Tan Djarka
Sr Member
I finally got around to seeing this in a second run theater. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. I guess that's all I really have to say about it .
Suicide Squad (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you don't like it but you suspect it could have been a better movie - you want to buy the Blu-Ray - hopefully change
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you don't like it because you thought there would be more Jared Leto - You want to buy the Blu-Ray - hopefully change
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you don't like it but you want to find a reason to like it because you're a DC fanboy/fangirl - You want to buy the Blu-Ray - hopefully change
Fawbish
Sr Member
That is a very specific audience profile to aim for though.
The second one is probably the most encompassing/vocal complaint I've seen, and would probably have the biggest "draw" factor to an extended edition. But don't you think if someone was invested so much that they want more Jared Leto as Joker...that they would already be buying the blu-ray?
Effectively, I suppose you're saying there's an overall fifth category of:
You go to see the movie at the cinema - you dont like it. You want to buy the Blu-ray -- Change?
Which makes sense..ish. But do you think the percentage of people in that category will be significant compared to normal Blu-ray numbers? It's the only way the complaints might make sense really.
I see nothing wrong with it. Some people like the extra, although I prefer them to ALSO offer the theatrical as well.
But usually extended cut also means crappy version. 9 out of 10 it turns out those cuts were made for a reason.
LotR is one of the few examples where the extended is actually a better movie.
But usually extended cut also means crappy version. 9 out of 10 it turns out those cuts were made for a reason.
LotR is one of the few examples where the extended is actually a better movie.
Fawbish
Sr Member
I haven't really thought about it but I've only really heard about extended cuts that are better to be fair.
BvS, Daredevil, Kingdom of Heaven etc.
Are there any major ones that are worse? A quick a google shows Donnie Darko perhaps isn't a better film when shown extended version.
I mostly don't bother anymore, but just off the top of my head the two biggest that come to mind are Amadeus and of course, Star Wars.
Also, I know most die hard fans prefer directors of Bladerunner (without voice over), but for people who haven't seen it yet and try to watch that one first, what you get is a movie that doesn't make a lot of sense in places and has long strange scenes of no one talking.
Edit side-story: years and years ago, during the height of Next Gen and DS9 popularity, I went to a Star Trek convention. People who go to cons now may not realize just how big Trek was at cons then, but with two shows still on the air, it was huge...the Klingons had their own wing of the hotel.
I remember this one girl taking a survey as kind of a joke, and one of the options was "Would you watch a movie about Michael Dorn eating Gagh?"
Later, when I finally saw Bladerunner the first time (It slipped under my radar when it came out so I didnt see until just a couple years ago), I first tried watching the no VO directors cut and after watching Harrison Ford eat noodles in silence for a few minutes all I could think of was a movie about Michael Dorn eating gagh.
Later someone told me that there was a voice over in the original version. When I watched that, suddenly the curiously long eating noodles scene made a lot more sense.
Also, I know most die hard fans prefer directors of Bladerunner (without voice over), but for people who haven't seen it yet and try to watch that one first, what you get is a movie that doesn't make a lot of sense in places and has long strange scenes of no one talking.
Edit side-story: years and years ago, during the height of Next Gen and DS9 popularity, I went to a Star Trek convention. People who go to cons now may not realize just how big Trek was at cons then, but with two shows still on the air, it was huge...the Klingons had their own wing of the hotel.
I remember this one girl taking a survey as kind of a joke, and one of the options was "Would you watch a movie about Michael Dorn eating Gagh?"
Later, when I finally saw Bladerunner the first time (It slipped under my radar when it came out so I didnt see until just a couple years ago), I first tried watching the no VO directors cut and after watching Harrison Ford eat noodles in silence for a few minutes all I could think of was a movie about Michael Dorn eating gagh.
Later someone told me that there was a voice over in the original version. When I watched that, suddenly the curiously long eating noodles scene made a lot more sense.
Last edited:
It's a small segment, to be sure, which is probably why IPs are often conflicted about releasing extended editions or spending money to produce a lot of extras when the discs would sell regardless.
Just to digress for a second. I think there's a lot of long term gain by feeding the fanbase with "extras" that don't necessarily increase DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Marvel One Shots is a great example of items that really helped to keep the MCU seeded in the public consciousness between films but also enriched the mythos. I can understand when a stand alone Hollywood blockbuster gets only a basic release but, with franchises like the DECCU and MCU, it's never a loss to invest in extras.
