Suicide Squad: Real Life or Just a Fantasy?

[Corvinus85]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Where's the data on that? AFAIK there's no numbers for Monday's US box office yet. BoMo has predicted a steep drop off based on the Rotten Tomatoes score being similar to BvS. But the A- Audience rating might suggest less of a % drop off. I think there probably will be a steep decline since the opening weekend crowd will be DC fans, and the Rotten Tomatoes score will probably be off-putting to the general crowd.

+ the start of the Olympics may have kept a good number of the general crowd indoors.

[Hol Horse]

Went to go see it last night; it was a'ight. The last DC film I watched was Man of Steel, and I found Suicide Squad more entertaining. Then again, I'm not a big Superman fan, so that might have something to do with it. Never saw BvS so dunno how it compares to that. In terms of comic book movies this year (so far), I'd rate it below Civil War and Deadpool, but above X-Men Apocalypse. Probably the best DC movie I've seen since The Dark Knight, but that might change depending on how the Wonder Woman and Justice League movies do.

In terms of characters, I didn't dislike any of 'em, so that's a good thing. Deadshot, Harley, Diablo, and Amanda Waller stood out - for obvious reasons. Jared Leto as Joker was interesting. Ledger's take on the Joker is still my favorite live-action movie Joker to date, but I respect what Leto's going for, even though I think his 'method acting' while the cameras aren't rolling is a bit much. Enchantress' Gollum form was cool, but I didn't care for her regal belly-dancer look. Likewise, Incubus was uninteresting.

Overall, my biggest gripes with the movie was the fact that certain parts felt a bit rushed, some characters were underused, and that Margot Robbie's booty was apparently photoshopped. Other than that, I had fun with the movie.

 

[dsug]

Harley wears booty shorts because she wants to. Believe it or not, some girls dont feel compelled to hide themselves. 

[red snow]

7 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

 

Also, the fact that they actually lengthened her shorts digitally is even worse, because not only was the actress stuck with those while filming but also people involved in the production likely realized how damn short they were and went through with it anyway. What a mess.

See, this is exactly what I meant about Bleeding Cool sparking a controversy even though they provided the exact opposite info. Given english speaking countries weird thing of being cool with headshots, decapitations etc but worried over sex I can imagine that was the driving force behind the shorts.

It still seems to me that the underlying problem with the film was that Ayer was making an R-rated film and it got lightened up at some stage to reach a wider audience/ addressing concerns over BvS.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

10 hours ago, red snow said:

 

But it made a lot on Thurs/Fri. Maybe film goers are like a lot of people in the UK/America these days and are "sick of experts"?

Lol, well that is the sad state of our society unfortunately! 

 

8 hours ago, Lyin' Ned said:

Throughout? I must have watched a different version then, because I only remember one (short) scene of the guy shirtless. Definitely NOT the same thing as Harley's permanent hot pants/underwear throughout the entire movie. 

Brownie points for trying, tho. 

 

Obvs I was exaggerating. But there are so many movies with gratuitous 'pec and 6pack' shots, which hover almost forever over the male body, and the general reaction is that its 'a bit of fun' and 'eye candy for the ladies'. Watch Captain America, either Thor movies, Man of Steel, any Craig James Bond movie, Ryan Gosling rom coms.. even go brave the awful Tarzan movie if you can stomach it. My point isn't that they shouldn't do it, its the the reaction to having gratuitously sexualised imagery on screen is wildly different when its a man or a woman. The hypersensitivity and over reaction to it now it especially one sided.

[mormont]

Went to see this last night. Now, as I've said before, I'm a fan of the original Ostrander/Yale Suicide Squad (the nod to Ostrander was nice), but I like to think I had realistic expectations. Will Smith was playing Deadshot, for example, so he would obviously be playing him as Will Smith, not any recognisable version of the existing comics character.

But realistic expectations are one thing, the mess that I saw last night is another. Ugh.

