Suicide Squad: General Discussion and Speculation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 32

Status
Not open for further replies.
But one of the big things is WB's marketing. I keep hearing how BvS and SS' marketing was over $100-$150 mill. Does Marvel spend nearly that much on the marketing of their movies? Whats the difference here? I feel like Age of Ultron and Civil War got just as much of a marketing push as BvS so what is Marvel doing that is saving costs that WB isn't?
 
More proof that Nolan is the only good thing to happen to DC comics characters in the past 20 years. His films didn't need to make astronomical numbers to break even (thus ensuring sequels), yet two of them did anyway.


Oh, but never mind, I'm sure Batfleck will fix everything because he has a Batman movie coming out sometime between now and 2037 and his Batman kicks people faster than Bale's.

The fact Affleck solo film hasn't been announced yet is is very telling to me. WB rushed SS to get it released by this weekend. There's is no way they are setting a date and telling Affleck 'this needs to be done by this date'.
 
If the politics of “Batman v. Superman” were distrustful of power concentrated in the hands of individuals (a theme I analyzed in a previous article), then Suicide Squad extends that theme to look at how it can be abused when concentrated in the hands of a government. To balance this, it also establishes how the villains in the Suicide Squad — though undeniably nefarious — still have their own humanity. This seems to be a sticking point for many critics, who seem to have wanted the villains to be more unambiguously dark and sinister, but as I watched the movie I thought it made the power dynamics more complex and intriguing. Instead of allowing viewers to perceive the Suicide Squad as monsters who need to be kept in place, it forces us to see that they had hopes, dreams, loves and fears of their own — that even the most vile “scum,” as they are frequently regarded, are still human beings.
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/05/the...-movie-for-the-prison-industrial-complex-era/
 
The fact Affleck solo film hasn't been announced yet is is very telling to me. WB rushed SS to get it released by this weekend. There's is no way they are setting a date and telling Affleck 'this needs to be done by this date'.

That's because Affleck now has all the powers in WB and he has the clout to tell the head honchos when he wants the Batman movie to be made. If he was given a deadline, he'd tell those executives to take a hike instead.
 
But one of the big things is WB's marketing. I keep hearing how BvS and SS' marketing was over $100-$150 mill. Does Marvel spend nearly that much on the marketing of their movies? Whats the difference here? I feel like Age of Ultron and Civil War got just as much of a marketing push as BvS so what is Marvel doing that is saving costs that WB isn't?

Marvel have been notoriously tight with their money, especially when it comes to casting.
 
That's because Affleck now has all the powers in WB and he has the clout to tell the head honchos when he wants the Batman movie to be made. If he was given a deadline, he'd tell those executives to take a hike instead.

Indeed he would. This is the problem with WB's film maker first approach, it conflicts with their desire to have a regular steam of superhero movies coming out like Marvel.
 

I didn't feel that the movie portrayed the Squad as vile scum at all though. Many of them used to be really bad but doesn't seem to be anymore. The Punisher is a worse guy than most of these seem to be at the moment, so there were some pretty heroic pictures painted with some of them. The difference to the Guardians is pretty small, despite that the Squad is supposed to be villains.

To have the Squad still be really bad would have been a more complex thing since then you'd have to question your choice of rooting for them. They are clearly the protagonists, but as it is they are generally likable rogues with some genuine heart.
 
Last edited:
The fact Affleck solo film hasn't been announced yet is is very telling to me. WB rushed SS to get it released by this weekend. There's is no way they are setting a date and telling Affleck 'this needs to be done by this date'.

LOL yeah. Not a chance in hell.

You really have to wonder about Affleck's contract at this point and whether he'll try to get out of it and not even do that Batman movie. Yeah, I know WB invited a bunch of geek sites and other trades to tour the JL set and they all left ecstatic about JL and the Batfleck movie. But that was before the critical sh**storm that hit with Suicide Squad. Now Ayer, a director with a pretty good track record has a critical bomb on his hands, and Snyder, who has never been a critical darling, has another panned film. You have to wonder if Affleck wants to risk his stellar directorial track record by taking on one of these movies. Starring in a panned film is one thing, but helming one brings on a whole new level of scrutiny.
 
LOL yeah. Not a chance in hell.

You really have to wonder about Affleck's contract at this point and whether he'll try to get out of it and not even do that Batman movie. Yeah, I know WB invited about of geek sites and other trades to tour the JL set and they all left ecstatic about JL and the Batfleck movie. But that was before the critical sh**storm that hit with Suicide Squad. Now Ayer, a director with a pretty good track record has a critical bomb on his hands, and Snyder, who has never been a critical darling, has another panned film. You have to wonder if Affleck wants to risk his stellar directorial track record by taking on one of these movies. Starring in a panned film is one thing, but helming one brings on a whole new level of scrutiny.

I seriously doubt Affleck is going bail any time soon, I think he's too much of a professional to do that. It must suck though for him to be in this position again, putting his trust into WB only to have this happen to him. With regards to his Bat film, I think it's safe to say there is no way in hell WB are going to have their hands in that one. Lets be honest, everyone knows Affleck is best director WB have at the moment.
 
