One of things I found fascinating is that half the villians they chose to use were not just obscure, they were *radically* obscure. We've all heard of the Joker. We've mostly heard of Harley. I've played enough of Arkham games to know who deadshot is.
But when you're choosing villians who are too obscure for the DC deckbuilding game to have used them - and they've used hundreds of DC villians by now - you need to dig up, stupid. I mean who or what the hell is Rick Flagg? Why do I care about Enchantress??
I could not agree more. There is NO audience connection to any of the characters who are not Batman related. Deadshot is the closest and he has strong ties to the Batman stories.
I find it extremely hard to understand how any WB studio executive would have signed off on how this was done. Having been a businessman for as long as I was I find it inconceivable that this has happened even once, let alone as many times as they have for WB. It is literally embarrassing.
So, how did the meeting go when they pitched the whole plan to compete with Marvel? Is there or was there ever a cohesive plan on how to do these films? I don’t know. If there was it has it was very poorly thought out.
Other then Batman and Superman other DC characters don't seem to be readily recognized by the public or liked. The Green "Arrow" and The Flash both have had boosts because of their TV shows and Wonder Woman is a Female Icon that transcends the genre but overall other DC characters don't resonate with people the way The Hulk, Spiderman, Ironman, The Fantastic Four, The X-men, Captain America, ..... do.
That's not intrinsic to the characters, though. Pre-MCU, the DC characters had a huge recognition advantage over Marvel's. Of Marvel's three most recognizable characters -- Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the Hulk -- Marvel Studios didn't have access to two, and the third was so difficult to make a good movie about that they stopped trying. No, Marvel Studios has been wildly successful in spite of their characters' recognition (or lack thereof), not because of it. Iron Man in particular resonates with people for the sole reason that they cast a great actor in a great movie. General pop culture didn't give a rip about Tony Stark before 2008. Given the right talent, DC-Warner could have done that with the Question or Mister Terrific or freaking Animal Man, to say nothing of what they could have done with their actual A-listers. It's been all about the level of quality and creative vision the two studios are putting into their films. This was DC's fight to lose, and boy did they lose it.
You are not kidding. This should be like fish in a barrel. Marvel has the formula down and they are not even hiding it. That formula is SO Blatantly simple it is ridiculous. I’m not saying that the execution of the formula is simple or the creation of the movie, but the overall strategy is mind boggling simple. FOX has done the same thing with Fantastic Four. There simply is no more iconic, well known and beloved super hero team then Fantastic Four. It should have been simplicity itself to make a Great movie with those characters. These studios must be run by absolute idiots.
In the case of Ironman, I agree that Marvel did choose a Great actor and put him in a great movie when they made Ironman, but I do think the character was a great choice too. Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s. Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie. Many of the middle aged movie going public remember them from Saturday morning Marvel cartoons or after school cartoons from when they were children. It’s interesting that ALL of the characters from those first early Marvel cartoons, (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Spiderman, Black Panther, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Loki, Whiplash, Bucky, Red Skull, The mandarin, The Hulk, The Leader, Aim, Hydra, Shield, Nick Fury, Sif, the Warriors Three) have been in the current batch of Marvel movies with the exception of Namor the Submariner. I would be extremely eager to see Marvel to a Namor movie. Way more interested then I would be in an Aquaman movie.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RELAPSED MAFIA JUNKIE
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s.
Look at the numbers, comic book sales compared to movie ticket sales. Regular comic book readers are quite simply insignificant in the box office calculus.
Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie.
I'd argue the opposite: as a rich white industrialist who is an embodiment of the Establishment, Tony Stark presented a huge challenge to make appealing. Marvel was very much sailing against the cultural wind here. And they pulled it off anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There simply is no more iconic, well known and beloved super hero team then Fantastic Four.
Well, except for the Justice League, the X-Men, the Avengers, the Ninja Turtles, and the Power Rangers.
I think I let my generational bias get the better of me. For younger people Power Rangers, TMNT and X-Men maybe more beloved, but I would still say the Fantastic Four is more beloved the either the Justice League or The Avengers, and I am about the BIGGEST Avengers fan there is. I own every issue of the original comic series from number 10 on.
Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s.
Look at the numbers, comic book sales compared to movie ticket sales. Regular comic book readers are quite simply insignificant in the box office calculus..
I was referring to the potential market waiting to be tapped by creating a movie that would appeal to younger audiances and pull in the older waiting comic fans as well.
Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie.
I'd argue the opposite: as a rich white industrialist who is an embodiment of the Establishment, Tony Stark presented a huge challenge to make appealing. Marvel was very much sailing against the cultural wind here. And they pulled it off anyway.
This is a very interesting premise. It is a matter of perspective certainly. I look at the character that is Ironman and the fact that he is a rich white male does not register with me as anything negative. Stark is also a misogynistic, alcoholic narcissist, those traits do register as decidedly negative and they were downplayed, deliberately I think in the movies. I don't think even Disney could make the real Tony Stark likeable
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RELAPSED MAFIA JUNKIE
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
I'm not going to waste my money on this. I made that decision the second I heard about the reshoots. I can't remember hearing of a movie that basically got "remade" after it had already been shot, which was not a mess.
Except here's the thing: I think the problem is they didn't reshoot enough.
The problem with this movie isn't the comedy bits. The problem is when they're trying to be serious, which ends up being dull, boring, and completely lifeless. The comedic moments are the best parts of the film, because at least then there's some life and charm.
The majority of recent Marvel movies have been fairly middle of the road, not bad enough to truly be considered "bad" films
Oh no, Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron were bad films. And I've not watched the X-Men films since First Class (which was bad), but no one seems to have anything good to say about Apocalypse.
Except here's the thing: I think the problem is they didn't reshoot enough.
The problem with this movie isn't the comedy bits. The problem is when they're trying to be serious, which ends up being dull, boring, and completely lifeless. The comedic moments are the best parts of the film, because at least then there's some life and charm.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
But the question then becomes what would the movie have been like had the studio not interfered?
Normally I bristle against studio interference, but if the reshoots were the reason for the humorous elements in the movie, which were the best parts of the movie, then the studio's interference was what gave the movie its saving graces.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
But the question then becomes what would the movie have been like had the studio not interfered?
Normally I bristle against studio interference, but if the reshoots were the reason for the humorous elements in the movie, which were the best parts of the movie, then the studio's interference was what gave the movie its saving graces.
It was likely the studios intent to start with the grim/dark theme to begin with to line up with their other films. So its really just studio meddling all round in this case.
I could not agree more. There is NO audience connection to any of the characters who are not Batman related. Deadshot is the closest and he has strong ties to the Batman stories.
I find it extremely hard to understand how any WB studio executive would have signed off on how this was done. Having been a businessman for as long as I was I find it inconceivable that this has happened even once, let alone as many times as they have for WB. It is literally embarrassing.
So, how did the meeting go when they pitched the whole plan to compete with Marvel? Is there or was there ever a cohesive plan on how to do these films? I don’t know. If there was it has it was very poorly thought out.
Uhhh, Guardians of the Galaxy? Doctor Strange? Ms Marvel? These are all characters/properties that the general public has no knowledge of or connection to and yet Marvel is making it work. The choice of characters for Suicide Squad is hardly in inherent mistake and hardly an excuse for the movie's failings. GotG had a retarded treefolk and a talking raccoon. The morts of Suicide Squad hardly compare. A guy who's good with rope and a guy who throws boomerangs seem like A-listers compared to a talking raccoon.
Oh no, Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron were bad films. And I've not watched the X-Men films since First Class (which was bad), but no one seems to have anything good to say about Apocalypse.
The X-Men movies are made by Fox, not Marvel Studios. Marvel has no control over them and Fox won't be relinquishing the rights to the X-Men any time soon. Marvel is so salty over it that they've effectively removed the X-Men from the comics altogether, aside from a handful of popular mutants.
Well there's a term I haven't seen used since I was a middle schooler reading Wizard Magazine.