It's horribly obvious that the film was radically re-edited after completion and that this is why it's so disjointed and struggles for a consistent tone. The storytelling is just badly done. Right from the start, it's bad. We get detailed intros for Enchantress, Deadshot, Boomerang, Harley, Flag, Diablo and Killer Croc and then Slipknot and Katana get added to the team literally as afterthoughts. 'Oh, hey, there are also these other people'. That's just sloppy film-making. In the case of Slipknot, it painfully signals his redshirt status. Who knows what was going on in Katana's case. I mean, she didn't get to do much of note, but then nobody except Will Smith and Harley got to do much of note. But the point is, we get the worst of both worlds: a long, boring start where we introduce the cast, and it isn't even complete.

The characterisation is variable at best. Deadshot's a sociopath, except when he's not, which is almost all of the time, but as noted, that was expected. Boomerang, they get more or less right, except that after they (rightly) have him just run off after Flag makes it clear he can, Boomerang comes back to risk his life for no reason. This is exactly what Boomerang would never, ever do. Enchantress/June Moon and Flag barely exist as characters. Their entire romance is on screen for under a minute total, which makes it impossible for the viewer to care when they're crying about how they thought they'd killed each other. Having Flag mutter one line about how she's the only woman he's ever loved does not make anyone care, guys. Waller, oh, dear. Waller is ruthless and harsh and will do whatever she feels is necessary for the greater good, but if your version of Amanda Waller will casually murder people who work for her, you have not written a version of Amanda Waller. You have written another character with her name. Harley is a character I don't know well enough to say whether they got her right, and the same with Croc and Diablo. Katana is... well, she's on screen sometimes.

And the Joker. Well, I also defended the look of the character, but yeah, in the end all the fuss over Leto's method acting and so on left me wondering 'what was that about?' It's a completely unremarkable performance, hobbled by obvious cuts to his plotline perhaps (and the odd decision to make the Joker what seems to be a pretty standard-issue criminal boss with some affectations?) Yeah, less said the better.

On the gender issues, did nobody else catch that weird bit right before the final fight where Will Smith tells Flag he needs to get up there and smack his woman about to get her into line? What the hell was that? It's really bizarre. I'm guessing it was supposed to be funny, but neither the director or the actors deliver it as if it's a gag, and even if it's supposed to be a joke, it's a really offensive one. And why spend so much time trying to make Smith's character sympathetic and then have him say something like that? It makes no sense. What it does achieve is to create a context in which a lot of other stuff in the film, particularly the incident with Slipknot, looks much worse.

Character arcs. There are none. Nobody in the film grows or learns anything. At the end they all decide they're 'a family'. This is for absolutely no reason. They palpably do not give a shit about each other, and why should they? Nothing in the film gives them any reason to.

Plot: clearly nobody in the film-making process cared about the plot so I don't know why I should.

Performances: mixed. Kinniman and Delevingne were pretty bad, Jai Courtney and Jay Hernandez were good, most of the rest were OK.

Overall, I got the sense that there were bits of a good film here, that could perhaps have been salvaged with some rewrites and a better idea of what sort of film this was actually supposed to be. Big disappointment.

[Future Null Infinity]

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's horribly obvious that the film was radically re-edited after completion and that this is why it's so disjointed and struggles for a consistent tone

I think this is the root of all the problems of DC's movies, the movie editors at DC or WB are so bad in their job, first BvS and now SS, and the same was said about them : editing made them like garbage, if the editing was good I'm sure BvS would be a masterpiece

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

I think this is the root of all the problems of DC's movies, the movie editors at DC or WB are so bad in their job, first BvS and now SS, and the same was said about them : editing made them like garbage, if the editing was good I'm sure BvS would be a masterpiece

Even if Jesus was their editor I don't think you could make that movie good.

[Future Null Infinity]

54 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Even if Jesus was their editor I don't think you could make that movie good.

 I liked that movie, unlike the usual flat superheroes movies it was a dark movie, I like dark movies

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

21 minutes ago, Future Null Infinity said:

 I liked that movie, unlike the usual flat superheroes movies it was a dark movie, I like dark movies

Just watch a good movie and turn the brightness down on your tv. Problem solved.

