CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SUICIDE SQUAD (2016) - POST-RELEASE THREAD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SUICIDE SQUAD (2016) - POST-RELEASE THREAD - Page 11

post #501 of 1308
Awwww...I missed the AoU bashing. What a gyp.

From a editing/flow standpoint, AoU is better. But I would much rather watch Suicide Squad again.

In regards to Leto's Joker. I still don't get the hate. He was hardly in the movie to leave such a distinct impression. I guess looks are everything.
post #502 of 1308
It's because it's the joker
post #503 of 1308
I suppose. I just gotta think 90% of the hate stems from the grill and tats. There just wasn't enough there to so viscerally hate this incarnation. Or really love it either.
post #504 of 1308
Didn't hate the Joker....hated the MOVIE. Or...rather, I didn't hate the movie because of the Joker. He was just kinda....there..
post #505 of 1308
post #506 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post

I suppose. I just gotta think 90% of the hate stems from the grill and tats. There just wasn't enough there to so viscerally hate this incarnation. Or really love it either.

I think that's the other half of the hate. There isn't enough there to feel much of anything about his Joker.  Maybe that's the edits fault, maybe it's because Leto sucks and made a forgettable Joker...  But that's just it.  How do you make THE JOKER a generic, forgettable crazy guy?

post #507 of 1308
post #508 of 1308

Oh oh.  He says that Wonder Woman is in trouble.

post #509 of 1308
I read somewhere that WW is 74 minutes long.

But that can't be right.

That'd be like an Albert Pyun movie or something..
post #510 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

Oh oh.  He says that Wonder Woman is in trouble.


Surprise, surprise.

post #511 of 1308
It's ok. Trailer is all that matters!
post #512 of 1308

 

Am I missing something on the page about the origin of this? Is 'Gracie Law' the person who used to work at WB? Google and IMDB aren't pulling up anything.

 

That letter was a bunch of crap. Whoever wrote it, and whatever it is they did while at WB, it sounds like they don't know the first thing about making movies either.

 

There's barely a single example in the letter where I can tell whether the person is talking about how good they think a movie is, or how good other people will think it is, or if the movie will make money, or if it will make enough money relative to the budget. "I thought this movie was going to be good, but then it lost money!". It's completely incoherent.

post #513 of 1308
It really reads like it was written by Kenneth from 30 Rock driven more outwardly insane.
post #514 of 1308
Who wrote that because it is not good on any level.
post #515 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Reese View Post

Am I missing something on the page about the origin of this? Is 'Gracie Law' the person who used to work at WB? Google and IMDB aren't pulling up anything.
I'm, uh, going to assume that's a pseudonym.
post #516 of 1308
If she's a "Big Trouble in Little China" fan, she's OK in my book.
post #517 of 1308

I don't even know what's real anymore. Is our reality merging into John Carpenter's weed-dreams?

post #518 of 1308

This wasn't very good at all, and I wasn't particularly entertained either. Like I didn't have high expectations after all the bad reviews but I at least thought it would be fun but it was just sort of incoherent. No moment really stood out for me except maybe the bar scene and then I was struck by how much was missing versus the completely entertaining trailers. I didn't hate it--it doesn't stick in my craw like (say) ST:ID does--but it didn't leave me with any kind of a feeling other than disappointment.

 

Like that part at the end where Diablo is screaming he isn't going to lose another family and this movie didn't do a whole lot to establish these characters as people who cared about each other? There was a lot of that in this movie, a lot of not quite doing enough to make whatever was happening on the screen meaningful.

 

Help me out, comics fans: did Waller ever do anything as harsh as killing a bunch of her own people--her own civilian office staff even--because they didn't have the right clearance in the comics? That didn't sit right with me at all, which is a shame because I otherwise love Davis in this role. But the real Wall...she doesn't kill people who don't need killing. Unless I have the character wrong. And I don't even understand what incredible secret she was protecting. The fact that she screwed up?

