THE SUICIDE SQUAD directed by James Gunn (2021) 3 3

[sagekilz]

On 8/11/2021 at 5:59 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

GotG was "risky", as a complete unknown to general audiences.

Doctor Strange was "risky" for bringing magic into a universe that they tried to keep 'grounded' (on Earth).

The Eternals is "risky", as it looks boring AF.

Sweet baby jesus, thank you for saying this - completely agree. 

[Gatsby77]

On 8/12/2021 at 2:31 PM, Bosco685 said:

It appears that reviewers are taking shots at David Ayer so as to show support for James Gunn. But in a way that mirrors what they do with Zack Snyder in making it personal. And ensuring to copy him in some of their posts to make it clear they disliked his film.

Boo F--n' Hoo.

It's not a "bandwagon" or "lazy narrative" to call Ayer out for making a poor Suicide film.

1) It was a bad film.

2) It was a particularly bad Suicide Squad film.

3) The comparative high quality of James Gunn's film - as both an enjoyable popcorn flick and solid example of what a Suicide Squad can and should be, only underscores this.

Sometimes it takes a successful example (like Nolan's Batman Begins) to underscore, say...just how garbage Schumacher's Batman and Robin was.

and 4) It's a perfectly valid criticism that - despite the money the first Suicide Squad film made, its being pure garbage turned audiences off from wanting to watch further adventures featuring the team. Once burned, twice shy and all that.

So now we're in a situation where Gunn's Suicide Squad is a critical and audience success (per Rotten Tomatoes) and yet it's bombing - largely because Ayer's version was garbage and turned audiences off.

Net/Net: Because of Ayer, we're less likely to see a sequel to Gunn's (far superior) film.

[Bosco685]

On 8/12/2021 at 4:29 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Boo F--n' Hoo.

It's not a "bandwagon" or "lazy narrative" to call Ayer out for making a poor Suicide film.

1) It was a bad film.

2) It was a particularly bad Suicide Squad film.

3) The comparative high quality of James Gunn's film - as both an enjoyable popcorn flick and solid example of what a Suicide Squad can and should be, only underscores this.

Sometimes it takes a successful example (like Nolan's Batman Begins) to underscore, say...just how garbage Schumacher's Batman and Robin was.

and 4) It's a perfectly valid criticism that - despite the money the first Suicide Squad film made, its being pure garbage turned audiences off from wanting to watch further adventures featuring the team. Once burned, twice shy and all that.

So now we're in a situation where Gunn's Suicide Squad is a critical and audience success (per Rotten Tomatoes) and yet it's bombing - largely because Ayer's version was garbage and turned audiences off.

Net/Net: Because of Ayer, we're less likely to see a sequel to Gunn's (far superior) film.

Says the dude that constantly revisited the Batman v Superman thread to 'protect other board members from this film'. You definitely have a healthy outlook on entertainment.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Bosco685

[D84]

I don't think it's fair to blame David Ayer for the hatchet job Warner Bros did to the first movie.

Would the Ayer cut be a masterpiece? I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet it's better than what we got.

[Gatsby77]

On 8/12/2021 at 4:34 PM, Bosco685 said:

Says the dude that constantly revisited the Batman v Superman thread to 'protect other board members from this film. You definitely have a healthy outlook on entertainment.

Says the dude who gave the first Suicide Squad film a 7.0/10.0.

Did you even, like, read the '80s run?

[Bosco685]

On 8/12/2021 at 5:16 PM, D84 said:

I don't think it's fair to blame David Ayer for the hatchet job Warner Bros did to the first movie.

Would the Ayer cut be a masterpiece? I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet it's better than what we got.

Agreed! He tried to play nice initially by publicly saying the Theatrical Cut was his cut so as to appease WB Studios.

But it would be nice to see the difference between the two cuts.

[Bosco685]

On 8/12/2021 at 6:02 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Says the dude who gave the first Suicide Squad film a 7.0/10.0.

Did you even, like, read the '80s run?

I had a good time with it seeing the film with friends.

And they did too. And yes. I read the run. And still have many of these books.

[paperheart]

Edited August 12, 2021 by paperheart

[jsilverjanet]

I saw it on Tuesday. I thought like many others, that the movie was good but the reviews were fantastic so there was some disconnect.

I've tried to understand why the disconnect. The only thing I can think of is that I don't think I've ever seen a comic book movie like this before. It doesn't apologize and it's evident Gunn was given complete and total control. It's different and refreshing. The heroes aren't over the top as we've seen in other films (perfect). They are expendable and maybe that's something the non comic book community has been waiting for. 

King Shark was great and I wish I could get a figure but the prices are pretty crazy.

