firesprite
Master Member
That hasn't been established in the movie continuity yet as far as I know.
Suicide Squad (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
That hasn't been established in the movie continuity yet as far as I know.
Snikt
Sr Member
I want to say something but I dont know how to put the spoiler tags! It would be to your defense firesprite
Do I even need spoiler tags since this is a post release thread?
Last edited:
Rotwang
Sr Member
From what she does in the movie, it's a possibility, but not a certainty. If he can blitz her, it's over ...
Snikt
Sr Member
Guess you're 1/3 since Star Trek and Ghostbusters were better than their trailers
Uhhhh not sure about Star Trek, I watched em, but was kinda meh about em. Ghostbusters however... :sick I couldnt even sit through a pirated version. Whoever made that trailer effectively made money repellent.
KrangPrime
Master Member
beyond was watchable, but still horrible star trek.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
I suspected this film would have identity issues with all of the back and forth between the crew and the studio. It sounds like that did end up being an issue.
For this film, unlike BvS, I had hoped this one would be DAAAAAARK... I mean, we have a bunch of bad guys doing bad things. The humor and fun tone doesn't mesh well with that.
For this film, unlike BvS, I had hoped this one would be DAAAAAARK... I mean, we have a bunch of bad guys doing bad things. The humor and fun tone doesn't mesh well with that.
Snikt
Sr Member
Let alone the PG-13 rating. How bad can you be if you cant be violent and cuss? :confused
KrangPrime
Master Member
depends on how far out you wanted to go.
They could have been given orders by waller to be non lethal, but that would kind of go against her character.
You could still go the anti hero route and have 'em be breaking limbs, dropping them off roofs at survivable heights.. etc.
It'd be interesting to see how this movie does. if it does worse than BvS, do you think a higher up will finally come in and say, 'look, guys.. what we're doing isn't working.. .we need to straighten up before we ruin our movie franchise forever'... or would it take justice league to be a failure for that to happen?
Mr Mold Maker
Master Member
Awful. Wait for the surely coming extended edition. Even then, only a rental.
This film will not be worth the disc it's sold on.
This film will not be worth the disc it's sold on.
annanake
Sr Member
Neither if it fails, they learn nothing . if they screw up JL the higher ups will say
" well guess the superhero movies genre is starting to dry up, fans must be getting tired of them that's why are not getting the numbers we should , time to move on to 70's sit com remakes or something. "
They would never admit much less think they had something to do with it.
LOL !!!!
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
They have reconsidered. That's why they brought Geoff Johns on as the lead guy. I actually think this was a brilliant move and could help redirect the company as a whole. Johns' run on Green Lantern, beginning with the Rebirth storyline, was terrific and is exactly the kind of stuff I'd love to see in DC films. It's got modern sensibilities, but none of the grimdark BS that has infused the film franchise to date.
This film, however, predates the Johns appointment.
At a guess? Shareholder and executive pressure. The shareholders **** in the ear of the board, the board pisses in the ear of the chief executives, the chief executives **** in the ear of the studio folks, and they scramble to make everyone happy.
We've seen a sort of arms race among the studios for a while now. You had the Fox X-men and Sony Maguire Spider-Man films in the late 90s/early 2000s, and that got people reevaluating superheroes (after the dismal Batman films of the late 90s). Then Pirates brought on the branding thing. I mean, if you could make a successful franchise out of a cheese park ride, you can do it with anything, right?
Then came Avatar with its worldwide nearly-$3B earnings. That got the studios thinking "WE could earn nearly $3B if we could only unlock the key to success!" So, that naturally led to a glut of 3D films.
With Marvel and now LucasFilm, though, the focus shifted to "tentpoles" and "franchises." Why settle for ONE multi-billion-dollar film, when you can have a whole series of them, and associated licensing revenue, too? So now you have the focus being on creating entire shared universes as platforms from which to launch films for decades at a time.
I think WB, which had done quite well with the Nolanverse films, looked at its line up and said "WTF?! WHY AREN'T WE DOING THIS MARVEL THING, TOO?!" And then they just took the "vibe" of the Nolanverse bat-films, assumed that was what made money for DC (not the "cheese" Superman vibe), and along came the DCEU.
But remember, all of this is guided by shareholders. They and the board look at other studios and say "Why aren't we doing that thing that's making a brazillion dollars? Go do that. GO DO THAT RIGHT F@%&!NG NOW!!!!!!"