Snikt
Sr Member
Im not really against the extended version, it just bothers me because its such a blatant cash grab from the studio. And they are banking on that "oh you should totally buy the blu ray, cause its going to have the REAL version on it", its like youre getting shanghaied and having to double down on the cash. Its the same with video game companies, they release DLC 2 weeks after the game came out, its insulting.
Fawbish
Sr Member
With the gaming companies, I think theres a difference (for the worse). You can't "progress" without the DLC sometimes, and the sort of wave of other people playing the game put you into a place where you "need" the extra content (depending on the game of course) for multiplayer stuff or what have you. With a film, I don't think I've seen anyone claiming for Suicide Squad that this is the "real" version (and it would be quite silly to do so, Ayer maintained the theatrical cut is his) - I will however totally agree that BvS ended up that way (and not to the creative teams consent - it seems clear cut that Snyder wanted that three hour cutand was possibly even expecting it until nearer the time). I'll never see the theatrical as the canon version now - which in itself causes problems between fans later on down the line for nitpicks. Though it is the same story.
But that only really becomes an issue because it's in a shared universe right? If this was a totally stand alone film, I don't think we'd see as many reactive complaints about this kind of thing.
I kind of love that film as an entertainment medium has all these fascinating different angles to it over the years, and we can go back to something like Superman II: The Donner Cut and stuff like that. Certainly gives more discussions points, whether thats good or bad! haha.
The biggest dropped ball I consider to be Blade Runner. There were things that could have been done for the Director's Cut or the 25th anniversary re-release that weren't (bring in the audio of what Gaff is saying to Deckard in the spinner en route to the station, restore the Deckard-visits-Holden-in-the-hospital scene, add Mary the missing replicant back to the story and rearrange the out-of-order scenes that were shuffled so the numbers worked even though nothing else did), while some things were changed that shouldn't have been (Deckard is a replicant now, wasn't originally -- completely kills the story, regardless of what Ridley says). The voice-over I could take or leave. I think I lean slightly more toward "not". I'm fine with the long noodle-eating scene establishing a sense of pacing. I don't mind movies taking their time.
A more minor thing is the DVD release of Star Trek VI. When Spock drags the conspirators' names out of Valeris, we are now treated to WHOOSH! intercuts of the people named. It totally doesn't belong. Not sure if it was fixed for the BlueRay.
Then there are all the ongoing tweaks George made to the Star Wars OT for the various post-Special Edition releases (young Anakin, etc.).
--Jonah
JLeezy23
Sr Member
As long as there's no alteration that chainsaws the story, the only reason studios drop scenes is because people don't like sitting for 2.5 hours in the theater. The theater experience supposed to keep you engaged and forget about the outside world for a bit, after 2 hours you start looking at your watch/phone, then word of mouth hits and it may lose sales the 2nd or 3rd week. They should sell a theatrical+extended set, but you know, sales numbers. They'd sell more consistent if they packaged 2 versions together, instead of a buyer standing there for 10 minutes figuring out which one to buy. I'm down for an extended edition, as long as they only make 2 versions. I hate waiting 6-8 months for special features packaging and having the first disc release stuck on the shelf.
Regardless of what studios might say is the reason for 90-120-minute run times, the real reason is turnover. A 90-minute movie can have more screenings in a day. That's more ticket sales than fewer screenings of a longer movie.
There's too much evidence to counter the "audience will get bored" argument. Put something engaging on the screen and people will sit there until the end credits (or unless they really have to pee). There were a couple movies in the recent past with run times well over two hours that caught me and the people I saw them with by surprise when they ended. It hadn't felt like that long. But put a weak story up on the screen and even 90 minutes will be pushing it. And for 3-hour (and longer) movies, I'm all in favor of bringing back the intermission. With Lawrence of Arabia, I'll take a break then -- maybe until the next day, even. With 2001, I'll often just go right on through without pausing. It really all depends on the film. But that would definitely take away from ticket sales, especially opening weekend. And that's all that really matters to studios these days -- how many tickets sold in a given period. Longer movies are anathema to that.
--Jonah
robstyle
Master Member
You would be surprised at how much was reshot/added due to missing it on the first go round. Aside from the well known massive reshoot there was a small reshoot done after that to add missing action and even some key elements to some scenes which blew my mind how something like that could be missed, but it was, TWICE!!! Seems there was some miscommunication between first/second/third units not even multiple script supervisors could keep track of. From what I understand there is a sub plot to the Joker that was cut dealing more with Batman. Reshoots were done to make that more about a tragic love story between the Joker and Harley. Reason being the potential for yet another film was there, which is now rumored to be a stand alone Harley movie.
