Suicide Squad: General Discussion and Speculation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 34

[DeadStroke]

The sad thing is how easy it would've been to have Joker be the main antagonist.

Man...the more I think about this movie the more I dislike it, right now I think I may hate it. Mostly because the whole plot doesn't make sense.

The plot makes sense. It just could have been more compelling with a better written Joker.

 

[The Joker]

Joker as the main antagonist rather than the awful Enchantress, a Joker that doesn't have Harley at the center of his universe, and the movie would have improved greatly for me.

 

[matt47]

The plot makes sense. It just could have been more compelling with a better written Joker.

This pretty much tells you what I mean by the plot making no sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMNFaAUs2mo

 

[Sleiek]

I would have a preferred a Joker more integrated into the plot of the film. Top of my list of favorite scenes are all Joker scenes.

 

[Flint Marko]

So David Ayer revealed that Batman smashes out Joker's teeth and locks him away in Arkham Asylum after discovering that he murdered Robin, thus the damaged tattoo and the grills.

We see the Joker with the tattoos and grills talking with Harley while she's still a psychiatrist, ostensibly after Robin's death. Yet at the beginning of the movie it showed that Harley takes the credit for Robin's death. How does that make sense?

 

[DeadStroke]

So David Ayer revealed that Batman smashes out Joker's teeth and locks him away in Arkham Asylum after discovering that he murdered Robin, thus the damaged tattoo and the grills.

We see the Joker with the tattoos and grills talking with Harley while she's still a psychiatrist, ostensibly after Robin's death. Yet at the beginning of the movie it showed that Harley takes the credit for Robin's death. How does that make sense?

As been stated many times before here...

Ayer said its just "head canon" and that its not part of a larger connection. It can be revised down the road.

 

[brandeezy89]

So David Ayer revealed that Batman smashes out Joker's teeth and locks him away in Arkham Asylum after discovering that he murdered Robin, thus the damaged tattoo and the grills.

We see the Joker with the tattoos and grills talking with Harley while she's still a psychiatrist, ostensibly after Robin's death. Yet at the beginning of the movie it showed that Harley takes the credit for Robin's death. How does that make sense?

Ayer said that it's his "Head cannon". This is another theory though, Harleen has been letting Joker escape multiple times and after his breakout, he kills Robin and Harleen is credited as an accomplice.

 

[MasterChief2829]

They really didn't think anything through

 

[Angel0fDeath]

She doesn't need clown make up to be an accomplice to Robin's death. The "chemical wedding" just makes her turn to the dark side complete.

 

[metaphysician]

Which is odd because he is a villain who regular murders innocent people.

Nicholson and Ledgers Jokers both came onto the female love interests in a way that was creepy. Both of them harmed women.

Nicholson's Joker disfigured his attractive girlfriend Alicia Hunt. Heath's Joker dropped Rachel Dawes out a window and later blew her up.

I understand wanting a Joker who is entertaining but I don't agree that he should necessarily be likable or that his relationship with Harley should not be dysfunctional. I think the Joker should be a entertaining flamboyant character yet disturbing and evil.

It could simply be a case of either:

1. The test audience not being genuinely representative

2. The studio interpreting the test audience reaction poorly

That latter especially, I can envision: the test audience gives as part of their feedback "Wow, the Joker was really disgusting!", not really meaning this as a bad thing, just as something that stood out. The studio panics, and decides they need to strip it out, and "blames" the test audience.

( Or alternatively, the execs were having cold feet about Abusive Boyfriend Joker, and then used whatever comments from the test audience as justification for doing what they wanted to do anyway. )

 

[Xrated48]

Joker as the main antagonist rather than the awful Enchantress, a Joker that doesn't have Harley at the center of his universe, and the movie would have improved greatly for me.

As much as I liked the film this would have been better as long as they made Joker more comic accurate and got rid of the silly Tattoos and the grill.

 

[matt47]

As been stated many times before here...

Ayer said its just "head canon" and that its not part of a larger connection. It can be revised down the road.

Even so it took what, 2 minutes for all of us to figure that out, but he hasn't realized after like a year or two?

 

[Artorias]

The sad thing is how easy it would've been to have Joker be the main antagonist.

Man...the more I think about this movie the more I dislike it, right now I think I may hate it. Mostly because the whole plot doesn't make sense.