At any rate, DC is relaunching their comics line with this 'Rebirth" shtick, since New 52 was such a festering pile of horse dicks. They need to stop trying to ram New 52esque movies down people's throats, and make fun comic book movies instead. Superman should be an adventure flick, not some grimdark wrist-cutting nonsense. If DC could pull off a movie adaptation of Superman: For All Seasons or All-Star Superman, even to the quality of Age of Ultron, I would LOVE it, and I can't stand Superman.
If the CW can make the Suicide Squad cool on a TV budget, how come DC can't do it on a movie budget?
DC has such a massive, incredible cast of fantastic characters, but it seems like they have no idea what to do with them for the most part. Meanwhilst, Marvel comes along and makes a movie about characters I know little to nothing about even though I've been reading comics for 23 years, and it ends up being my absolute favorite of the MCU thus far.
They were sitting on literal dynamite with this movie, between featuring the greatest villain in comics ever in the Joker, and an utterly vapid and shallow character that people rabidly adore much to my endless confusion in Harley Quinn, and it was a plane crash, as someone else said.
Doesn't give me much hope for this proposed Booster Gold movie, which normally, I would be over the moon about.
I don't think DC/WB even needs to make these movies as "fun" as the Marvel movies, they just need to make them less awful. Zack Snyder is a hack, who is basically Michael Bay but dumber. Ayer is all style, no substance. And Wonder Woman, despite the well-received trailer, will also be a mess because the entire production was completely borked the beginning and they have a model playing the lead instead of an actor. DC/WB screwed up right from the start because they built this entire cinematic universe on the foundation of Man of Steel, which was a complete dud(55% on Rotten Tomatoes). Marvel built there cinematic universe on Iron Man(94% on Rotten Tomatoes). DC/WB is running this thing into the ground because they have no reverence for their own characters or good film making. They were so desperate to compete with the Avengers that they skipped over every important step to get there.
I don't think DC/WB even needs to make these movies as "fun" as the Marvel movies, they just need to make them less awful.
This. "Srs bsns" superhero movies can be good. The whole reason DC/WB is going down this path is almost certainly because they're chasing the acclaim of The Dark Knight, which in hindsight may not be as sublime as it was originally received as, but is still firmly on the "good" side of the ledger.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think DC/WB even needs to make these movies as "fun" as the Marvel movies, they just need to make them less awful.
This. "Srs bsns" superhero movies can be good. The whole reason DC/WB is going down this path is almost certainly because they're chasing the acclaim of The Dark Knight, which in hindsight may not be as sublime as it was originally received as, but is still firmly on the "good" side of the ledger.
The thing is that (IMO) Srs Bsns only works (or works much better) for some heroes than others. and they have confused 'serious' with 'unfun'.
The dark knight, if you'll recall, was actually quite good at having fun. Alfred several times makes jokes at Bruce's expense, and the joker makes some...well sort of jokes.
But more than that, the characters and actors seem, periodically, to be really enjoying themselves - plus the film had a reasonably solid plot. Also 'Grim' works well when your character is depressed-because-my-parents-died-justholding-it-together-no-powers guy, and way less well when he's an actual god.
Although TBF you *could* do grim in a superman story, it's just that Superman shouldn't be the grim one - or should end up as a symbol of hope!
ugh it makes me angry, My point is: Zac is a terrible directory and whoever is letting him make these stories should fire themself.
I find it really odd that Zack Snyder just keeps failing up. That usually only happens with Hollywood executives, not directors. He did Sucker Punch, which was a complete diaster, only to be rewarded with Man of Steel, which was not particularly successful or well received. Then what does WB do? Attempt to build an entire cinematic universe on Snyder's flawed, unsophisticated attempt at Superman and put Snyder in charge of the whole thing. But his first attempt at creating an entire DCEU blows up in WB's face, so what do they do? Give him the Justice League and creative input on all future DC movies. WTF? Seriously, WTF? Does he have photos of studio execs molesting children?
The thing is that (IMO) Srs Bsns only works (or works much better) for some heroes than others. and they have confused 'serious' with 'unfun'.
The dark knight, if you'll recall, was actually quite good at having fun. Alfred several times makes jokes at Bruce's expense, and the joker makes some...well sort of jokes.
