Suicide Squad (Post-release)

[dascoyne]

I'm listening to an interview with David Ayer on The Empire podcast. He says his non-canonical interpretation of The Joker is that, when he killed Robin, Batman knocked his teeth out before sending him to Arkham Asylum. It's in Arkham where The Joker gets the grill and has himself tattooed with "damaged" as a message to Batman as if to say, "I was so beautiful. You've damaged me."

This is so wrong. The very notion of permanence (e.g. tattoos) should be contrary to his nature. Ayers only revealed that he knows nothing of The Joker. The Joker is supposed to be elusive, unpredictable and undefinable.

The Joker has been the perfect foil for Batman for very specific reasons which Ayer should have understood. Where Batman is logical and methodical The Joker lives at the fringe of logic and normal human behavior which makes him unpredictable - even for Batman. You can't define him psychologically which is also why he's effectively immune to being intimidated by Batman who uses fear against lesser villains. Batman is a dark, brooding and serious whereas The Joker holds nothing sacred - not even human life (or even his own).

Any comic reader knows that The Joker isn't simply some theatrically bombastic crazy villain. Filmmakers working for DC/Warner ought to know that, too.

 

[teragon]

I'm not sure I completely agree, I mean the Joker almost always has been represented wearing a tuxedo of some kind, always well dressed and well groomed, so he does care about his appearance to a degree. Now what Ayer did is bringing him from classy mob boss look to modern gang lord look. But essentially, the Joker was a gang leader in many incarnations, he has no shortage of goons who work for him so I don't see that as departure so much...

But his explanation for the grill has big incoherence in it : it was mentioned that Harley was an accomplice of Robin's murder, and in the flashbacks we see that Joker already has the grills when he's talking Dr Harleen, pre-Harley, in Arkham ! So while I do like the explanation, I can buy it, something is not coherent here.

 

[dascoyne]

I'm not sure I completely agree, I mean the Joker almost always has been represented wearing a tuxedo of some kind, always well dressed and well groomed, so he does care about his appearance to a degree. Now what Ayer did is bringing him from classy mob boss look to modern gang lord look. But essentially, the Joker was a gang leader in many incarnations, he has no shortage of goons who work for him so I don't see that as departure so much...

I've always understood his attire as to be more a personal lampoon of propriety than personal vanity. That's just my interpretation.

 

[Father]

I've always understood his attire as to be more a personal lampoon of propriety than personal vanity. That's just my interpretation.

It's a costume.... he wears the same suit ALLLL the time. At what point does it go from fancy formalwear to "dude... do you ever wash that outfit?"

 

[JediHomer]

It's a costume.... he wears the same suit ALLLL the time. At what point does it go from fancy formalwear to "dude... do you ever wash that outfit?"

i always took it, he's dressed to do business... why not look good while doing it? flip side is, if you die... there's your coffin clothes and you went out looking good in the process

 

[Mektar]

Think for me the biggest thing about this Joker was that it dint feel like he was the biggest threat to batman. Ofc he dint get enough screen time which will prob happen in the batman stand alone . The looks dint bother me but i just missed this vibe of of him that you should get whenever you have a joker on screen or in a comic.

 

[teragon]

I do hope we get an extended, or even alternate cut of this movie with all the stuff that's been cut, especially the Joker stuff. One thing I got from this Joker is that it seams he always gets his way though ! He managed to escape out of Arkham, find the scientist responsible for the neck bombs and got to him, divert a military chopper and break in Belle Reve ! He certainly is persistent. But I want to see more. I would have understood his limited appearances if the movie had already been solid with its main story and cast, but that wasn't the case, so why they decided to cut most of his scenes is baffling to me.

 

[Monkey67]

I do hope we get an extended, or even alternate cut of this movie with all the stuff that's been cut, especially the Joker stuff. One thing I got from this Joker is that it seams he always gets his way though ! He managed to escape out of Arkham, find the scientist responsible for the neck bombs and got to him, divert a military chopper and break in Belle Reve ! He certainly is persistent. But I want to see more. I would have understood his limited appearances if the movie had already been solid with its main story and cast, but that wasn't the case, so why they decided to cut most of his scenes is baffling to me.

