There you go. The early hate was because the movie sucks, the acting sucks, the directing sucks, the plot sucks, and it’s DC, which also for the most part sucks. 
I good way to relate how this film failed is to see how the first Marvel’s The Avenger succeeded.
(And please note, much of the audience of that Avengers film had read little to none of the comics they were based on.)
If Marvel had simply made that film without first having made the Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and even the Hulk films (well, the second one anyway) FIRST, it wouldn’t have been nearly as good.
You make a stand alone movie introducing a bunch of characters that the audience has no connection with, well you’re not going to engage them in the story. If we hadn’t sat through stories that told us what many of these characters had to have gone through to get to this point, we wouldn’t have cared what they had to go through here.
But that’s not the only thing that hurt Suicide Squad. These are villains. In order for the audience to care or be interested in the villains, we need to have seen stories that featured the heroes these villains had fought first. Assuming that the audience have read the comics or maybe have seen TV shows with these characters, is a pretty stupid way to make a move and expect it to succeed.
I think the premise could have worked fine even without films setting the base. You have heist movies like Ocean’s 11 where they put together a team of experts with minimal exposition and it works. These actors/characters just didn’t really come together as an interesting team. I don’t know if that’s primarily because of the writing or the performance the actors were giving but it wasn’t there. I don’t need a rich back story for “strong alligator man” but he should at least contribute something to the story. (Very mild spoiler for anyone afraid that it’ll ruin their enjoyment of Suicide Squad):
At one point, some military divers are going to access a flooded subway tunnel to retrieve an explosive. Killer Croc says he’s going with and makes a remark about his home is in the tunnels, they’re just tourists. They show him diving in and swimming away in a sinuous, croc-like manner and the divers follow. But then… nothing. You’d think that he’d kick all sorts of ass in the tunnels but nope. You’d think the other divers would fail in getting the charge and he’d have to do it with his awesome mighty-mutant abilities. Nope. He contributes nothing at all after diving in aside from some murky underwater melee that’s no different than the divers’ underwater combat
I think audiences can want “villains” to win provided that they’re protagonists. We don’t necessarily need estranged children and sad tales of homes lost. Audiences respond well to ‘bad guys’ who are just bad ass or really skilled provided that they’re not raping and murdering children and stuff. The worst scenes with Deadshot were the ones trying to humanize him so we knew he wasn’t so bad (except for maybe the last).
Suicide Squad. Why all the early hate?
From the latest responses, it seems like it saved time.
So yet another sorta OK superhero movie that critics take pleasure in hyperbolically thrashing.
I can’t admit to having seen it, and probably won’t, but nothing I’ve heard from anyone indicates it’s “sorta OK.” This is a movie which aspires to be “OK” and fails pretty badly at doing so. Specific problem include a plot that makes no sense whatsoever after having apparently been edited to shreds, extraordinarily uneven characterization and scripting, and good actors not being used properly. Among the various issues that multiple reviewers called out is that the movie takes an hour to get actually get going, since it spends that much time going through (thoroughly unnecessary) backstories.
It sounds interesting, for sure, and I’d love to hear the story behind why the film turned out the way it did. But that’s not the same thing as good.
Here’s the story behind why the film turned out the way it did: ‘Suicide Squad’s’ Secret Drama: Rushed Production, Competing Cuts, High Anxiety – The Hollywood Reporter
I haven’t read the reviews and wouldn’t be surprised if some were hyperbolic or exaggerated for humorous intent or to drive page views but the plain poor ratings are deserved. With a better script and half-competent editing it might have been “mindless summer fun” but, as presented, it’s not much fun at all. It’s probably in the lower 25% of comic movies.
Like smiling bandit, I’d be interested in hearing the story of how it went off the rails. My gut instinct is that it started as typical DC grimdark and then suffered through numerous retakes and edits trying to chase Marvel’s tail. The end result changing it from “plodding and dark” to “just a mess”.
Goddammit.
I - and my girls - SO wanted this to be good. The marketing was awesome beyond words.
But dear lord above, the writing was terrible. Just terrible. The plot was pointless, we spent the first half-hour being introduced to the characters in a clunky-ass way.
Except for Slipknot. It was so clumsy when he showed up my twelve-year-old said, “They didn’t tell us about him. He’s gonna die soon.”
