Suicide Squad (Post-release)

This movie is quite an achievement. It has a handful of colorful villains, some A-list star power, spectacular effects, costumes, props, etc., and still is so boring, lifeless,and unfocused that it was hard to stay awake.

Redefines piece of crap.

I don't think anything can redefine a "piece of crap" after Iron Man 2 and 3
 
I'm one of the few people who felt that the joker was used perfectly. He wasn't the good guys. He wasn't the bad guys. He was the wildcard thrown into the deck that mucks up the plan.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
When Grace was tepid about Civil War and defended BvS to the extent of starting the ridiculous implication that film critics may have been paid off by Marvel Studios to slam BvS, I was convinced that she is an unreasonably and hopelessly biased DC reviewer.

Then I saw this review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FShoIuw7pNY


As soon as she called GIF's Jifs's I stopped the video.
 
saw it Saturday... it was ok. not going to win any awards but it didn't make me want to walk out either. popcorn flick. thought Leto did a decent job with what he was given to him and the shoes had to fill. i didn't expect much, i didn't get much but thought it was worth the price of admission.

**btw, i used my workingadvantage discount, maybe that took some of the sting out of it, lol

they definitely could've done more with the witch and made her more menacing given all the powers she had but, meh... had i not seen it in the theater, it would've definitely been a dvd rental.

saw it in 3d and the effects weren't over the top. went to the 4pm showing... my daughter and i were the only ones in the theater. first time that's ever happened to me and she was excited.
 
Looks like it's on the way to $500M global, not too shabby.
And this is probably all WB cares about.

Too bad there doesn't seem to be a real interest in making something timeless that people will love for generations and not just for the quick buck.
 
And this is probably all WB cares about.

Too bad there doesn't seem to be a real interest in making something timeless that people will love for generations and not just for the quick buck.

Keep in mind the job of the studio is to fund content and generate revenue. It the film makers that are responsible for the "art".
 
SS drop.PNG

Ouch.
 
I watched it opening Thursday and I have not seen this discussed - what was the purpose of Flagg's dream of his gf in the hospital bed? Did Enchantress put that there and if she did why? He was already in love with her and already protective of her. Ideas?
 
"what was the purpose of . . ."

You could ask that question about so many aspects of this movie until you are blue in the face.

Perhaps an extended cut will clear up a few of these kinds of things.
 

What a load of crap.

Age of Ultron, Civil War, Iron Man 3 all dropped +70% friday to friday, and +60% for their 2nd weekend.

Don't remember the news articles decrying that as a failure.

Suicide Squad decimated August opening records. It also did more money (with a bigger drop off - 67% vs 55%) in its second weekend than Guardians of the Galaxy.

I am not saying any of this to say that Suicide Squad is a bona fide success financially. But it certainly isn't a failure so far.

But please, continue to revel in the negativity and add to the toxic zeitgeist.
 
Actually, there are articles discussing the big second week drops of Avengers AOU and CA:CW. The difference is these movies were pretty highly rated and ranked... and were actually decent films compared to SS.

Civil War is still the second biggest money maker in 2016. SS is #8 and trails the disappointment (both in terms of reviews and money) that was Batman V Superman which is #7. Same with Avengers AOU - which came in a respectful 3rd last year...
 
It's also worth noting that the percentage of drop isn't necessarily a box office killer, under the right circumstances. If you open with sufficiently large numbers, you can offset the drop and assume that your marketing worked really well. In other words, you maximized the value of your marketing by turning out a huge number of people opening weekend. Everything after that is gravy, assuming you end up with a more normal 50% drop week-to-week after the first week. So, if you figure a film gets a month-long run, and it opens at $300M, then drops 70% by its 2nd week to "only" earn $90M, 50% drops for the next two weeks means you still have a damn successful film (depending on the budget, of course).


All that said, we may be seeing a "narrative" form in the media that follows films: namely that DC films are -- or at least have been -- a mess, and the ones that are currently in the can show no signs of changing that trajectory. Audiences...you know, like 'em, because they're big action comic book films...but they don't LOVE them the way they do Marvel films. And make no mistake, that's what DC/WB wants.

Warner Brothers' shareholders want performance like Marvel. "Give us Marvel-like successes." That's the order. And thus far, that order has not been fulfilled. Even if these films are successful by financial standards, they are not successful enough.

I think a lot of this stuff is why Geoff Johns has been tapped to take over the franchise. I don't know if folks here have read his work, but my view of him is that, on the whole, he "gets" the DC characters and what makes them tick. His run on Green Lantern was terrific and he parlayed that into Blackest Night, which was also terrific. Everything built organically, and I felt like he understood the characters he was writing about. And while there was certainly death and destruction during these periods, there wasn't an omnipresent sense of gloom and doom and I'm-flexing-my-grim-and-gritty-muscles-SO-HARD. Not everything was infused with Frank-Miller-Batman DNA.