[sifth]

You know I had a chat with a friend of mine shortly before the film came out, about how it's basically just the WB/DC trying to ripoff GotG. He thought I was crazy........................then around 50 minutes into the movie Spirit in the Sky started playing on screen and I nearly bursted out laughing.

[red snow]

nice review, Mormont with some good explanations for why you felt it failed.

It's starting to sound like what we were applauding as "keeping the plot secret" regarding the villain was actually just "they didn't really have one"

[sifth]

13 minutes ago, red snow said:

nice review, Mormont with some good explanations for why you felt it failed.

It's starting to sound like what we were applauding as "keeping the plot secret" regarding the villain was actually just "they didn't really have one"

I agree with that as well. This is made even more painful by the fact that the Joker is in the film. Seriously they had one of DC's greatest villains in the film and they reduced him to a side character. Heck the character could have been removed entirely and it wouldn't have effected the plot, he was just that poorly edited into the film. One thing the film did right is how it used Batman; he was only in flashbacks, that showed how he captured some of the villains. A perfect case of less is better if you ask me.

[dbunting]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Went to see this last night. Now, as I've said before, I'm a fan of the original Ostrander/Yale Suicide Squad (the nod to Ostrander was nice), but I like to think I had realistic expectations. Will Smith was playing Deadshot, for example, so he would obviously be playing him as Will Smith, not any recognisable version of the existing comics character.

But realistic expectations are one thing, the mess that I saw last night is another. Ugh.

It's horribly obvious that the film was radically re-edited after completion and that this is why it's so disjointed and struggles for a consistent tone. The storytelling is just badly done. Right from the start, it's bad. We get detailed intros for Enchantress, Deadshot, Boomerang, Harley, Flag, Diablo and Killer Croc and then Slipknot and Katana get added to the team literally as afterthoughts. 'Oh, hey, there are also these other people'. That's just sloppy film-making. In the case of Slipknot, it painfully signals his redshirt status. Who knows what was going on in Katana's case. I mean, she didn't get to do much of note, but then nobody except Will Smith and Harley got to do much of note. But the point is, we get the worst of both worlds: a long, boring start where we introduce the cast, and it isn't even complete.

The characterisation is variable at best. Deadshot's a sociopath, except when he's not, which is almost all of the time, but as noted, that was expected. Boomerang, they get more or less right, except that after they (rightly) have him just run off after Flag makes it clear he can, Boomerang comes back to risk his life for no reason. This is exactly what Boomerang would never, ever do. Enchantress/June Moon and Flag barely exist as characters. Their entire romance is on screen for under a minute total, which makes it impossible for the viewer to care when they're crying about how they thought they'd killed each other. Having Flag mutter one line about how she's the only woman he's ever loved does not make anyone care, guys. Waller, oh, dear. Waller is ruthless and harsh and will do whatever she feels is necessary for the greater good, but if your version of Amanda Waller will casually murder people who work for her, you have not written a version of Amanda Waller. You have written another character with her name. Harley is a character I don't know well enough to say whether they got her right, and the same with Croc and Diablo. Katana is... well, she's on screen sometimes.

And the Joker. Well, I also defended the look of the character, but yeah, in the end all the fuss over Leto's method acting and so on left me wondering 'what was that about?' It's a completely unremarkable performance, hobbled by obvious cuts to his plotline perhaps (and the odd decision to make the Joker what seems to be a pretty standard-issue criminal boss with some affectations?) Yeah, less said the better.

On the gender issues, did nobody else catch that weird bit right before the final fight where Will Smith tells Flag he needs to get up there and smack his woman about to get her into line? What the hell was that? It's really bizarre. I'm guessing it was supposed to be funny, but neither the director or the actors deliver it as if it's a gag, and even if it's supposed to be a joke, it's a really offensive one. And why spend so much time trying to make Smith's character sympathetic and then have him say something like that? It makes no sense. What it does achieve is to create a context in which a lot of other stuff in the film, particularly the incident with Slipknot, looks much worse.

