Zack Snyder. It all lays at his feet, and he gets the overwhelming share of the blame. Exile him to Ruthenia and DC might stand a chance of making a halfway decent movie. I personally doubt it, but as long as Snyder is associated with the DCU, it is doomed.
Wait, what?
Let’s not forget that Marvel had some serious cinematic fuckups before they hit their stride.
At the end of the day, I think the problem is that high-powered superhero films don’t translate very well to the big screen. Watching Superman plummet through buildings for 90 minutes just isn’t very much fun after a while. All the best Marvel movies have been with relatively low-level main characters, while DC keeps trying to stick to their core big guns.
Suicide Squad was supposed to be the answer to that problem, but they managed to fuck it up by not giving us any room to care about the protagonists.
As has been mentioned upthread, DC cartoons are in a league of their own, and I think that’s because Superman and Co. are just way more fun in cartoon form. And I’m not just talking about the old classic DCAU (which officially ended in 2006), but even more recent stuff.
Haters gonna hate is such a worthless answer. There are a lot of people who wanted to like this movie and yet it’s getting a very low review level. Such as one reviewer on rotten tomatoes who said:
More to the point how does “haters going to hate” help us? It’s just a rejection of the idea that we have to pay attention to the world and produce things that it actually wants. That our failures are not a result of our actions but due to irrational hate that can neither be explained nor dealt with. It can make the person feel better but ultimately leads that person towards bad decisions and inexplicable, to the decision maker, failures.
Maybe a small number of folks out there will reject you for irrational reasons but blaming your failures on it does nothing to help anyone.
Yes and no. Based on the list at Wikipedia, I would only say there are a handful of bad movies.
Sue, Howard the Duck is bad, but it’s only tangentially a Marvel property. (Arguably, G.I. Joe is a Marvel property as well, since literally everything memorable about it actually comes from Marvel’s creative team basically reinventing a spectacularly dull toy line.)
Starting with Blade, they were putting out good, if not exceptional, movies regularly under a variety of studios. More to the point, even the films that weren’t great are mostly solid films with something memorable about them. Few will claim that Punisher: War Zone is a classic, but I’m not going to forget that movie anytime soon.
Sure, but if you compared ALL the films featuring Marvel and DC characters, which imprint would have the better track record and how far back should we go? For me the issue is that all the ‘recent’ failures Marvel and DC have had, are due to the same issue that cause any film to fail: the lack of good film-making ability for whatever reason. The difference in regards to Marvel (at least for now), is that they seem to be willing to learn from their mistakes and change directions. DC seems to be determined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
Superman The Movie is nearly 40 years old and seems to be the only version of Superman they appear to be able to get right. I fail to see why the studio can’t look at that film, its success and think that any of their recent offerings of a doom and gloom Superman, would have a chance to succeed beyond the first asses in seats week?
As far as the cartoons go, I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of medium, but of content. Cartoons are still directed, they still require writing, editing and all the other things that live action does. The reason why the DCAU is so well regarded is that they invested themselves into doing all those things as best as they good and you could tell there was a real love and more importantly, respect for the content, as well as the context in which they related to each other.
Most of the word of mouth I’ve gotten so far is that it was… meh. Very few people who’ve actually seen it think it’s the dumpster fire critics are making it out to be. It’s just not as good a movie as the trailers promised. A C+ movie doesn’t deserve that much of a shellacking in my opinion. But there’s a certain glee in exaggeratedly thrashing movies like this that don’t meet expectations.
To be fair, you can’t talk about a Marvel movie franchise. There are several separate movie franchises, which are all run completely independently and whose only connection is they bought licensing rights from the same comic book company.
-
The MCU - Marvel Studios (a Disney subsidiary) - Owns the rights to most Marvel characters including Iron Man, Captain America, the Avengers, etc
-
The Mutants - 20th Century Fox - Owns the rights to the X-Men, Deadpool, and the Fantastic Four.
-
Spiderman - Columbia (a Sony subsidiary) - Owns the rights to Spiderman and his villains. But reached a deal with Marvel Studios that they can use Spiderman in MCU movies. The basic idea is that Columbia figures Spiderman’s appearances in MCU movies increases his value for their own Spiderman solo movies. Columbia also owns the Ghost Rider.
-
Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch - Fell into the cracks of the licensing deal between Marvel and 20th Century Fox. Both studios have the rights to the characters and have used them (but Marvel Studio can’t refer to them as mutants). 20th Century Fox has done a better job with Quicksilver and Marvel has done a better job with Scarlet Witch.
