Suicide Squad: General Discussion and Speculation - Part 8

[Miranda Fox]

But with all the accessories he seems like a flamboyant drug lord to me. And I find Joker to be a timeless character, an archetype of a dressed, theatrical psychopath. No matter in which period you put him, that is what the character is and as an archetype he always fits, or rather - he doesn't really fit, which is the point. This look is too attached to a certain firmly established idioculture for me to like it. But I'll get over it, I suppose.

That's the problem I'm having with it as well. I suppose the Joker is deliberately aping that culture in his own way, which is perfectly in character for him. But right now he just looks like some idiot trying to be the Joker, not the real deal.

I think what will ultimately sell this - or not - is Leto's performance. He's a good actor so I'm still expecting great things.

 

[Gee]

So I suppose this is figuratively from Joker or mannerisms.

Well, anyways, sorry guys.. I see you in one day... 1 day ban for accumulative infractions (3), really silly ones from my part..

Jackson and Greens keep people posted

You're going on probation? What have you done?

 

[Greens]

More of the crashed plane. **** just got serious!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=843254015723985

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFUKZOCVEAEUYH-.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFUJBYOUkAEMxcV.jpg

 

[John-An]

You're going on probation? What have you done?

not knowing all your bad words from english and which ones are allowed (hence accumulative)

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

It's their product what you are filming. It's not like you taking a photo of a mountain or a river. Sports, movies, concerts all belong to someone else. They are products.

In a live sport event nobody cares unless you make quite profit out of it. In this case it's an unfinished product that might harm WB's intentions so they might give a damn.

For example i was shooting my movies, i had some troubles. For example, you need permission for some government buildings to be in your frame even if they are just happen to be background. You have to change your frame if you don't have permit or it's illegal. (might be different in USA)

I don't think just because you are in a public place, you can record anyone/anything. If i don't want to be in your picture, there must be some law to protect me from such harassment.

I believe most of the time, companies/people don't care because it's almost impossible to stop it all leaking and it'll take time/money to sue.

I know I'm late to this conversation but I want to set the record straight in regards to the law (Canadian Law) and shooting in public. In Canada you CAN photograph what ever you want in public. Government buildings, go for it. Cops, be my guest. Movie set, this way sir. The law is really clear that you have no expectation of privacy when in public. The difference in snapping a live sports event over a movie on public street is the sports event is not being held in a public place. If you pay for a ticket to gain access to somewhere you are not on public property. If a hundred plus money dollar movie is filming under an overpass in downtown Toronto, I can take as many photos as I want and sell them. A movie set is not a product, the product is the negatives in the camera, the logos and designs used and the signed rights of the actors for international release. Those things do not have legal ground when in public though except the film in the camera which is copyrighted proprietary material of the studio.

 

[Greens]

I know I'm late to this conversation but I want to set the record straight in regards to the law (Canadian Law) and shooting in public. In Canada you CAN photograph what ever you want in public. Government buildings, go for it. Cops, be my guest. Movie set, this way sir. The law is really clear that you have no expectation of privacy when in public. The difference in snapping a live sports event over a movie on public street is the sports event is not being held in a public place. If you pay for a ticket to gain access to somewhere you are not on public property. If a hundred plus money dollar movie is filming under an overpass in downtown Toronto, I can take as many photos as I want and sell them. A movie set is not a product, the product is the negatives in the camera, the logos and designs used and the signed rights of the actors for international release. Those things do not have legal ground when in public though except the film in the camera which is copyrighted proprietary material of the studio.

Exactly what I thought

 

[Chip Chipperson]

More of the crashed plane. **** just got serious!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=843254015723985

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFUKZOCVEAEUYH-.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFUJBYOUkAEMxcV.jpg

With no survivors!

 

[Greens]

With no survivors!

Oh ****. And Aidan Gillen was just spotted on set!

 

[John-An]

With no survivors!

That was a job from Superman

 

[KillerWolf]

That's the problem I'm having with it as well. I suppose the Joker is deliberately aping that culture in his own way, which is perfectly in character for him. But right now he just looks like some idiot trying to be the Joker, not the real deal.

I think what will ultimately sell this - or not - is Leto's performance. He's a good actor so I'm still expecting great things.