Character arcs. There are none. Nobody in the film grows or learns anything. At the end they all decide they're 'a family'. This is for absolutely no reason. They palpably do not give a shit about each other, and why should they? Nothing in the film gives them any reason to.

Plot: clearly nobody in the film-making process cared about the plot so I don't know why I should.

Performances: mixed. Kinniman and Delevingne were pretty bad, Jai Courtney and Jay Hernandez were good, most of the rest were OK.

Overall, I got the sense that there were bits of a good film here, that could perhaps have been salvaged with some rewrites and a better idea of what sort of film this was actually supposed to be. Big disappointment.

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. I think the re edit may have been what hurt it. I remember posting back then about it, hoping they weren't just reacting to other films. (please dear whoever, don't let the new Star Wars movie suffer this fate)

Villain, yeah, sucks. Joker, just stop using the Joker for about 10 - 20 years. Let Ledgers Joker be removed from memory, then try another one.

As to the Deadshot line about getting his woman in line. Have you never heard someone say that? It is not uncommon at all in real life. Heck I have said it to my wife, about "busting her up", in my worst Mr. T accent, and she laughs at me, because she knows I would never lay a hand on her. To me that line was a throw away, due to context I saw it in. But, that is a product of my world and environment. The more offensive thing to me was when the boss lady shot her own team, for no reason, that to me made no sense and offended me as a movie goer.

I think what I liked most about the movie was the characters I didn't know. I am not a comic reader so I barely knew most of these people. So Deadshot, and Harley, well that's all I really know of them.

[Lockjaw of House Boltagon]

8 hours ago, dsug said:

Harley wears booty shorts because she wants to. Believe it or not, some girls dont feel compelled to hide themselves. 

This is MRA fffeminism at its worse. The laziest excuse, really. Yeah, it's all about empowerment and agency, said the overly sexualized female character created by men, adapted from comics written by men into a movie directed by men. 

Grrl power, sister!

4 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Lol, well that is the sad state of our society unfortunately! 

 

Obvs I was exaggerating. But there are so many movies with gratuitous 'pec and 6pack' shots, which hover almost forever over the male body, and the general reaction is that its 'a bit of fun' and 'eye candy for the ladies'. Watch Captain America, either Thor movies, Man of Steel, any Craig James Bond movie, Ryan Gosling rom coms.. even go brave the awful Tarzan movie if you can stomach it. My point isn't that they shouldn't do it, its the the reaction to having gratuitously sexualised imagery on screen is wildly different when its a man or a woman. The hypersensitivity and over reaction to it now it especially one sided.

Man, even if you have every movie from now on feature a gratuitous shot of a shirtless dude, you'd still need like 50 years or more to even out the genre imbalance when it comes to objectification and sexualization.

Plus, it's all about context, really. Like, if they make a Namor movie and the guy walks around in a speedo and nothing more for the entire film, well, at the least that's how it is in the comics. But Harley doesn't wear short hot pants in the comics - at least not in the first incarnations of the character - so it means they went above and beyond to sexualize the character more than they had to. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

3 minutes ago, Lyin' Ned said:

 

Man, even if you have every movie from now on feature a gratuitous shot of a shirtless dude, you'd still need like 50 years or more to even out the genre imbalance when it comes to objectification and sexualization.

Plus, it's all about context, really. Like, if they make a Namor movie and the guy walks around in a speedo and nothing more for the entire film, well, at the least that's how it is in the comics. But Harley doesn't wear short hot pants in the comics - at least not in the first incarnations of the character - so it means they went above and beyond to sexualize the character more than they had to. 

Awesome so lets have some reverse gender imbalance for another 50 years, then we can swap around again after that and continue in that vein forever. Or we can just see that society is far more openly sexual than it ever was (probably not a bad thing) and sexualising is happening on both sides.. because Money. 

Either way, Harley Quinn has always been a bit of a sexy character, even in the Batman cartoon she was a play on the dumb bimbo stereotype. 

[mormont]

1 minute ago, dbunting said:

As to the Deadshot line about getting his woman in line. Have you never heard someone say that? It is not uncommon at all in real life.