The problem is that DC is doing exactly what they - as well as pretty much everyone else in comics - did in the Dark Ages, which is confusing darkness for maturity.
Replace the word "comic" with "movie," and replace "Watchmen" with "The Dark Knight," and you have DC's problem.
The reason The Dark Knight was good was not because of the dark, gritty realism. All of that was a by-product of an attempt at maturity. The Dark Knight attempted to break genres by making a Batman film that didn't have the cartoonishness people generally associate with a superhero film, instead attempting to make it a crime drama that tackles serious subject matter. And even though the story is over-complicated, probably due to Nolan's love of over-complicating things, it succeeds.
The problem is that subsequent attempts, especially with the Superman franchise, have not understood this nuance. Like the comic book writers of the 90s, they are attempting to capture the success of a work with mature themes while only having a sophomoric understanding of what maturity actually is. In the comics of the 90s, this meant excess of violence, sex, swearing, and characters with absolutely no sense of morality or heroism whatsoever. In the movies of the 2010s, this means joylessness and an oppressive sense of darkness that obscures any sense of hope, life, or humanity.
And the thing is, The Dark Knight is not that dark. The fundamental hope and faith in humanity that Batman represents is challenged but never actually quashed. It's more dark in tone and more grim than the previous Batman movies, but that's not because it aimed to be dark or grim. It's because it aimed to be smart and mature.
The reason The Dark Knight was good was not because of the dark, gritty realism. All of that was a by-product of an attempt at maturity. The Dark Knight attempted to break genres by making a Batman film that didn't have the cartoonishness people generally associate with a superhero film, instead attempting to make it a crime drama that tackles serious subject matter. And even though the story is over-complicated, probably due to Nolan's love of over-complicating things, it succeeds.
It's worth noting that in The Dark Knight, Batman decisively rejects and defeats the dark, cynical worldview and stands as a symbol of hope. He's not as different from Superman as he is often reputed to be.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The reason The Dark Knight was good was not because of the dark, gritty realism. All of that was a by-product of an attempt at maturity. The Dark Knight attempted to break genres by making a Batman film that didn't have the cartoonishness people generally associate with a superhero film, instead attempting to make it a crime drama that tackles serious subject matter. And even though the story is over-complicated, probably due to Nolan's love of over-complicating things, it succeeds.
It's worth noting that in The Dark Knight, Batman decisively rejects and defeats the dark, cynical worldview and stands as a symbol of hope. He's not as different from Superman as he is often reputed to be.
And that's something people like Snyder don't understand. Batman isn't a grimdark killer, he's an eternal optimist who clads himself in shadow to combat the darkness. If he was as cynical and murderous as Snyder envisioned him to be there never would have been a Batman. That character would have simply been The Punisher.
And that's something people like Snyder don't understand. Batman isn't a grimdark killer, he's an eternal optimist who clads himself in shadow to combat the darkness. If he was as cynical and murderous as Snyder envisioned him to be there never would have been a Batman. That character would have simply been The Punisher.
...who was actually handled very well in Daredevil season 2. So that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And that's something people like Snyder don't understand. Batman isn't a grimdark killer, he's an eternal optimist who clads himself in shadow to combat the darkness. If he was as cynical and murderous as Snyder envisioned him to be there never would have been a Batman. That character would have simply been The Punisher.
...who was actually handled very well in Daredevil season 2. So that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
There's nothing wrong with the character of The Punisher. It's just that Batman is nothing like The Punisher, which is why Snyder's Batman is such a failure and an affront to what Batman is supposed to be. The Batman of the comics would take down the Batman of BvS and lock him away in Arkham Asylum.
I will say many aspects of the movie where a mess. The story was sloppy, the edits and pacing where weird, Katanna felt unequally and enchantress wasn't good as an antagonist. All the behind the scenes issues show.