 

What's a worse joke, "killer app" or Croc wanting BET? The latter, because it's pointlessly racist...there were ways to make "killer app" funny, by pointing out how dumb a joke it was.

 

Re: Katana, and why she's in the movie: Katana's been given favored character status by somebody in the WB/DC corporate structure...she was in this, in Beware the Batman, in DC Superhero Girls, probably elsewhere. She's getting a push for sure, which doesn't really bother me because she's not a bad character, she adds diversity to the proceedings (if nothing else this film had a diverse cast), she has an interesting enough look. It's not like DC has a deep bench for Asian characters, though you can question them picking one with pretty stereotypey abilities. How did poor Karen Fukuhara not get her name by itself in the credits? Common and Scott Eastwood did, and they were barely in this movie.

 

Yeah, it was a mess. But with good actors. Count me in the pro-Enchantress camp. And I did think the zombie creatures were a well-designed variation on the villainous cannon fodder forces you get in these movies (wait, they're just possessed humans? can we save them or anything or--naw, just kill 'em.)

post #519 of 1308
Watched the suicide squad ASSAULT ON ARKHAM animated movie yesterday. The script and plot are thin as hell but they throw into sharp relief just how easy it should've been to get a fun movie out of the concept. Thats exactly what this film should have been. A gleeful anarchistic mess filled with characters who are constantly trying to stab each other in the back.
post #520 of 1308

So, David Ayer explains the stupid "Damaged" tattoo on The Joker's forehead and it's as stupid as we all thought it would be.

 

post #521 of 1308
I feel like Sigourney Weaver as Ripley when I say... the Joker would never do that. That would show as a sign of weakness.
post #522 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinslot View Post
 

This wasn't very good at all, and I wasn't particularly entertained either. Like I didn't have high expectations after all the bad reviews but I at least thought it would be fun but it was just sort of incoherent. No moment really stood out for me except maybe the bar scene and then I was struck by how much was missing versus the completely entertaining trailers. I didn't hate it--it doesn't stick in my craw like (say) ST:ID does--but it didn't leave me with any kind of a feeling other than disappointment.

 

Like that part at the end where Diablo is screaming he isn't going to lose another family and this movie didn't do a whole lot to establish these characters as people who cared about each other? There was a lot of that in this movie, a lot of not quite doing enough to make whatever was happening on the screen meaningful.

 

Help me out, comics fans: did Waller ever do anything as harsh as killing a bunch of her own people--her own civilian office staff even--because they didn't have the right clearance in the comics? That didn't sit right with me at all, which is a shame because I otherwise love Davis in this role. But the real Wall...she doesn't kill people who don't need killing. Unless I have the character wrong. And I don't even understand what incredible secret she was protecting. The fact that she screwed up?

 

What's a worse joke, "killer app" or Croc wanting BET? The latter, because it's pointlessly racist...there were ways to make "killer app" funny, by pointing out how dumb a joke it was.

 

Re: Katana, and why she's in the movie: Katana's been given favored character status by somebody in the WB/DC corporate structure...she was in this, in Beware the Batman, in DC Superhero Girls, probably elsewhere. She's getting a push for sure, which doesn't really bother me because she's not a bad character, she adds diversity to the proceedings (if nothing else this film had a diverse cast), she has an interesting enough look. It's not like DC has a deep bench for Asian characters, though you can question them picking one with pretty stereotypey abilities. How did poor Karen Fukuhara not get her name by itself in the credits? Common and Scott Eastwood did, and they were barely in this movie.

 

Yeah, it was a mess. But with good actors. Count me in the pro-Enchantress camp. And I did think the zombie creatures were a well-designed variation on the villainous cannon fodder forces you get in these movies (wait, they're just possessed humans? can we save them or anything or--naw, just kill 'em.)