It is quite possible and I think this is actually a very good idea, for him to add his own twist to that subculture's look and mock them in the process, it really is in character. But the problem lies in the execution of that - visually he still comes off modernized and washed-out by this approach. Perhaps the fact that he's mocking that subculture will be shown within the narrative of the film, so if that's get executed well, I think it may justify the look and make it more acceptable to us who don't like it right now.

 

[Guts]

With no survivors!

Oh ****. And Aidan Gillen was just spotted on set!

So this is why Tom Hardy dropped out. He didn't want to do another plane scene with Aiden Gillen.

 

[Zur-en-Arrh]

does anyone know if they're shooting anywhere other than toronto and sound stages?

 

[KillerWolf]

not knowing all your bad words from english and which ones are allowed (hence accumulative)

Ah, crap. I got very close to that once, though I knew the words. t:

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

Yeah, same here. Which is a shame, given how well Leto's facial structure fits the character visually. Small things would make him look perfect - no tats, no jewelry and darker green hair. As for the grills, I actually don't mind them.

But with all the accessories he seems like a flamboyant drug lord to me. And I find Joker to be a timeless character, an archetype of a dressed, theatrical psychopath. No matter in which period you put him, that is what the character is and as an archetype he always fits, or rather - he doesn't really fit, which is the point. This look is too attached to a certain firmly established idioculture for me to like it. But I'll get over it, I suppose.

And it does seem that Leto will do a great job, though I never questioned that.

Some of his accessories don't do it for me as well. And I can't get behind the tattoos (hopefully they have some great story behind them). But it's all his mannerism from that video that is keeping me excited for Leto's take at the moment.

In the meantime, this is my set reaction to all the tats,

 

[Greens]

does anyone know if they're shooting anywhere other than toronto and sound stages?

Just the streets of Toronto and Pinewood Studios.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

So this is why Tom Hardy dropped out. He didn't want to do another plane scene with Aiden Gillen.

I don't blame him either, can't create magic twice.

 

[Gee]

More of the crashed plane. **** just got serious!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=843254015723985

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFUKZOCVEAEUYH-.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFUJBYOUkAEMxcV.jpg

Hmm, I wonder if the airline company is another DC easter egg.

La[something] Airlines... Would have been fun if it was Ferris Airlines. Damn it Ayer, you dropped the ball on this.

DCCU is dead to me.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Just the streets of Toronto and Pinewood Studios.

Like London UK Pinewood?

 

[Astro13Zombie]

 

[Black Narcissus]

 

[Greens]

Like London UK Pinewood?

Toronto Pinewood.

 

[QueenChaos]

 

[Baneis8feettall]

I know I'm late to this conversation but I want to set the record straight in regards to the law (Canadian Law) and shooting in public. In Canada you CAN photograph what ever you want in public. Government buildings, go for it. Cops, be my guest. Movie set, this way sir. The law is really clear that you have no expectation of privacy when in public. The difference in snapping a live sports event over a movie on public street is the sports event is not being held in a public place. If you pay for a ticket to gain access to somewhere you are not on public property. If a hundred plus money dollar movie is filming under an overpass in downtown Toronto, I can take as many photos as I want and sell them. A movie set is not a product, the product is the negatives in the camera, the logos and designs used and the signed rights of the actors for international release. Those things do not have legal ground when in public though except the film in the camera which is copyrighted proprietary material of the studio.

So you can make money out of selling somebody else's photos without any permission and laws don't protect them?

That's so wrong ethically.

 

[Greens]

Hmm, I wonder if the airline company is another DC easter egg.

La[something] Airlines... Would have been fun if it was Ferris Airlines. Damn it Ayer, you dropped the ball on this.

DCCU is dead to me.

Actually, it ends with Airways. You and Ayer have dropped the ball. How many balls are gonna be dropped before we abandon this film?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Toronto Pinewood.

I had no idea there was Pinwood Toronto, good for them.

So you can make money out of selling somebody else's photos without any permission and laws don't protect them?

That's so wrong ethically.

You can't sell someone else's photos, but you can take a photo of someone in public and sell it. The law is designed to protect people who photograph police, riots, crimes, or anything else. Journalists rely on these laws to make money, and the law is meant to protect them. If you think it's wrong to protect the many, many photographers and their work just so someone might feel more comfortable or get a small slice of the pie on a sold photo then I don't know what to tell you. It's a good law, photographers like it, the public likes it, and law enforcement like.