I said this in the past, but this whole DCverse is in real trouble. They keep trying and keep missing. The movies are darkly paletted, unfunny messes with poor writing, some good performances and terrible storytelling. Even the trailer for Wonder Woman seems dark and joyless.
It just doesn’t seem like anyone involved enjoys what they’re doing. Marvel has proven that there’s an enormous market for superhero movies. It’s even possible to take chances with them and have it pay off a la Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy using B-list characters to make great movies. But this ain’t that.
It’ll make money, just like Batman v Superman. But how many disappointments can DC deliver before the crowds don’t show for Justice League or Aquaman? Will Wonder Woman tank? DC is proud they’re getting the first woman-led superhero movie out there but I’m betting that Captain Marvel, though coming out later, kicks WW’s ass at the box office.
Seriously, is it that Disney knows how to put a better story together or what? I wouldn’t think WB would have that sort of problem but three movies in we’ve got three weak stories.
Not disagreeing with anything you wrote, except to note that Deadpool is a Marvel character but not a Disney/Marvel movie. However, Deadpool also shows you don’t need a huge budget to put out an enjoyable film.
It’s pretty simple actually.
Eight years.
It’s taken Marvel Studios eight years to get to where they are now.
Three Iron Man films
Three Captain America films
Two Thor films
Two Avengers films
One Incredible Hulk film
One Ant Man film
One Guardians of the Galaxy film
and this fall, Doctor Strange.
They’ve taken their time, slowly building a cohesive cinematic universe (with some great casting too) and being VERY true to their comic book roots (making changes in order to fit a film version, but not changes in the foundation of the characters).
So Warner Brothers, seeing the success of Marvel’s films, INSTEAD of also planning out a cinematic universe, taking their time to build, like Marvel did, began throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks. It’s as if they’re chasing their tail. They want the success that Marvel has, both critically and financially, but they don’t want to do the work.
I think Warner Brothers big misstep was choosing Zack Snyder as the guiding visionary of the DC franchise.
To give Snyder credit, he makes the best Zack Snyder movies in the world. But he doesn’t seem capable of making anything else or in working with other filmmakers in a way that brings any new ideas to the table. Every DC movie, regardless of who has made it, ends up looking like a Zack Snyder movie. It’s both figuratively and literally a limited palette.
They had that intention originally with Green Lantern, which would have been their answer to the MCU opening with Iron Man.
Then they tried again with Man of Steel, but it underperformed, and they took away the wrong message.
The right message was, “Giving an Objectivist the job of making a Superman movie was a bad fit.”
WB instead heard, “Superman doesn’t pull in audiences like Batman does. The sequel needs Batman.”
Everything since Man of Steel has been in reaction to what they think were the deciding factors. BvS was “too dark”, so they retrofit levity into Suicide Squad, for example.
In truth, Snyder set the tone for the DCEU as nihilistic and unpleasant, and that’s had an ongoing effect that is killing the franchise.
So THAT’s why Guardians of the Galaxy failed so miserably!
:rolleyes:
I think previous movies would have worked against the conceit of this film in that these guys were all C-Tier bad guys at best. No one’s making a full length film about each of them because not one of them would deserve a full length film. The Boomerang guy’s whole schtick was that he has a boomerang, for God’s sake. That’s not even a power. Hell, it’s not even unique – there’s this other DC comic guy who throws custom boomerangs while dressed like a bat and he’s about a bajillion times more famous. You have a guy on your team who can hit anything with a bullet; no one needs you and your stupid boomerang.
Speaking of (and probably relating to what a mess this whole thing was), Evil Government Black Lady says that she’s putting together a team of metahumans to have as a weapon against other metahumans. Ok, fine. So she gets the guy who’s supernaturally good at guns, the guy who makes fire and the crocodile guy. Makes sense. Then we have the boomerang guy, a crazy woman with a baseball bat and… a guy with a grappling hook? Boy, was THIS an idea that ran out of gas quickly. It’s like they had six explosive implants, realized they only had three actual metahumans in custody and decided “fuck it” and just grabbed three other jamokes so they could call it done.
You didn’t even mention Raimi’s Spiderman movies, which helped them get a huge leg up with the film industry so that they could pitch the MCU in the first place. For sure,Marvel has had a long and steady and well-planned ascension; I agree with you there completely.