Just gotta ask, why is it racist for a black guy to want BET?

post #523 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I feel like Sigourney Weaver as Ripley when I say... the Joker would never do that. That would show as a sign of weakness.

 

He would have gotten a tattoo on his forehead that says "New & Improved".

 

Because, you know, it's a joke.

post #524 of 1308

I've seen the word ""racist" bandied about with regards to SS and it seems like sort of a stretch to me. The film does indulge in some stereotypes - Croc likes BET and Diablo is a gangbanger - but arguably the 2 strongest characters in the entire film are also minorities and there's nothing stereotypical about them.

post #525 of 1308
Yeah, I feel like this one can 'pass' on the basis of some of these characters not being totally token presences. There is some variety in the ensemble.
Edited by mcnooj82 - 8/12/16 at 4:13am
post #526 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

So, David Ayer explains the stupid "Damaged" tattoo on The Joker's forehead and it's as stupid as we all thought it would be.



I was privy to this information literally the day after that first pic of Leto appeared.

I don't think anyone here believed me.
post #527 of 1308
My audience howled when Croc called Harley "shawty." Because he verbalized a stereotype? No, because he's a giant crocodile man who never speaks. And you know who wants BET? Anyone locked up in prison.
post #528 of 1308
I feel stupider having read that Ayer quote about the Joker.
post #529 of 1308

What's BET? My Google-fu is failing here.

post #530 of 1308

Black Entertainment Television OMFG YOU ARE SOOOO ENGLISH.

post #531 of 1308

How long until we can judge the film as a standalone text and ignore any extraneous scenes from the trailers (something just about every trailer has)?

 

And could it be, however clunky and sometimes ineffective, that the music video crosscutting is a stylistic choice? I mean, try watching Moulin Rouge with an eye for filmmaking and you'll notice the cuts are about every half second, but that wasn't due to studio interference.

 

So now that I've learned this beautiful concept, is it valid to consider the shagginess of the movie through the lens of vulgar auteurism? It reminded me of what Neveldine and Taylor did with the Crank movies.

 

So when is hectic editing chalked up to studio interference (and there's no denying it here), and when can it be allowed that the director embraced it as an aesthetic choice?

 

Not saying it was as effective as, say, a certain dock fight, but...

post #532 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

How long until we can judge the film as a standalone text and ignore any extraneous scenes from the trailers (something just about every trailer has)?

 

And could it be, however clunky and sometimes ineffective, that the music video crosscutting is a stylistic choice? I mean, try watching Moulin Rouge with an eye for filmmaking and you'll notice the cuts are about every half second, but that wasn't due to studio interference.

 

So now that I've learned this beautiful concept, is it valid to consider the shagginess of the movie through the lens of vulgar auteurism? It reminded me of what Neveldine and Taylor did with the Crank movies.

 

So when is hectic editing chalked up to studio interference (and there's no denying it here), and when can it be allowed that the director embraced it as an aesthetic choice?

 

Not saying it was as effective as, say, a certain dock fight, but...

 

I don't think the speed with which they cut had anything to do with the studio, it's more the sloppy story structure (think the way the first act introduces and then reintroduces characters) and tonal inconsistencies (such as the wacky needle drops playing over footage that by itself isn't all that wacky). Now all that might have been the filmmaker's intent but when a generally reliable filmmaker releases something that's such a mess on that level - the theatrical cut of BvS is a good example - it's almost certainly a result of studio interference.

post #533 of 1308

But what I'm saying is, Annie Hall was found in the edit. Blade Runner and The Crow are both compromised works, results of push and pull between director and studio and real-life problems.

 

So how long before we get away from the armchair quarterbacking, making the same argument about studio interference and method acting, and just judge the movie as a Grecian urn?

post #534 of 1308

In cases like this it's almost unavoidable. I really don't think there's any edit that would make this movie good, but many of the decisions that damn it are so clearly driven by studio mandates and fear that I don't see why we shouldn't bring them up. 

post #535 of 1308

*Christopher Walken yawn gif*

post #536 of 1308

Bart are you implying this movie is the Blade Runner of super hero movies and if only the scales would fall from our eyes we would know that?

post #537 of 1308

Not in terms of quality. I just find it annoying that it's the same argument over and over. Studio meddling. Method acting.