I give all the credit of being able to do those things minus the break out of Arkham to his 2nd in command. That guy was on the ball giving / setting / gaining info for the joker plans. Sadly I think he died in the chopper crash.

 

[Father]

Think for me the biggest thing about this Joker was that it dint feel like he was the biggest threat to batman. Ofc he dint get enough screen time which will prob happen in the batman stand alone . The looks dint bother me but i just missed this vibe of of him that you should get whenever you have a joker on screen or in a comic.

He's not supposed to be a threat to Batman.... he's supposed to be a threat to everyone around him and everyone that Batman he's trying to protect.
That's why I hate when they try to physically match Joker with Batman. Batman should be able to wipe the floor with him.... Their rivalry isn't about who can hit harder or who can take a punch... it's always been about brains and whits.

 

[FirstPick]

He's not supposed to be a threat to Batman.... he's supposed to be a threat to everyone around him and everyone that Batman he's trying to protect.
That's why I hate when they try to physically match Joker with Batman. Batman should be able to wipe the floor with him.... Their rivalry isn't about who can hit harder or who can take a punch... it's always been about brains and whits.

And how far Joker/Batman are willing to go.

 

[Mektar]

He's not supposed to be a threat to Batman.... he's supposed to be a threat to everyone around him and everyone that Batman he's trying to protect.
That's why I hate when they try to physically match Joker with Batman. Batman should be able to wipe the floor with him.... Their rivalry isn't about who can hit harder or who can take a punch... it's always been about brains and whits.

Well if he's a threat to everyone he is also a threat to batman and nowhere did i say that he has to be his physical match since i know that is not the case. More then one way to be a threat to anyone and Joker has his way as been shown in the comics and that is what i missed from this Joker. Guess we will see if he comes back for a stand alone if they can bring that level of madness to the big screen with leto's Joker but for now there wasnt enough screen time for his Joker.

 

[JLeezy23]

I thought it was a fun action flick, to me Waller was the real villain. I thought "Who is so damn important to save that she'd let these guys back on the streets?" And then I thought "..... well ***t that explains it" The Squad didn't need to feel like a team, they needed to feel like a handful of criminals being forced to do things against their will. It worked for the most part, I just wish they got more out of it rather than a shorter sentence and one perk each, but in the end I liked it.

The trailers made it seem like Joker played a larger role and as a bigger threat, but most trailers do make things seem one way and the film plays another. To me we only needed Mr J for Harley purposes, other than that he could've just been running around causing mayhem in the city making things worse for the Squad. At least give him more purpose rather than popping in and out at random like Jason Statham did in the F&F movie. He could've hired a mob to ambush the squad and then they all battle the Witch's army in the street, causing his mob to get taken out and harder for him to reach Harley right away. I hear he was one villain of multiple threats they faced, it would've been nice to see the Squad put to a challenge against Joker & Co.

The Witch's "machine" was meh, it warmed up forever and barely caused much destruction besides the gov't and military facilities, it should've taken out everything at once, they had no way to respond instantly anyways. It could've shut down all communications and make it a countrywide panic, then it'd be harder for them to cover up, just some stuff that bugged me.

The Joker being cut is crap, I do hope to see more of his scenes, the whole "Damaged and grillz" story makes no sense since it wasn't an on screen development, no explanation is better than a half-arsed one hahaha. My lawd I want a Jason Todd scene so badly, even if its snippets and audio, it just makes me look forward to the solo Bat films that much more.

 

[Krull]

Watched it a few weeks ago my thoughts? I like it,not some fantastic award winning film but pretty solid,a few things bugged me:

Both Joker and Deadshot didn't feel "right" it was worst in DS case,Smith just made me go "meh" with the whole bad-guy-with-pure-heart crap,also you can see Smith values face time as he hardly ever wore the mask which I felt was a cop out,just design it without so we can stare at his pretty,important face *pukes* :sick

Also a few of the effects came across as cheap as hell,in particular the part where Diablo burns up the inmates in the yard...that was cheap,cheap,cheap.

But that aside this one at least felt like something that could happen in a DC comic.

And Harley was fine,very fine...she can lead to impure thoughts....