I disagree with your concluding paragraph tho, in that I think DC did plan a cinematic universe and did plan on a timeline to build up to it, I just think their plan consisted of little more than “Oh! We can do that too! We have superheros!” I think they saw the success of the MCU and their plan was little more than “copy that”; the problem is that DC comics have never been written as tho they all took place contemporaneously while Marvel’s titles have been that way for decades.
And…
I agree with you here, Little Nemo. Mr. Snyder has a definite vision of his own and it is in many ways visually awesome, but it’s also kind of washed out and kind of grimy and VERY depressing. He seems to like protagonists who lose in the end, for instance.
The moment Zack Snyder gave this interview in 2008, DC should have struck him off their list.
I walked in thinking “How bad can it be?”
Got my answer, didn’t I.
Yes, but DC has decades of successful animation to build on. I mean Batman: The Animated Series is nearly 25 years old. My kids have been watching and prefer DC animation way more than anything Marvel produces and whenever they watch a DC movie, they ask, “Why can’t it be like Static Shock, JLI, JL, Superman…” and so the list goes on. It’s reaching the point in which they just won’t go anymore, as they are assured of watching failure on the screen.
The thing that’s frustrating is that instead of utilizing the resources that made those animated shows and movies a success, they continue to produce this type of content. Even though they are repeatedly told they aren’t getting it right, they continue down the same path.
This goes beyond not wanting to do the work. There’s something about the current culture that produces the movies. As noted: Ant-Man, GOG and Deadpool were stand-alones, with characters that no one except comic readers may have know about, yet they were good movies. I think because the people that produced them, really wanted them to do well, not just financially but content-wise. They had a passion for their content and were willing to invest and share their passion with the audience.
I really wish Snyder would sit down an binge watch the past 20 years of DC animation and get a feel of how these characters behave and how to make a ‘dark’ movie without it looking as if it was under a florescent light all the time. Batman: TAS, wasn’t bright and cheery, it was definitely darker then previous animated versions of Batman, but it wasn’t depressing and even is considered the gold standard of how to depict Batman on the screen…albeit a smaller one.
No argument there. That said, the latest crop of Marvel-based cartoon shows are solid, just not exceptional. But DC animation stands in its own incompletely separate league.
That, and they clearly knew how to introduce characters.
Take Guardians of the Galaxy - this was the one that even many comic book fans thought was pretty outside the box. But they made it work by adopting a very solid structure and picking very good casting choices could play off one another. The script is pretty dense with crazy aliens, nonsense technology, and magic rocks. So they just rolled with it and made that stuff fun, but not actually important.
Each character gets introduced sequentially as they join the team (…more or less), and the plot only tells the exact bare essentials to get them involved. Quill, despite not being entirely sane himself, is the most easily identifiable character. Not many viewers are green aliens abducted by mad demigods or blue aliens on a mission of vengeance, or mutant cybernetic animals with a disturbingly sensual affection for lasers. Or trees. So we get Quill’s backstory in detail. The rest of the cast come at us pretty quickly, and we immediately understand who they are from the way they talk and how they interact. Act 1 is done and we move onto Act 2.
Keeping to that kind of structure means the plot keeps moving usefully without getting bogged down, and it’s a pretty classic way of structuring an ensemble movie. That’s basically how Ocean’s 11 did it.
Well, two metahumans anyway. Deadshot is just that good. Strictly speaking, thought, Boomerang is pretty dangerous if he has his toys, as’s capable of doing crazy stuff like hitting people after throwing his boomerangs through two open windows (and a closed one) around a corner and . It’s the stuff you’d think would make for some good visuals.
People should have left the movie saying:
[Breathless Fan of Movie]"Omigosh, did you see when Captain Boomerang threw one around the corner and it went around and killed the guy who was sneaking up behind Deadshot, and he was all like, “How you know he was there?” and Boomerang just ginned and you don’t know if he was just trying to kill him?[/Breathless Fan of Movie]
Because the thing with most superheroes or villains is that they’re only as interesting as you make them. Batman is not inherently cool and Captain Boomerang not inherently silly. The only question is what you do with those characters. Teams like the Avengers or the X-Men absolutely work because despite the vast disparities in nominal power between characters, they make the stories effective for everybody.