And how the hell did Harleys bat not shatter? lol
That said the broad strokes of the story was great. I liked how it somewhat set up Justice League showing that a superhero team is needed in this universe. The ideas where good but it was excavated very well. I also liked learning about some of the Z-list dc characters, like El Diablo, Rick Flag and Enchantress. The effects where pretty cool and I like how much more faithful the characters where to their comic book counter points then we've seen from the rest of DCEU.
Finally the acting was the best thing. I loved, loved, loved Robbie and love that she is getting a "solo" movie. Davis was just..perfect. She was able to make a character I hated, agreed with and worried about all in one. Best thing I've seen from Will Smith in awhile and I hope he can get his career back together. Courtney got me in stitches. Only person i didn't think do the best was Delevingne when she was superpower enchantress although her fight scenes where pretty cool and I love her transformation with the reflection of the enchantress grabbing her hand.
So far it is the best DCEU IMO but it needed work. Like the rest of DCEU movies it has some good ideas and interesting direction and great casting but horrible scripts and execution. I'd give a C+.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I like how much more faithful the characters where to their comic book counter points then we've seen from the rest of DCEU.
Hardly any of the characters were reflective of their comic book counterparts. Aside from Harley and Waller I can't say any of them were much like in the comics at all. Captain Boomerang, for instance, was nothing like the comics.
I like how much more faithful the characters where to their comic book counter points then we've seen from the rest of DCEU.
Hardly any of the characters were reflective of their comic book counterparts. Aside from Harley and Waller I can't say any of them were much like in the comics at all. Captain Boomerang, for instance, was nothing like the comics.
Not a huge Flash fan but isn't CB just a thuggish,campy, ozzie guy? Plus he and Smith needed new directions for their characters since WB is/already had versions of these characters.
Joke is "faithful" since Golden age had him a killer psycho clown gangster (Jack Nicolson) and Leto is playing a modern version.
Not a hugely knowledge about El Diablo but his New 52 version looks just like the movie.
For the basics Enchantress seems faithful and the parts they added seemed pretty interesting, like her brother, being a southern american "goddess".
Katanna seems pretty faithful, but she wasn't given much screen time, same with Killer Croc.
And who cares about Flag? Barley anyone knows about him so they could really have done whatever they want since he isn't as iconic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“There are no weak Jews. I am descended from those who wrestle angels and kill giants. We were chosen by God. You were chosen by a pathetic little man who can't seem to grow a full mustache"
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
I find it really odd that Zack Snyder just keeps failing up. That usually only happens with Hollywood executives, not directors. He did Sucker Punch, which was a complete diaster, only to be rewarded with Man of Steel, which was not particularly successful or well received. Then what does WB do? Attempt to build an entire cinematic universe on Snyder's flawed, unsophisticated attempt at Superman and put Snyder in charge of the whole thing. But his first attempt at creating an entire DCEU blows up in WB's face, so what do they do? Give him the Justice League and creative input on all future DC movies. WTF? Seriously, WTF? Does he have photos of studio execs molesting children?
His wife is a film exec. Her connections are likely the main reason why Zack Snyder keeps getting extra chances.
He could have been axed after BvS but the problem was they are just about ready to start filming Justice League by the time BvS was released. While getting rid of a director right before filming doesn't always result in a disaster (see Ant-Man and Thor 2), knowing WB/DC's track record it probably wouldn't have gone too well. Probably would have mirrored something like what happened with X-Men the Last Stand, when Bryan Singer was yanked and Brett Ratner was hastily put into the director's chair to take on that $210 million monstrosity.
Not a huge Flash fan but isn't CB just a thuggish,campy, ozzie guy?
Nope. He's a criminal and a lowlife, but he's very much "lawful evil" and would never act like the movie version. He's also not a gross slob like in the movie.
Joke is "faithful" since Golden age had him a killer psycho clown gangster (Jack Nicolson) and Leto is playing a modern version.
If you have to use caveats like "modern version" and Nicholson's version then it isn't really accurate, is it?
Not a hugely knowledge about El Diablo but his New 52 version looks just like the movie.
Everything New 52 is garbage so my memory may be fuzzy, but I don't remember New 52 El Diablo being a whiny goth kid or being an Aztec skellington monster out of nowhere.