Yeah Oscar Award winning actor playing one of the most iconic villains of all time or a model playing a CGI monster... I really don't know what Ayer was thinking about that one.

It could simply be a case of either:

1. The test audience not being genuinely representative

2. The studio interpreting the test audience reaction poorly

That latter especially, I can envision: the test audience gives as part of their feedback "Wow, the Joker was really disgusting!", not really meaning this as a bad thing, just as something that stood out. The studio panics, and decides they need to strip it out, and "blames" the test audience.

( Or alternatively, the execs were having cold feet about Abusive Boyfriend Joker, and then used whatever comments from the test audience as justification for doing what they wanted to do anyway. )

Even if that is the case it's not like test audiences are the be all, end all... (Million Dollar Arm and Gravity anyone?) should of stuck to their guns. Now I can't help but feel BvS is going to have long running ramifications for the entire DCEU slate... it's one goddamn movie.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

New images from the 'Batman 100%' Hot Toys exhibition in Japan.

 

[metaphysician]

Yeah Oscar Award winning actor playing one of the most iconic villains of all time or a model playing a CGI monster... I really don't know what Ayer was thinking about that one.

Bear in mind, it likely wasn't Ayer's choice. After all, there's good reason to believe that *originally*, the Joker had a much bigger role in the ending ( and rest ). While he definitely had the Enchantress as *a* villain, I sit in the "originally it was not all about her vague world conquest effort, it was a three way fight between her the Squad and the Joker" camp. In which case, it was the WB execs who decided they'd rather have a CGI model than Leto.

Even if that is the case it's not like test audiences are the be all, end all... (Million Dollar Arm and Gravity anyone?) should of stuck to their guns. Now I can't help but feel BvS is going to have long running ramifications for the entire DCEU slate... it's one goddamn movie.

I'm pretty sure this is 100% accurate. And it only gets worse: WB is basically going to be flailing about from the ramifications of each movie, cumulatively, until they either fail catastrophically, or luck themselves into a decent film. Which is why I fear deeply for Wonder Woman, the execs might step in and try to "fix" everything that went wrong in all three prior movies. Which, given their evident non-comprehension of what that is, would be pretty fatal.

 

[matt47]

But I'm pretty sure Ayer said somewhere that his original draft had Enchantress as the villain.

 

[Joy in J-Land]

But I'm pretty sure Ayer said somewhere that his original draft had Enchantress as the villain.

I think you're right, however, the Joker was supposed to be much more of a thorn in the Squad's side in his quest to get Harley back. Test audiences have said he had two to three times the amount of screen time he ultimately got in the released film.

 

[metaphysician]

Also, I wouldn't be shocked if part of why Enchantress comes off as a crappy villain? Is last minute edits/reshoots to completely rework the ending. After all, if she originally was "only" trying to stay free, and the ending was a three way fight between Joker, the Squad, and Enchantress? It'd require a lot of ( fast, sloppy ) effort to excise the Joker and change the entire stakes and focus of the ending.

Basically, it could be that "crappy generic villain" was all they could put together in the limited time they had, once they knew the entire original final act had to be cut.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[CALSwimmer]

So guys and gals, is it looking like we'll get a directors cut? I mean the movie defied expectations of doom and gloom forecast the first week and easily brushed aside any negative press and was wildly popular with domestic audiences.

I'll say this, as someone who is in their mid-20's the films relationship with Harley and Joker was kind of shockingly accurate to "millennial" love if you will.

It probably did incredibly well in that demo along with younger ones.

 

[Greens]

I'll say this, as someone who is in their mid-20's the films relationship with Harley and Joker was kind of shockingly accurate to "millennial" love if you will.

It probably did incredibly well in that demo along with younger ones.

Millennials date and seek out murdering psychopaths? News to me.

 

[Guts]

Millennials date and seek out murdering psychopaths? News to me.

I'm sure Charles Manson's fiance is a millennial.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

 

[Greenlite]

I think you're right, however, the Joker was supposed to be much more of a thorn in the Squad's side in his quest to get Harley back. Test audiences have said he had two to three times the amount of screen time he ultimately got in the released film.

Leto fans should sue the test audience, not WB

 

[Joy in J-Land]

Leto fans should sue the test audience, not WB

Not just Leto fans, but anybody who was expecting to see Joker and Harley's actual relationship instead of Joker and Harley lite.