For me, this was a hard watch. I had prior known the ending was Ghostbusters but I didnt expect it to be so Ghostbusters that even a friend said "this is totally Ghostbusters". The main issue is there was just too much to cram into the running time. Thats the epic fail that killed the movie for me and this is where DG as the director gets blasted for doing what he could to make things work in the time allotted. There was no winning this one without an additional 30 minutes added.
As far as everything else, as a viewer yet not a fan of super hero movies/comics, Deadshot as an anti hero bad guy with a heart of gold was a dismal failure as much as the Joker and Leto. The Joker was just lacking everywhere looking more like a Halloween costume than an actual movie villain. Everything about that character made me flashback more and more to conversations with Paul Hernandez (Jet Beetle) about adding things to scripts that make no sense because a producer/studio brass thinks its a neat idea yet ruins the character/scene in general. Or just listen to Kevin Smith talk about his Superman script and what he had to work with, same thing. You cant have super villains with a basic human conscience thats based on modern society. The drive for the characters should have been mischief and mayhem not to save the world or the head of the dept thats sending them back to jail at the end of the night. Again, just too much to fit into one minimal time frame movie.
Riceball
Master Member
I agree, there was a lot in the movie that just didn't work, esp. in terms of the Joker and Deadshot. With the Joker he just seemed to be so unlike any previous incarnation of the character that we've seen to date. Sure, Joker has always been bat spit (no pun intended) insane but never in the way Leto portrayed, I think that between him and the director they were trying too hard to pull another Heath Ledger and create another iconic Joker performance. Granted Ledger's Joker wasn't quite the same Joker that we were used to but there were some elements of the familiar Joker and a method to his madness where as Leto's was just plain off his rocker with his love for Harley the only thing familiar about him.
In the case of Deadshot, I felt that it was a combination of the character not being developed enough and a bit of Will Smith being Will Smith, not as much as I thought he would be judging by the trailer but neither did he really create a character either. I think that if they had cast somebody with a bit more gravitas in the role we might have gotten a better Deadshot, not that a better Deadshot could have made the movie much better.
mattycsi
Master Member
I've just seen this. I agree with tgreco, there is good in there it just doesn't all gel into something great.
I had reservations about the Joker's look before hand and was really hoping the performance would get me past it. It didn't, at all. That Joker was awful. His laugh sounded more like the old school cartoon Skelator. The apparent nightclub owner/street gangster background was off too.He just didn't seem crazy or driven enough, it really was just a street hood in a halloween costume. All of it was wrong.
Harley was great, I even liked Deadshot,although they tried too hard to shoehorn the whole "he's a good guy really" into it. Most of the others were quite forgettable.
And for the few seconds he was in it Affleck stole it, he can do no wrong in that bat suit as far as I'm concerned.
I had reservations about the Joker's look before hand and was really hoping the performance would get me past it. It didn't, at all. That Joker was awful. His laugh sounded more like the old school cartoon Skelator. The apparent nightclub owner/street gangster background was off too.He just didn't seem crazy or driven enough, it really was just a street hood in a halloween costume. All of it was wrong.
Harley was great, I even liked Deadshot,although they tried too hard to shoehorn the whole "he's a good guy really" into it. Most of the others were quite forgettable.
And for the few seconds he was in it Affleck stole it, he can do no wrong in that bat suit as far as I'm concerned.
Laspector
Master Member
I know I'm late to the game, but I finally got around to watching this. I had picked up the blu-ray a week or so when it came out, but after Man of Steel and BVS I really had no inclination to be in any hurry to watch this one--but I finally did. I have to say I really enjoyed it. Granted I have only seen the extended cut so I don't know about the theatrical version, but I thoroughly had a good time watching this.
Sure there is a bunch of crap in it that doesn't make sense, but overall a fun flick. Why is Harley even on this team? What special talent does she bring? I can maybe see why Deadshot, Croc and Diablo are there but Harley? She's just bat crap crazy, what does she bring to the table? Eye candy, I guess?
And where are all the people in this city? Yeah, Enchantress turned some into her army, but there's not a single soul in this place. Where did they all go?
Sure there is a bunch of crap in it that doesn't make sense, but overall a fun flick. Why is Harley even on this team? What special talent does she bring? I can maybe see why Deadshot, Croc and Diablo are there but Harley? She's just bat crap crazy, what does she bring to the table? Eye candy, I guess?
And where are all the people in this city? Yeah, Enchantress turned some into her army, but there's not a single soul in this place. Where did they all go?
^^that... she's crazy
Similar threads