Only reason why it seems more people liked this film than BvS is not as many care about them messing up a Suicide Squad movie that featues B, C and D list characters like they cared about them messing up a movie that had the Trinity.
 
Yeah, the one thing I am consistently hearing, even in the negative reviews, is that the main characters (Deadshot, Harley, Waller and Diablo) are great and save the movie. A LOT of people had problems with Superman and Batman in BvS which was why the vitriol was stronger in that film.
 
Less emotional attachment with the SS characters. Which is why this forum isn't nearly as toxic as what the BvS forum became.
 
My honest feeling about where DC goes wrong is that they don't diversify their portfolio enough, instead opting to put all their eggs in one basket and trying to make a film that everyone will like. It never works. Suicide Squad should've been a ~$50m budget, gritty R-rated story with no compromises appealing to the crowd that likes that. Batman should've been perhaps a $100m budget PG-13 - I actually think that rating suits Batman and his "moral code" quite well. Superman, hero of toddlers and kindergarten kids everywhere, should've been a bright, friendly G-rated film with an optimistic message.

Introducing the new Batman by having him fight Superman and Doomsday was ludicrous.
 
It's understandable. superman had even less personality in BvS then he did in MOS, thanks to cutting almost all of his Clark Kent scenes - he was soulless robot. I didn't have such a huge problem with Batman, but I'm not a purist so Murderman didn't bother me too much. Superman was the huge problem.
 
My honest feeling about where DC goes wrong is that they don't diversify their portfolio enough, instead opting to put all their eggs in one basket and trying to make a film that everyone will like. It never works. Suicide Squad should've been a ~$50m budget, gritty R-rated story with no compromises appealing to the crowd that likes that. Batman should've been perhaps a $100m budget PG-13 - I actually think that rating suits Batman and his "moral code" quite well. Superman, hero of toddlers and kindergarten kids everywhere, should've been a bright, friendly G-rated film with an optimistic message.

Introducing the new Batman by having him fight Superman and Doomsday was ludicrous.

I was with you until you said G Rated Superman. That's silly

and I dont even think Suicide Squad needed/needs to be R, but I wouldnt be mad if it was. I just think people put too much stock in the R rating
 
I seriously doubt Affleck is going bail any time soon, I think he's too much of a professional to do that. It must suck though for him to be in this position again, putting his trust into WB only to have this happen to him. With regards to his Bat film, I think it's safe to say there is no way in hell WB are going to have their hands in that one. Lets be honest, everyone knows Affleck is best director WB have at the moment.

Yeah, I'm not worried about them meddling with it. But my fear is that he DC brand has now become so tainted that critics could walk into that movie EXPECTING it to suck. I feel like it not only has to be good, it has to be PHENOMENAL for it to be well-liked.
 
I was with you until you said G Rated Superman. That's silly
Maybe PG, definitely not PG-13. Superman isn't a "dark tone" hero and that's okay. If you want brooding emo Superman there would be a Justice League film which would have to be rated PG-13.
 
Maybe PG, definitely not PG-13. Superman isn't a "dark tone" hero and that's okay. If you want brooding emo Superman there would be a Justice League film which would have to be rated PG-13.

Never going to happen.
 
Where is this from? Link to the video, please and thank you.

tumblr_obedyoFysR1uorz8zo1_250.gif
 
Yeah, I'm not worried about them meddling with it. But my fear is that he DC brand has now become so tainted that critics could walk into that movie EXPECTING it to suck. I feel like it not only has to be good, it has to be PHENOMENAL for it to be well-liked.

With all the talent assembled at WB/DC I feel it just takes one well-regarded movie to turn this critical perception around, and WW is poised to do so.
 
I seriously doubt Affleck is going bail any time soon, I think he's too much of a professional to do that. It must suck though for him to be in this position again, putting his trust into WB only to have this happen to him. With regards to his Bat film, I think it's safe to say there is no way in hell WB are going to have their hands in that one. Lets be honest, everyone knows Affleck is best director WB have at the moment.

But with Affleck involved in this ****storm, I can't help but feel he's thinking this makes him look bad and is questioning the choice he made. Even if he makes a good Batman movie, that's *clap clap* just another good Batman movie.
 
With all the talent assembled at WB/DC I feel it just takes one well-regarded movie to turn this critical perception around, and WW is poised to do so.

A lot of time for WB/DC to panic and mess with Patty Jenkins cut.
 
Yeah, I'm not worried about them meddling with it. But my fear is that he DC brand has now become so tainted that critics could walk into that movie EXPECTING it to suck. I feel like it not only has to be good, it has to be PHENOMENAL for it to be well-liked.

Then we should prepare for the DCEU to become the next Transformers. A sad turn if ever there was.
 
With all the talent assembled at WB/DC I feel it just takes one well-regarded movie to turn this critical perception around, and WW is poised to do so.
The critics won't dare to yap at Wonder Woman because they're afraid people will say they are sexist. It could be worse than Man of Steel and get better critic ratings anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,720
Messages
22,014,977
Members
45,806
Latest member
dolfinboi
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"