got a redemption arc where he tried to go straight and settle down. Gladiator started out as a ruthless killer before becoming the guy who makes Daredevil's costumes. Lex Luthor has fought alongside Superman. In the TV series Gotham, Oswald Cobblepot has at times been a sympathetic character. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Writers when dealing with villains that have been around a long time struggle with something new that they can do with the character. This pretty much insures that sooner or latter one will write a story that either reforms the villain or at least tries to explain why the character is the way they are. Now I grant you that sexy female characters tend to stay reformed or semi-reformed longer than male characters, but even they sometimes relapse. The gravitational pull of the comic book status quo is hard to resist.

Doom has been a hero is news to me. I've seen him pull an enemy of my enemy before but almost always with a plan to betray Reed at the best moment. Gladiator is totally true, though I think that one actually worked since it was played up as a development of his mental health issues. Luthor like Doom is a surprise as again I can only think of times where he would ally with the heroes to fight Darkseid or someone. Because, why wouldn't he? Even sociopaths don't want the planet they're living on to be destroyed. Now I have seen a fair share of Lex Luthor fall from grace stories that explore what he was before going evil. Which I think is kind of the opposite of what I find annoying.

Now I've only seen the first season and a half of Gotham, but my understanding is Cobblepot is an unrepentant backstabbing conniving gangster who just so happens to be bullied a lot. Nothing really good about him, nor does the show try to get the audience to ignore the terrible things he's done. If they changed that I would call that **** writing as well.

The thing is, I'm not even against redemption stories. Not at all. But I am against throwing redemption at a character that makes no sense and doesn't feel earned. If you do that it just seems like fan wankery. If you make someone suddenly good without addressing the horrors they've committed first, or providing a decent reason for them to see the light then it feels forced and hollow. Which is what happens a lot of the time.