-
Hulk - Marvel? Universal? - Universal made the first Hulk movie (the one with Eric Bana). Marvel says it got the rights back and made the second Hulk movie (the one with Edward Norton) and the Hulk (now played by Mark Ruffalo) is a prominant character in the MCU. But Universal claims it still has some rights to the Hulk, which is one reason there hasn’t been a Mark Ruffalo Hulk movie.
-
Namor - Same thing as the Hulk. Universal had the rights and claims it still has them. Marvel Studios claims the rights have reverted back to them. No actual movie has been made with the character.
-
Man-Thing and Punisher - Lions Gate - Lions Gate owns the right to these characters and made some really bad movies with them.
-
Blade - New Line Cinema - New Line made a series of Blade movies. The character reverted back to Marvel in 2011. New Line also owned the rights to Deadpool for a while but never used them because who knew people wanted a Deadpool movie?
-
Daredevil - Regency - Regency owned the rights to Daredevil and Elektra and made those movies. The rights reverted to Marvel Studios in 2012 and they’re the ones who’ve made the TV series.
This Joker was a Joke.
Double spoilers because its still in the theaters and because some people might see it on cable someday. someday soon.
The Joker looked like a 12 year old boy in bad makeup after a green jello & vaseline swirly.
Take Away - “Hey Look! They recycled ‘Billy the Puppet’ from Saw…!” “That’s a talented actor.” “Really? I guess drugs really ARE bad.”
But enough child abuse; lets move on to the Adults table…
Will Smith was Great. He owned the role & you won’t ever see ‘Dead Shot’ without picturing him.
Margot Robbie was Great. She owned ‘Harley Quinn’ the same way, but now she has to keep it at that level.
If she gets lazy while performing it, she’s going to look like just another kid at The Garden State Mall.
Viola Davis owned Amanda Waller. You truly Hated Amanda Waller by the end,
but guess what? You were supposed to. She brings it home ‘Kathy Bates / Misery’ style.
Take Away - “You better send those flowers to her dressing room because she Earned them.”
But then it got Bad.
“Special effects, why does every crater and pot hole have veins in it?” “Thats Art; you’re not supposed to understand it.” “Does it cost extra?” “Sshhh, I’m watching the movie.”
“Is there a guy with red hair and a beard in there who has no purpose?” “Captain Boomerang?” “Check.”
“Is there a token Japanese girl in there with a katana?” “Her name IS Katana.” “Wow, Central Casting thought long & hard
on names that day, huh? When you showed her the script, how did she NOT kick your ass???” “The check cleared.”
“Is there a guy in there with only 3 lines and more latex on his head than Bob’s Big Boy?” “Killer Croc?” “Check.”
“Is there a guy in there who starts fires? We have like 50 stunt people we need to get into the guild.” “Diablo?” “Check”
“Why does he have cheesy WW2 era flame-thrower powers? Its not even up to 1980s Firestarter.” “Ixnay on the Iticism-cray. We ran out of money after all the Tats.”
“Its filmed in LA, right? Is there a half-naked girl dancing like she’s circling a pole? Gotta Represent.” “Oh, Enchantress?” “Check.” “She’s a Witch.” “Hey, You hired her…”
“Is there a military guy spouting semi-military phrases? We need to toss a bone for all those guns we’re using.” “Flagg?” “Check. Also, why is he playing it like he has no personality?”
“Marvel copyrighted that as part of Nick Fury.”
“Also, I noticed some plot holes. How does that phone still work?” “Verizon is a Sponsor.”
“How did the Joker not die, and I don’t mean strangled on set. Did he land on Miricle The Wonder Horse and Place in the Fifth at Santa Anita?” “You know he can’t ride at Santa Anita anymore…”
“And if she now has no heart, how does Enchantress supposed to come back and dance in the next movie?” “Happens in LA every day, Babe…”
You’re making the mistake that many who are fans of these characters make. In order for these films to be successful, not only financially but as ongoing strong films they need to appeal to a HUGE audience.
Yes, over the last few decades the audience for the culture of comic book or fantasy have grown, but to be a success, the kind of success that multimillion-dollar studios consider a success you need to attract audiences who’ve NEVER read a comic or have watched an animated cartoon.
Sure, your kids know them. I know them and so do you, but if you walk down the street of most cities and towns and ask them about Batman the Animated series a majority of them wouldn’t know what you were talking about.
It’s EASY to get the devoted fans, to attract the converted to the theaters, but that group alone won’t make the money that the studios crave and consider a success.
@Little Nemo:
Pretty sure Punisher was re-acquired by Marvel, which is why he was in the Daredevil series and apparently getting his own on Netflix.
I’d give it a C- and that was with the advantage of seeing it in the theater where I’m naturally inclined to think positively. On TV, I’m guessing it’d be a D+.