What does that have to do with it?

Whether or not I've heard people say it in real life, putting it in the film at that point was weird and a terrible bit of scripting. It's inherently a misogynist thing to say, and it's delivered in a weird way that doesn't make it clear whether he's trying to make a really bad joke, or whether he seriously holds those attitudes. Either way, it undermines the film's attempts to make Deadshot sympathetic or heroic, and contributes to a sense that the film-makers are clueless and ham-fisted when it comes to gender issues.

It's not like delivering an offhand line in real life, even. Someone wrote that line deliberately, someone else spoke it out loud, and then several other someones listened to it, decided it was a good idea and left it in. Nobody said 'hey, what's this line about? Are we trying to make our two male leads look like ignorant dudebros for some reason?'

[dbunting]

Just now, mormont said:

What does that have to do with it?

Whether or not I've heard people say it in real life, putting it in the film at that point was weird and a terrible bit of scripting. It's inherently a misogynist thing to say, and it's delivered in a weird way that doesn't make it clear whether he's trying to make a really bad joke, or whether he seriously holds those attitudes. Either way, it undermines the film's attempts to make Deadshot sympathetic or heroic, and contributes to a sense that the film-makers are clueless and ham-fisted when it comes to gender issues.

It's not like delivering an offhand line in real life, even. Someone wrote that line deliberately, someone else spoke it out loud, and then several other someones listened to it, decided it was a good idea and left it in. Nobody said 'hey, what's this line about? Are we trying to make our two male leads look like ignorant dudebros for some reason?'

From my POV, it's not an offensive line. To hear someone who is supposed to be a bad guy, forced to do a good thing, it seems kid of normal thing to say to me. Like the spot where Boomarang is grabbing the watch, it's just their nature.

In a movie where a boss murders her team, thousands of people die, a guard abuses inmates, etc.. I think a line about keeping your woman under control is pretty minor.

[dsug]

56 minutes ago, Lyin' Ned said:

This is MRA fffeminism at its worse. The laziest excuse, really. Yeah, it's all about empowerment and agency, said the overly sexualized female character created by men, adapted from comics written by men into a movie directed by men. 

Grrl power, sister!

Man, even if you have every movie from now on feature a gratuitous shot of a shirtless dude, you'd still need like 50 years or more to even out the genre imbalance when it comes to objectification and sexualization.

Plus, it's all about context, really. Like, if they make a Namor movie and the guy walks around in a speedo and nothing more for the entire film, well, at the least that's how it is in the comics. But Harley doesn't wear short hot pants in the comics - at least not in the first incarnations of the character - so it means they went above and beyond to sexualize the character more than they had to. 

Her costume was designed by a woman, Kate Hawley. She's done multiple interviews about it. You really think David Ayer was sitting there sketching Margot Robbie in booty shorts? 

I don't know why you feel so strongly about this, but if you're as big a fan as you claim to be, you'd know that Harley dressing a little scandalously is nothing new. She spent her whole Mad Love episode on her hands and knees in lingerie that was sliding off her shoulders. She jumped out of a cake like a stripper. She makes jokes about the Joker riding her. In the critically acclaimed Arkham games, she's bursting out of a corset. You said she doesn't wear shorts in the comics, so clearly you haven't read one in a while. Ever heard of the new 52? 

Harley's whole character kind of revolves around her attraction/obsession with the Joker. She likes him and finds him attractive. You can't "sexualize" something that's inherently sexual. 

[red snow]

48 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Awesome so lets have some reverse gender imbalance for another 50 years, then we can swap around again after that and continue in that vein forever. Or we can just see that society is far more openly sexual than it ever was (probably not a bad thing) and sexualising is happening on both sides.. because Money. 

Either way, Harley Quinn has always been a bit of a sexy character, even in the Batman cartoon she was a play on the dumb bimbo stereotype. 

Yeah - I agree that films are becoming more "equal" in their objectification of humans because it sells. The violence (particularly) sexual violence is more of an issue as it's used a bit too often regarding women and played for laughs regarding men.