For the basics Enchantress seems faithful and the parts they added seemed pretty interesting, like her brother, being a southern american "goddess".
Enchantress never made rock zombies or "machines" to rule over a dead planet.
Katanna seems pretty faithful, but she wasn't given much screen time, same with Killer Croc.
Katanna isn't a mercenary. She's a guardian who cannot be bought or persuaded. Working for Waller is something she would never do.
And who cares about Flag? Barley anyone knows about him so they could really have done whatever they want since he isn't as iconic.
Rick Flagg is a very cool character in the comics. He's basically James Bond and Beachhead(from GI Joe) in one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I could not agree more. There is NO audience connection to any of the characters who are not Batman related. Deadshot is the closest and he has strong ties to the Batman stories.
I find it extremely hard to understand how any WB studio executive would have signed off on how this was done. Having been a businessman for as long as I was I find it inconceivable that this has happened even once, let alone as many times as they have for WB. It is literally embarrassing.
So, how did the meeting go when they pitched the whole plan to compete with Marvel? Is there or was there ever a cohesive plan on how to do these films? I don’t know. If there was it has it was very poorly thought out.
You are not kidding. This should be like fish in a barrel. Marvel has the formula down and they are not even hiding it. That formula is SO Blatantly simple it is ridiculous. I’m not saying that the execution of the formula is simple or the creation of the movie, but the overall strategy is mind boggling simple. FOX has done the same thing with Fantastic Four. There simply is no more iconic, well known and beloved super hero team then Fantastic Four. It should have been simplicity itself to make a Great movie with those characters. These studios must be run by absolute idiots.
In the case of Ironman, I agree that Marvel did choose a Great actor and put him in a great movie when they made Ironman, but I do think the character was a great choice too. Marvel had a lot of fans who were quietly waiting for the first Great Marvel Comic movie done by Marvel to appear. Ironman is a great character and has always been a favorite for the geeks, and Marvel fans. Ironman was one of the early Marvel comic cartoon characters that came out in the mid to late 60’s. Ironman also exemplifies many of the latest developments in robotics, Cybernetics, computers, AI and transhumanism. He is a very good choice for a very relevant character that can deal with hot relevant topics. Marvel targeted and captured not only the children’s age groups, but teens, young adults and middle aged adults with the choice of Ironman. There was a pent up itch within the middle aged demographic that Marvel scratched vigorously with the first Ironman movie. Many of the middle aged movie going public remember them from Saturday morning Marvel cartoons or after school cartoons from when they were children. It’s interesting that ALL of the characters from those first early Marvel cartoons, (The Avengers, Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Spiderman, Black Panther, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Loki, Whiplash, Bucky, Red Skull, The mandarin, The Hulk, The Leader, Aim, Hydra, Shield, Nick Fury, Sif, the Warriors Three) have been in the current batch of Marvel movies with the exception of Namor the Submariner. I would be extremely eager to see Marvel to a Namor movie. Way more interested then I would be in an Aquaman movie.
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
Look at the numbers, comic book sales compared to movie ticket sales. Regular comic book readers are quite simply insignificant in the box office calculus.
I'd argue the opposite: as a rich white industrialist who is an embodiment of the Establishment, Tony Stark presented a huge challenge to make appealing. Marvel was very much sailing against the cultural wind here. And they pulled it off anyway.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I was referring to the potential market waiting to be tapped by creating a movie that would appeal to younger audiances and pull in the older waiting comic fans as well.
This is a very interesting premise. It is a matter of perspective certainly. I look at the character that is Ironman and the fact that he is a rich white male does not register with me as anything negative. Stark is also a misogynistic, alcoholic narcissist, those traits do register as decidedly negative and they were downplayed, deliberately I think in the movies. I don't think even Disney could make the real Tony Stark likeable
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
The problem with this movie isn't the comedy bits. The problem is when they're trying to be serious, which ends up being dull, boring, and completely lifeless. The comedic moments are the best parts of the film, because at least then there's some life and charm.
Oh no, Iron Man 3 and Age of Ultron were bad films. And I've not watched the X-Men films since First Class (which was bad), but no one seems to have anything good to say about Apocalypse.