Same issue as Killer Croc, really. They had the perfect set-up for him to shine and did absolutely nothing with it. And Katana, of course, was useless as a stump through the whole movie. She actually made the movie LESS fun since all she did was stand around and glower. It was like having that one guy in an outing who doesn’t want to be there for whatever reason and is going to act all pissy so everyone knows he doesn’t want to be there.
(Significant) Spoilers on El Diablo:
What the hell was that at the end? Diablo changes into some Aztec looking god thing and fights the other wannabe god thing and huh? Did Diablo pick that form because it looked bad ass? Was Diablo some ancient quasi-deity like Sorceress and Brother-of-Sorceress? Diablo was all “Step back, I’ll do this” like he knew what would happen – so has he wandered around as a giant flaming Aztec god before? It was just more confusing crap going on in a movie made of 85% confusing crap.
You’ve completely missed my point, so perhaps I wasn’t clear. My point was is that the things that made these older shows a success, is the thing that makes all shows successful: the ability to tell a story, to engage the audience and to be able to use film-making tools to their full potential. While they are not perfect by any means, overall they are better than what DC is producing currently. What did they know back then, that today’s producers, directors, editors, script-writers don’t know now?
Deadpool, Guardians and Ant-man to a lesser extent, are prime examples of what a film with good foundation and understanding of film-making can do. Who the hell besides fans knew or cared about these characters? Yet they were cross-over successes because the people who made them, not only enjoyed the content, but they also knew how to make films. Competent films can transcend the niche material of their origins and as you note, attract and appeal to a larger audience.
Currently this isn’t happening at DC and while they are making money, I submit it is one of diminishing returns. As it gets harder and harder to entice fans, let alone average people to invest time and money to see the films DC puts out.
I lament that with decades of successful examples of story-telling under their belt, they (DC) constantly produce live action which fails in such basic ways. Hell they could have lifted any two-parter of most DC animation, film it shot for shot, word for word, replace it with live actors and have a decent shot of a hit.
The way you attract new viewers and huge audiences is by producing quality content.
I think the big thing seems to be having a comic book company in charge of a comic book movie. They actually care as much about the source material as the readers do, that’s how they keep people reading them for the past almost 100 years. Get a Hollywood producer in charge and it’s all about exploiting the source material for a quick buck.
You’re right. They have reverted to Marvel Studios.
I was also wrong when I said Columbia owns Ghost Rider. They did have the rights and made the movies but Ghost Rider is another character that has reverted to Marvel.
I don’t know if you specifically need a comic book company in charge, in order to create an accurate and faithful adaption that works on the screen. You need a producer and studio that respects the property who’s right’s they acquired.
It would be like if David O Selznick and MGM, after buying the rights to make Gone With the Wind changed it by making the South win the war or Scarlet and Rhett end up happy ever after. If you adapt the written word for a film and don’t respect the original work, then more times than often, the finished work on the screen will be a disaster.
(Okay, I know, I know, The Natural is vastly different than the book and is a hell of a good movie. But one exception out of hundreds is an oddity and not the rule)
Look at the date that the thread started and the date on the post. People were hating the movie on the first 2 minute clip. Hence, haters gonna hate. They don’t need a reason, and when it turns out the haters called the right side of the coin, the feel validated. As for the rest of that Psych 101 bullshit the reviewer wrote, I’ll print it up and use it to wipe my ass. That’s all it’s good for.
I was in the group that really wanted to watch even a mediocre Suicide Squad movie. Appears we didn’t even get that, and for that I won’t spend money on the off chance that I’m on the >30% who might think its a good film (same reason I stayed away from Superman v Batman and Fantastic 4). I’m part of their target market, but I’m not going to help them if they can’t meet me at least half-way.
Hipster hate. You gotta hate what everybody else likes.
I just saw Suicide Squad as a birthday present to myself. Full disclosure, I consider myself a DC guy.
I was fully aware of the turds DC has laid so far in trying to create an expanded film universe. And I am aware of the negativity around the movie going in. As the opening vanity plates were flashing across the screen I was saying to myself, “please don’t suck”.
The movie certainly did not suck. Is it great? No. Is it terrible? No. It is the best DC movie since 1978 that did not feature Batman. Yes, Batman was in the movie but not in a meaningful way. Flash has a cameo too, with about as much importance. Margot Robbie and Will Smith were pretty close to perfect. And Viola Davis brings some punch to Amanda Waller.
To a large extent, this movie isn’t about Task Force X, it is more of a introduction to Amanda Waller and the puppet master she is, and how she isn’t perfect.