I wish I could find it, but I either saw a video of it on youtube or it was in Stan Lee's attendance at ECCC where he was telling this story that DC comics would always be trying to replicate what Marvel was doing way back when because of the comics success numbers. He said they would put out some fancy covers here and there and so DC would follow suit and he said they could never figure out why the Marvel stuff was doing better. And then he said it had nothing to do with those gimmicks in that he just had stories about characters that people could relate to. The stories he tried telling were means of staying relevant for the times and keeping up on what was going on in the world. The stories were great because they had heart. Of course I can't transcribe every word from memory of what he said, but I couldn't help, but reminded of his story when I read that article.
What DC needs to do is stop being something else and just focus on making great films and telling their own stories. You can't just steal drips and drabs from someone else and expect the same success. This complete mess of a method they chose to do film making is going to really hurt them and they don't seem to have any firm grasp on their characters or direction at all. They respond with knee-jerk reactions and it costs them in more ways than one.
On the note of theatrical vs. extended cuts of movie excuses... I'm sorry, but the theatrical cut I would classify as the most official version of a film. THAT film released to the masses is the stamped approved release and therefore should tell the story they intended to tell. You can't do this full-blown release to everyone and then later (after failing) come out and pretty much say.. !!Oh, but we have an extended cut that is less confusing!!
So basically acknowledging their film was confusing and filled with holes, but expect people to buy the rest of the film on the home release's extended cut and trust that it was all because they wanted to keep the runtime shorter so they could make more money per showing/auditorium and really didn't want the film to be that long. BS.... If your film is THAT good and needs those story elements in there, you keep it at the length you wanted and stand by your film.
I can't remember any time James Cameron was told he couldn't have a 3-hour movie in theaters.
What DC needs to do is stop being something else and just focus on making great films and telling their own stories. You can't just steal drips and drabs from someone else and expect the same success. This complete mess of a method they chose to do film making is going to really hurt them and they don't seem to have any firm grasp on their characters or direction at all. They respond with knee-jerk reactions and it costs them in more ways than one.
On the note of theatrical vs. extended cuts of movie excuses... I'm sorry, but the theatrical cut I would classify as the most official version of a film. THAT film released to the masses is the stamped approved release and therefore should tell the story they intended to tell. You can't do this full-blown release to everyone and then later (after failing) come out and pretty much say.. !!Oh, but we have an extended cut that is less confusing!!
So basically acknowledging their film was confusing and filled with holes, but expect people to buy the rest of the film on the home release's extended cut and trust that it was all because they wanted to keep the runtime shorter so they could make more money per showing/auditorium and really didn't want the film to be that long. BS.... If your film is THAT good and needs those story elements in there, you keep it at the length you wanted and stand by your film.
I can't remember any time James Cameron was told he couldn't have a 3-hour movie in theaters.
Last edited:
Brent M
Sr Member
Wonder if Ayer has any control to where he can get his original cut of the film released on Blu-ray or if the studio will stick to their guns and only release the version they wanted out there. Sounds like the theatrical cut is so bad that it's not even worth wasting my time on, but I'd like to know if a better version will be coming down the road.
joshvanrad
Sr Member
Solo4114 Correct, a studio owned by a publicly traded company has a FIDUCIARY responsibility to shareholders to maximize their return on investment. Directors do not. So when the studio receives a product from a director they need to make a decision as to leave it be or make adjustments to fulfill their obligation to shareholders. It's never studio heads who have no clue running rogue and meddling in the creative process. These executives have a very specific and identifiable job to do. Doesn't mean their instincts are always correct though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Solo4114
Master Member
I think much of the problem comes from studio heads who don't really "get" the properties they're supposed to be managing. They get them in a financial sense, but they don't have a solid understanding of what it is that people like, nor what the property has to offer beyond just "The thing that was successful last time."
In the case of DC, the problem, I think, is that the studio learned the wrong lesson. The Nolan films were, by and large, pretty awesome. They presented a fairly gritty, down-to-earth Batman, in a dark universe that felt real. This stood in STARK CONTRAST to the garish, over-the-top neon nonsense that Joel Schumacher had done with his Batman films, or the weird...uh...Tim Burton-y quality of the Tim Burton films (which I liked, actually).
The mistake, though, was in assuming that what worked for a particular character with a particular style was adaptable to ALL properties within the DC franchise. Man of Steel was...not great. BvS was, apparently, incredibly bleak (I haven't seen it because it LOOKED incredibly bleak). Suicide Squad looked like it suffered from multiple personality disorder, and it sounds like my diagnosis was accurate. Wonder Woman and Justice League are basically their last shot at getting this right before they really are gonna have to scrap this idea and/or have some franchise-wide "crisis" that lets them hit the reset button.
Disney puts on a clinic of successful brand management.
Similar threads