Putting him in charge of the overall creative direction of the DC properties is, in my opinion, an excellent choice. DC has such rich material, especially for purposes of creating truly uplifting, optimistic stories. There is simply no need to leave their entire franchise mired in grimdark nonsense.

And the truth is, for all of the handwringing and wailing and gnashing of teeth about the future of the franchise...DC is gonna be fine. For God's sake this is SUPERMAN we're talking about. And BATMAN. Two of the most durable properties ever created. I mean, if Superman IV: The Quest for Peace or Batman & Robin couldn't drive a stake through the heart of DC's film franchises...they're pretty much invulnerable. And remember, even when he's hit with kryptonite, Superman always ends up bouncing back. So, sure, the box office for this version of DC's films has been disappointing. But that doesn't mean we'll never see DC films again after this.
 
I watched it opening Thursday and I have not seen this discussed - what was the purpose of Flagg's dream of his gf in the hospital bed? Did Enchantress put that there and if she did why? He was already in love with her and already protective of her. Ideas?

i took it as a reminder... just to drill it home how much he loved her, enforce it.
 
It's also worth noting that the percentage of drop isn't necessarily a box office killer, under the right circumstances. If you open with sufficiently large numbers, you can offset the drop and assume that your marketing worked really well. In other words, you maximized the value of your marketing by turning out a huge number of people opening weekend. Everything after that is gravy, assuming you end up with a more normal 50% drop week-to-week after the first week. So, if you figure a film gets a month-long run, and it opens at $300M, then drops 70% by its 2nd week to "only" earn $90M, 50% drops for the next two weeks means you still have a damn successful film (depending on the budget, of course).

True, but only true for stand alones.

Opening weekend is pure marketing. It's people who haven't seen it but think it might be worth seeing. There's usually a drop after that, but a big drop usually means that word of mouth isn't helping, and that the people who actually did see it aren't singing it's praises to bring in more of the hesitant.

Now as you correctly pointed out: from a money standpoint this is irrelevant, as long as the initial numbers were high enough.

EXCEPT, in the case of a franchise. In a franchise a movie often is the foundation of marketing for it's successors. It's not enough that people were interested in it enough to give it a try, you need them to actually like it enough to want more. Which is why sometimes you'll see the sequel come with much smaller budget, even if the original made a profit: because they know that sometimes there's a difference between the number of people who wanted to see it and the number of people who liked what they saw.


It's a vital stat for comic book movies because we know not just one more is coming, but many more. We already know that the number of people who want these movies is more than enough to bring in big $$$$$, but the question of whether they will be happy with the results enough to CONTINUE bringing that money in to a given franchise is an open question. (Edit: this is just fun academic nitpicking. In the case of SS...I think it's easily done well enough to get a sequel)
 
True, but only true for stand alones.

Opening weekend is pure marketing. It's people who haven't seen it but think it might be worth seeing. There's usually a drop after that, but a big drop usually means that word of mouth isn't helping, and that the people who actually did see it aren't singing it's praises to bring in more of the hesitant.

Now as you correctly pointed out: from a money standpoint this is irrelevant, as long as the initial numbers were high enough.

EXCEPT, in the case of a franchise. In a franchise a movie often is the foundation of marketing for it's successors. It's not enough that people were interested in it enough to give it a try, you need them to actually like it enough to want more. Which is why sometimes you'll see the sequel come with much smaller budget, even if the original made a profit: because they know that sometimes there's a difference between the number of people who wanted to see it and the number of people who liked what they saw.


It's a vital stat for comic book movies because we know not just one more is coming, but many more. We already know that the number of people who want these movies is more than enough to bring in big $$$$$, but the question of whether they will be happy with the results enough to CONTINUE bringing that money in to a given franchise is an open question. (Edit: this is just fun academic nitpicking. In the case of SS...I think it's easily done well enough to get a sequel)

Right, I mean, there's certainly a carry-over effect from one film in a franchise to another, good or bad. A series of good films will let people forgive and forget the last bad one. A series of bad films will have people less likely to chance it on a new entry, even if it's good. But at the same time, we're also talking about some pretty durable brands here. Brands that can survive a truly catastrophic entry.

Let me put it another way. It's important for a franchise to fire on all cylinders, sure. But the fact that SS has a disappointing run doesn't necessarily weaken the chances for, say, a future Batman film or Superman film. Especially if there's been a reboot of some kind.

To be clear, I'm not saying that I think that THIS iteration of DC's cinematic universe is necessarily good or likely to survive. I think it will for now, but its days are numbered if they can't turn things around in another couple of films. Like, we won't get to a Flash film if Wonder Woman and JLA or Aquaman don't hit. Hell, we might not even get to Aquaman (which would be a crying shame because I LOVE the idea of Jason Momoa as Aquaman).

But we WILL see future Superman and Batman movies. Maybe even another attempt at launching this DC-universe franchise. It just won't necessarily be a continuation of this iteration. I think the "grim and gritty" version of DC's universe has proven rather a failure. I don't think it'll survive. But that's not to say that the DC universe is done for all time.
 
Back
Top