It's evident that the movie theaters are in trouble. I never thought this movie would do well due to the free streaming and the content not appealing to the mass audiences. Lack of great reviews have hurt DC in the past so I thought it might do a little better but honestly this is probably not must see for many people.

I think it's safe to say that based on this, and BW's performance, at least here in the US, that the probability of titles like Eternals and Shang Chi don't bode well. I just can't see people having to see these movies in the theatres.

The only movie on the horizon that will be the true test is the Bond movie but even I doubt that it can bring numbers that we saw 2 years ago. I'm not sure when those numbers can come back or if they ever will.

[Artboy99]

On 8/12/2021 at 4:36 PM, jsilverjanet said:

I saw it on Tuesday. I thought like many others, that the movie was good but the reviews were fantastic so there was some disconnect.

I've tried to understand why the disconnect. The only thing I can think of is that I don't think I've ever seen a comic book movie like this before. It doesn't apologize and it's evident Gunn was given complete and total control. It's different and refreshing. The heroes aren't over the top as we've seen in other films (perfect). They are expendable and maybe that's something the non comic book community has been waiting for. 

King Shark was great and I wish I could get a figure but the prices are pretty crazy.

It's evident that the movie theaters are in trouble. I never thought this movie would do well due to the free streaming and the content not appealing to the mass audiences. Lack of great reviews have hurt DC in the past so I thought it might do a little better but honestly this is probably not must see for many people.

I think it's safe to say that based on this, and BW's performance, at least here in the US, that the probability of titles like Eternals and Shang Chi don't bode well. I just can't see people having to see these movies in the theatres.

The only movie on the horizon that will be the true test is the Bond movie but even I doubt that it can bring numbers that we saw 2 years ago. I'm not sure when those numbers can come back or if they ever will.

as a guy that collects comics, I have to admit that even I am rather ho-hum about Shang-Chi and the Eternals. Honestly never read a single comic of either. That adds to the issue, this phase needed to start with a movie that would draw people in to see the films and it isn't.

[Gatsby77]

I’m intrigued by Shang-Chi precisely  because it’s a major film adaptation of a D-list character - even less well-known / collected by comic nerds than Guardians of the Galaxy.

I’ve collected comics for 30 years and have never read a Master of Kung Fu appearance, despite *loving* Mike Zeck.

Plus, the trailer makes it look eerily similar in theme & content to Snake Eyes, which doesn’t bode well for mass appeal. 

With Snake Eyes bombing worse than Space Jamz, I’d be mad nervous about Shang-Chi’s prospects.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 8/12/2021 at 8:29 PM, Artboy99 said:

as a guy that collects comics, I have to admit that even I am rather ho-hum about Shang-Chi and the Eternals. Honestly never read a single comic of either. That adds to the issue, this phase needed to start with a movie that would draw people in to see the films and it isn't.

40+ male comics collectors hardly read Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, or Captain Marvel, either. And I remember the good old days when Dr Strange would just fly off the newsstands faster than an X-Men comic.

Going by your logic, no time is a good time to release Shang-Chi or Eternals.  Pandemic era September and November are perfect times to release these "riskier" Marvel properties (whatever that means, every property besides Spider-Man and Hulk turned into a movie by the MCU is based on little known risky characters). Christmas time is a perfect time to release the next Spider-Man movie.

[Cat]

I dunno, the Annihilation books seemed to grab an older audience at first. That's how I got told to jump on board this thing, even after explaining how I didn't really care about Marvel Cosmic, it was insisted to me by an older crowd that I check it out. So I did. And it was great, one of my favourite events. Same with the GOTG series after. I was sad to see it go after the 36 or so issues it got. I was a big fan of Abnett and Lanning, which helped. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 8/12/2021 at 8:47 PM, Gatsby77 said:

I’m intrigued by Shang-Chi precisely  because it’s a major film adaptation of a D-list character - even less well-known / collected by comic nerds than Guardians of the Galaxy.

I’ve collected comics for 30 years and have never read a Master of Kung Fu appearance, despite *loving* Mike Zeck.

Plus, the trailer makes it look eerily similar in theme & content to Snake Eyes, which doesn’t bode well for mass appeal. 

With Snake Eyes bombing worse than Space Jamz, I’d be mad nervous about Shang-Chi’s prospects.

I'm just kinda bummed out that it looks like it'll follow the same generic MCU formula. Big CGI battle at the end, small cameos from other characters that don't matter to the story, etc.

I mean, even what I presume to be an early fight appears to have been Marvelized. That fight on the train with a guy who has a sword for a forearm. Granted, Idk if that's a traditional Shang-Chi villain.