A lot of it boils down to studio interference. The execs want one cut of the movie and the director prefers his own vision. They apparently had two different cuts of the movie and tried to mash them together for horrible results.
Also doesn't help that the reshoots for Suicide Squad came in the 11th hour.
Normally I bristle against studio interference, but if the reshoots were the reason for the humorous elements in the movie, which were the best parts of the movie, then the studio's interference was what gave the movie its saving graces.
Uhhh, Guardians of the Galaxy? Doctor Strange? Ms Marvel? These are all characters/properties that the general public has no knowledge of or connection to and yet Marvel is making it work. The choice of characters for Suicide Squad is hardly in inherent mistake and hardly an excuse for the movie's failings. GotG had a retarded treefolk and a talking raccoon. The morts of Suicide Squad hardly compare. A guy who's good with rope and a guy who throws boomerangs seem like A-listers compared to a talking raccoon.
The X-Men movies are made by Fox, not Marvel Studios. Marvel has no control over them and Fox won't be relinquishing the rights to the X-Men any time soon. Marvel is so salty over it that they've effectively removed the X-Men from the comics altogether, aside from a handful of popular mutants.
Well there's a term I haven't seen used since I was a middle schooler reading Wizard Magazine.
At any rate, DC is relaunching their comics line with this 'Rebirth" shtick, since New 52 was such a festering pile of horse dicks. They need to stop trying to ram New 52esque movies down people's throats, and make fun comic book movies instead. Superman should be an adventure flick, not some grimdark wrist-cutting nonsense. If DC could pull off a movie adaptation of Superman: For All Seasons or All-Star Superman, even to the quality of Age of Ultron, I would LOVE it, and I can't stand Superman.
If the CW can make the Suicide Squad cool on a TV budget, how come DC can't do it on a movie budget?
DC has such a massive, incredible cast of fantastic characters, but it seems like they have no idea what to do with them for the most part. Meanwhilst, Marvel comes along and makes a movie about characters I know little to nothing about even though I've been reading comics for 23 years, and it ends up being my absolute favorite of the MCU thus far.
They were sitting on literal dynamite with this movie, between featuring the greatest villain in comics ever in the Joker, and an utterly vapid and shallow character that people rabidly adore much to my endless confusion in Harley Quinn, and it was a plane crash, as someone else said.
Doesn't give me much hope for this proposed Booster Gold movie, which normally, I would be over the moon about.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The thing is that (IMO) Srs Bsns only works (or works much better) for some heroes than others. and they have confused 'serious' with 'unfun'.
The dark knight, if you'll recall, was actually quite good at having fun. Alfred several times makes jokes at Bruce's expense, and the joker makes some...well sort of jokes.
But more than that, the characters and actors seem, periodically, to be really enjoying themselves - plus the film had a reasonably solid plot. Also 'Grim' works well when your character is depressed-because-my-parents-died-justholding-it-together-no-powers guy, and way less well when he's an actual god.
Although TBF you *could* do grim in a superman story, it's just that Superman shouldn't be the grim one - or should end up as a symbol of hope!
ugh it makes me angry, My point is: Zac is a terrible directory and whoever is letting him make these stories should fire themself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Replace the word "comic" with "movie," and replace "Watchmen" with "The Dark Knight," and you have DC's problem.
The reason The Dark Knight was good was not because of the dark, gritty realism. All of that was a by-product of an attempt at maturity. The Dark Knight attempted to break genres by making a Batman film that didn't have the cartoonishness people generally associate with a superhero film, instead attempting to make it a crime drama that tackles serious subject matter. And even though the story is over-complicated, probably due to Nolan's love of over-complicating things, it succeeds.
The problem is that subsequent attempts, especially with the Superman franchise, have not understood this nuance. Like the comic book writers of the 90s, they are attempting to capture the success of a work with mature themes while only having a sophomoric understanding of what maturity actually is. In the comics of the 90s, this meant excess of violence, sex, swearing, and characters with absolutely no sense of morality or heroism whatsoever. In the movies of the 2010s, this means joylessness and an oppressive sense of darkness that obscures any sense of hope, life, or humanity.