 

[teragon]

Well it's official, we're getting an extended cut of 13 minutes. I'm glad we're getting that, although I was expecting it to be longer, since it seemed obvious there was a lot more to this movie than we've seen. I do hope it's the last extended D.C. Movie, I don't mind extended cut for movies like LOTR, but giving us truncated movies in theatre only to correct them later on blu-ray isn't really an honest practice...

 

[Riceball]

Well it's official, we're getting an extended cut of 13 minutes. I'm glad we're getting that, although I was expecting it to be longer, since it seemed obvious there was a lot more to this movie than we've seen. I do hope it's the last extended D.C. Movie, I don't mind extended cut for movies like LOTR, but giving us truncated movies in theatre only to correct them later on blu-ray isn't really an honest practice...

Sometimes, I don't know if it's necessarily the case now a days, it's because the studio feels that the movie is too long and they tell the director to cut it down, this was the case with many of James Cameron's films during the '80s & '90s which is why we saw extended editions/director's cuts of all of his movies from back then. The thinking of the studio is that audiences aren't willing to sit through a movie that's around the 2 hour mark, with something between 1.5 & 2 hours being optimal; this might have changed some to where up to 2 hours is fine but nothing over.

 

[cboath]

Actually the thinking is, at 2 hours per showing we can get in 2 more showings per day than with a 3 hour flick. No more, no less. That people won't sit through it thing is spin.

 

[Jeyl]

I don't mind extended cut for movies like LOTR, but giving us truncated movies in theatre only to correct them later on blu-ray isn't really an honest practice...

"But this cut of the movie is my cut, there’s no sort of parallel universe version of the movie, the released movie is my cut. And that’s one of the toughest things about writing, shooting, and directing a film, is you end up with these orphans and you ****ing love them and you think they’d be amazing scenes and do these amazing things but the film is a dictatorship (laughs), not a democracy, and just because something’s cool and charismatic doesn’t mean it gets to survive in the final cut. The flow of the movie is the highest master."

Hey Paul, how's that dictatorship treating Ghostbusters?

“We actually just finished [the extended cut] so it’s about another 15 minutes longer, but I will also include a lot of the deleted scenes and extra material that we have on the DVD.”

Hehe. I like Paul. He's upfront.

 

[Fawbish]

I don't understand the issue. I see it one of only a few ways.


You go see the movie at cinemas - you like it. You want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.

You go to see the movie at cinemas - you don't like it. You don't want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.

You don't go to see the movie at cinemas - you want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.

You don't go to see the movie at the cinemas - you don't want to buy the Blu-ray. -- No change.


Yes, this is a way to sell a few more units - but it absolutely will be a minimal percentage of people that buy the Blu-ray ONLY to get the extended cut, that weren't buying it anyway. How can people be surprised that a studio wants to wring every last dollar out of a product? That is the capitalist world we live in. Those band t-shirts and book signings and comic cons and product placement is all about making money. There is an artistic core at the center of any film, of course, which you hope is honest and true (and good), but that doesn't change the fact that a company is spending a few hundred million in the hopes of a 2/3 times investment return. That is quite literally the movie business.

For people that liked it, we get to see more footage. For people that don't, eventually choosing to see the extended cut may help them to like it. For people that really don't, there is no need to buy it. And very likely all the extra footage will be up on the 'net shortly after.

If the complaint is to do with "but the extended edition will be touted as the better cut" that's pretty subjective. It's still the same story. Same with BvS - you could extrapolate a lot of what happened in the extended cut from the theatrical cut - it was just great to see it all.


I love most of the Marvel movies, but I'd be happy as a pig in ***** if they decided to release extended editions of their films (and there is definitely footage already shot that could be added) because I'd love to spend even more time in that sandbox with the characters.

It's quite amazing reading so many comments (elsewhere) where so many people are "outraged" on everyone else's wallets behalf...because surely if you're complaining about this release, you won't be buying it, and more power to you. Also people and articles screaming that Ayer lied - he didn't? This isn't a directors cut. It's an extended edition, controlled by the studio - it is their product after all.

HOWEVER - I will totally get on board with one point. Release these extended editions in theatres. From what I'm seeing, you can avoid the outright hatred of a vocal base of film buffs if you just did it up front, even if people like me don't have a problem with it.