I was really hoping for something closer to a martial arts extravaganza. We already have tons of humans with special powers. The movie has given itself an uphill battle for me.

[Cat]

On 8/13/2021 at 8:02 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Says the dude who gave the first Suicide Squad film a 7.0/10.0.

Did you even, like, read the '80s run?

Do you even, like, understand that a film and the comic are wildly different things? And that oh yeah, considering Harley didn't join until the New 52, along with another character or two featured in said film, it seemed like the first movie's origins were of a far more recent version of the Squad. 

But by all means, gatekeep on a comics board. That'll go well, because odds are good people have read whatever you're on your high horse about. 

 

[Gatsby77]

On 8/13/2021 at 7:34 AM, Mecha_Fantastic said:

Do you even, like, understand that a film and the comic are wildly different things? And that oh yeah, considering Harley didn't join until the New 52, along with another character or two featured in said film, it seemed like the first movie's origins were of a far more recent version of the Squad. 

Which goes exactly to a large reason why the first Suicide Squad film sucked.

And yes - I read the bulk of the '80s Suicide Squad series and the first year or so of the New 52 version.

As for "gatekeeping on a comic book message board" it's hard to compete with Bosco, who publishes roughly 20% of the posts in this little corner of the board - and woe be unto anyone with the audacity to disagree with him.

God forbid we call out the bad comic book movies (be they Marvel or DC) when they're bad.

As comics fans, we deserve far better than what we got with David Ayer's Suicide Squad film. And we finally did - with Gunn's version.

Edited August 13, 2021 by Gatsby77

[Gatsby77]

On 8/12/2021 at 10:34 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

40+ male comics collectors hardly read Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, or Captain Marvel, either.

Disagree re. Guardians of the Galaxy.

The 1990 reboot was *huge* and made Jim Valentino such a star that he was later invited to join Image.

If you were a kid actively collecting comics that year, you were buying/reading Guardians of the Galaxy alongside McFarlane's Spidey, Ghost Rider, & The New Warriors.

[Cat]

On 8/13/2021 at 9:42 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Which goes exactly to a large reason why the first Suicide Squad film sucked.

And yes - I read the bulk of the '80s Suicide Squad series and the first year or so of the New 52 version.

As for "gatekeeping on a comic book message board" it's hard to compete with Bosco, who publishes roughly 20% of the posts in this little corner of the board - and woe be unto anyone with the audacity to disagree with him.

God forbid we call out the bad comic book movies (be they Marvel or DC) when they're bad.

As comics fans, we deserve far better than what we got with David Ayer's Suicide Squad film. And we finally did - with Gunn's version.

I see. You're a 'it's modern so it sucks. Only good stuff is old stuff' kinda guy, huh? Good to know. 

Leave Bos alone. He enjoys posting in this section, he's harming no one, and if you've got a problem with him keeping everyone updated on what's happening (a great service he should be thanked for) then you've got an issue. I've disagreed with him, and..... nothing happened. Huh. 

As comic fans we deserve nothing. There's your problem. Unwarranted self importance. We deserve NOTHING. Anything we get, good or bad, is a nice little bonus. We haven't earnt it, we just read a certain type of periodical. We need to drop this sense of entitlement, and go back to the sense of wonder. 

[Bosco685]

On 8/13/2021 at 7:42 AM, Gatsby77 said:

Spoiler

Which goes exactly to a large reason why the first Suicide Squad film sucked.

And yes - I read the bulk of the '80s Suicide Squad series and the first year or so of the New 52 version.

As for "gatekeeping on a comic book message board" it's hard to compete with Bosco, who publishes roughly 20% of the posts in this little corner of the board - and woe be unto anyone with the audacity to disagree with him.

God forbid we call out the bad comic book movies (be they Marvel or DC) when they're bad.

As comics fans, we deserve far better than what we got with David Ayer's Suicide Squad film. And we finally did - with Gunn's version.

Uh-huh. That's what takes place in your revisionist narrative.

But show us again the amount of profit Black Widow made without any mention of any Market Budget, Revenue Split or other expenses. But if a DC, Sony or other studio film comes out you dislike - watch out wild figures quoted!

[thunsicker]

On 8/12/2021 at 5:36 PM, jsilverjanet said:

I saw it on Tuesday. I thought like many others, that the movie was good but the reviews were fantastic so there was some disconnect.

Yeah I think the disconnect is an effect of the way Rotten Tomatoes does things.  Looking at most reviews they were in the 3/5 or 7/10 range.  A good but not great film, but since Rotten Tomatoes just says good/not good and aggregates that it looked like 91% fresh.  Which would make you think it's a 9/10 or great film.  Metacritic has it at 72 which is, again, a mark of a good but not great film.