And the thing is, The Dark Knight is not that dark. The fundamental hope and faith in humanity that Batman represents is challenged but never actually quashed. It's more dark in tone and more grim than the previous Batman movies, but that's not because it aimed to be dark or grim. It's because it aimed to be smart and mature.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And that's something people like Snyder don't understand. Batman isn't a grimdark killer, he's an eternal optimist who clads himself in shadow to combat the darkness. If he was as cynical and murderous as Snyder envisioned him to be there never would have been a Batman. That character would have simply been The Punisher.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There's nothing wrong with the character of The Punisher. It's just that Batman is nothing like The Punisher, which is why Snyder's Batman is such a failure and an affront to what Batman is supposed to be. The Batman of the comics would take down the Batman of BvS and lock him away in Arkham Asylum.
And how the hell did Harleys bat not shatter? lol
That said the broad strokes of the story was great. I liked how it somewhat set up Justice League showing that a superhero team is needed in this universe. The ideas where good but it was excavated very well. I also liked learning about some of the Z-list dc characters, like El Diablo, Rick Flag and Enchantress. The effects where pretty cool and I like how much more faithful the characters where to their comic book counter points then we've seen from the rest of DCEU.
Finally the acting was the best thing. I loved, loved, loved Robbie and love that she is getting a "solo" movie. Davis was just..perfect. She was able to make a character I hated, agreed with and worried about all in one. Best thing I've seen from Will Smith in awhile and I hope he can get his career back together. Courtney got me in stitches. Only person i didn't think do the best was Delevingne when she was superpower enchantress although her fight scenes where pretty cool and I love her transformation with the reflection of the enchantress grabbing her hand.
So far it is the best DCEU IMO but it needed work. Like the rest of DCEU movies it has some good ideas and interesting direction and great casting but horrible scripts and execution. I'd give a C+.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
Hardly any of the characters were reflective of their comic book counterparts. Aside from Harley and Waller I can't say any of them were much like in the comics at all. Captain Boomerang, for instance, was nothing like the comics.
Not a huge Flash fan but isn't CB just a thuggish,campy, ozzie guy? Plus he and Smith needed new directions for their characters since WB is/already had versions of these characters.
Joke is "faithful" since Golden age had him a killer psycho clown gangster (Jack Nicolson) and Leto is playing a modern version.
Not a hugely knowledge about El Diablo but his New 52 version looks just like the movie.
For the basics Enchantress seems faithful and the parts they added seemed pretty interesting, like her brother, being a southern american "goddess".
Katanna seems pretty faithful, but she wasn't given much screen time, same with Killer Croc.
And who cares about Flag? Barley anyone knows about him so they could really have done whatever they want since he isn't as iconic.
"You can tell how dumb someone is by how they use Mary Sue"
His wife is a film exec. Her connections are likely the main reason why Zack Snyder keeps getting extra chances.
He could have been axed after BvS but the problem was they are just about ready to start filming Justice League by the time BvS was released. While getting rid of a director right before filming doesn't always result in a disaster (see Ant-Man and Thor 2), knowing WB/DC's track record it probably wouldn't have gone too well. Probably would have mirrored something like what happened with X-Men the Last Stand, when Bryan Singer was yanked and Brett Ratner was hastily put into the director's chair to take on that $210 million monstrosity.
Nope. He's a criminal and a lowlife, but he's very much "lawful evil" and would never act like the movie version. He's also not a gross slob like in the movie.
If you have to use caveats like "modern version" and Nicholson's version then it isn't really accurate, is it?
Everything New 52 is garbage so my memory may be fuzzy, but I don't remember New 52 El Diablo being a whiny goth kid or being an Aztec skellington monster out of nowhere.
Enchantress never made rock zombies or "machines" to rule over a dead planet.
Katanna isn't a mercenary. She's a guardian who cannot be bought or persuaded. Working for Waller is something she would never do.
Rick Flagg is a very cool character in the comics. He's basically James Bond and Beachhead(from GI Joe) in one.