Logical or not (not ) you have a vocal group who will disseminate seeds of negativity into the wider world. Avoid giving them a reason, and release the extended editions in cinemas. The same options above will apply.



I remember the days where an extended edition release was something to be excited about, not another clip with which to reload the assault rifle.

 

[CutThumb]

Typically we get extended editions where the studio and director produced quite different cuts and the critical and fan perception has been rather negative (DC) or the well established story existing before the film is made means significant parts of it have had to be left out (Lord of the Rings) and their inclusion improves the overall movie experience.
It doesn't surprise me "Suicide Squad" got an extended edition simply because the BVS EE has been somewhat better recieved than the film release was. Again SS got slaughtered by the critics but its BO has been pretty strong( without Chinas BO from BVS, it would nearly have taken the same amount of money worldwide).$740 million is NOT bad for a film that everybody apparently hated. What it does give the studios a chance to do is discover via a fairly low cost method of production is whether the new cut would have been a better choice to release, particularly if it is closer to the original directors version of the story or the additional scenes with Harley are better recieved by the fans. I enjoyed it but thought it was unevenly cut, so I'm hoping it will be a much better paced film this time around for everyone, the haters and the likers. I was surprised by how many of the audience when I saw this were younger women rather than the predominately blokeish one that we get for Marvel movies, so there seems to have been a different core audience for this film given its strong BO performance.
And thats pretty important to Warners given what it needs to do to win back the hardcore audience that seems to loath it for what its done to the DC universe. They DO NOT want to make films that everyone hates. It works against them. And It will not have escaped their notice that CA "Civil War" went comfortably over $ 1.2 billion world wide and was very well reviewed.
With that point in mind and to be personally honest thats why I don't think the Marvel movies would benefit from any extended cuts ,simply because the films are perfectly well recieved on general release.To change them adds nothing to the experience of watching them, unlike perhaps the LOTR trilogy or the Directors Ultimate Cut of Bladerunner. They are simply just terrific movies that need nothing extra to perfect the experience of watching them.

 

[Fawbish]

Typically we get extended editions where the studio and director produced quite different cuts and the critical and fan perception has been rather negative (DC) or the well established story existing before the film is made means significant parts of it have had to be left out (Lord of the Rings) and their inclusion improves the overall movie experience.
It doesn't surprise me "Suicide Squad" got an extended edition simply because the BVS EE has been somewhat better recieved than the film release was. Again SS got slaughtered by the critics but its BO has been pretty strong( without Chinas BO from BVS, it would nearly have taken the same amount of money worldwide).$740 million is NOT bad for a film that everybody apparently hated. What it does give the studios a chance to do is discover via a fairly low cost method of production is whether the new cut would have been a better choice to release, particularly if it is closer to the original directors version of the story or the additional scenes with Harley are better recieved by the fans. I enjoyed it but thought it was unevenly cut, so I'm hoping it will be a much better paced film this time around for everyone, the haters and the likers. I was surprised by how many of the audience when I saw this were younger women rather than the predominately blokeish one that we get for Marvel movies, so there seems to have been a different core audience for this film given its strong BO performance.
And thats pretty important to Warners given what it needs to do to win back the hardcore audience that seems to loath it for what its done to the DC universe. They DO NOT want to make films that everyone hates. It works against them. And It will not have escaped their notice that CA "Civil War" went comfortably over $ 1.2 billion world wide and was very well reviewed.
With that point in mind and to be personally honest thats why I don't think the Marvel movies would benefit from any extended cuts ,simply because the films are perfectly well recieved on general release.To change them adds nothing to the experience of watching them, unlike perhaps the LOTR trilogy or the Directors Ultimate Cut of Bladerunner. They are simply just terrific movies that need nothing extra to perfect the experience of watching them.

Quite the schrodingers cat though. How can you know unless you see it?

It might be usual, but it certainly isnt law that a bad movie becomes good and therefore only bad movies get extended editions. And whilst Marvel create awesome films - they aren't perfect. You can't know an extended edition won't be better unless it exists.

Even outside of the genre. I'd love to see an extended look at Fury Road, John Wick, Ex Machina etc. This isnt taking into account that some films do tell all of their story of course, but I'm fairly certain that only a percentage of a finished script ends up on the screen, and that it wont be as high as we'd imagine.