 

Okay, that's bad. But here's the movie, it exists. Let's just take it on its own terms.

 

But yeah, just to be a contrarian I'll probably dig in and argue this is the Citizen Kane of comic book movies.

post #538 of 1308
Every big budget studio film has studio mandates, a multi-page list of bullet points that the filmmaker must accomplish and adhere to. It's just a matter of how well the storyteller can manipulate the material without it breaking.

You'd be surprised at how blunt the execs are about it. About manipulating people into thinking they're getting something (Thing A), but they really want to sucker people in and give them something else (Thing B) because that thing is safer and more broad. Their goal is to have it entertain the dumbest people in the room, without everyone else thinking it's dumb (most of the time).

It seems like people who use tha arguement for why a film is bad are into cinema for sport, rather than escapism. It's cold.
post #539 of 1308

This is beyond some bullet points that needed to be addressed. The studio took the footage away from Ayer, made their own cut without involving him and then Frankensteined the 2 cuts into a final cut. Those circumstances are interesting for me to talk about because if you take the movie on its own terms, it's just really shit.

post #540 of 1308

I always find the argument "ignore context" to be really weird and silly.  Ignore context because it's unfair to the poor movie?  Too bad!  If the story behind the movie is more interesting than the final product this is what you get.  I doubt you had the same argument about Fan4stic.  

post #541 of 1308

I'm not saying ignore context. I'm saying it's been talked about. What more is there to say?

 

And I never have and never will watch that Fantastic Four movie. If something is bad, I ignore it. But if I did watch it, I would certainly give it a chance as a standalone text.

post #542 of 1308

If we banned conversation of topics we've already discussed we would never talk about Batman or Ultron again!  Is that the world you want to live in?!  Huh?!  Where stupid shit doesn't dominate our dialogue?!

 

Ohhhhh I get it yeah that sounds great.  

post #543 of 1308

*distracts Freeman with Singing in the Rain*

post #544 of 1308

Back on topic, anyone notice when Waller was entering the restaurant all the Superman T-shirts and merchandise? Nice touch, really made the world feel lived-in. In fact, much more than BvS this made the DCU gel.

post #545 of 1308

Yeah, I noticed the shirts and merch because the movie stops for a second for a guy to show her a Superman shirt explicitly.  

 

Then I got annoyed because the shirt said always remember or some bullshit, and I want to forget they killed Supes in HIS SECOND MOVIE.

post #546 of 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post
 

Back on topic, anyone notice when Waller was entering the restaurant all the Superman T-shirts and merchandise? Nice touch, really made the world feel lived-in. In fact, much more than BvS this made the DCU gel.

 

You sure it wasn't just overstock of BvS merch that they stashed away on the WB soundstages?

post #547 of 1308

*turns the volume up on Singing in the Rain really loud*

post #548 of 1308
Hatin' on DC, I'm haaaaaatin' on DC! What a glorious feelin' I'm haaaaaaaappy again!

But in all seriousness Bart take out the drama and the controversy and it's still a movie where basic logic fails from just about every angle imaginable. If you want to like the movie more than you are bothered by that stuff cool. I liked the movie! In the words of Dave chen it was a good sit! But I also can't ignore big stuff like the entire premise of the squad making zero sense in the context given. That shits important.
post #549 of 1308

The Squad's existence made perfect sense to me. The reference to the mafia protecting docks in WWII even lent it a nice authenticity.

 

But I'm sure you're going to tell me what's wrong with the premise.

post #550 of 1308
No, I'm going to bed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SUICIDE SQUAD (2016) - POST-RELEASE THREAD