While this is incorrect (he started as a staff writer on Roseanne) he did have plenty of actual comic book experience before being brought on to Avengers and his work on Buffy and Firefly showed that he could create likable heroes with a comic feel on screen.
Whedon had the resume to show that he understood comic books and how to tell their story.
The same cannot be said for DC's director lineups. Snyder is the closest, but his comic book adaptations did not leave me feeling like he was a fit for Superman. Even Alan Moore didn't take Superman down that dark of a path. He knew that wasn't the character. If you contrast his writing for Batman and Superman you can see that he understood the characters, even though he felt The Killing Joke wasn't written as well as it could be.
Snyder, best known for faithfully (too faithfully) adapting Frank Miller and Alan Moore original and dark concepts, took on Superman and the Justice League with the approach of making them like Watchmen. It doesn't work. The fact that he basically crammed The Dark Knight Returns into Batman vs Superman makes me wonder if he just couldn't stop himself from giving Frank Miller more love.
As for David Ayer, I thought he could be a good fit for Suicide Squad. He doesn't have comic book background, but he does have a good antihero background. The reviews seem to complain more about jumbled storytelling and choppy editing. I wonder how much this has to do with studio interference after seeing audience reactions to Deadpool and BvS. I'd be interesting in comparing the original cut to the theatrical release.
Apparently I can eat my words. DC did find someone to shepherd the DCEU apparently. It is Geoff Johns. While it wasn't apparent in the Suicide Squad movie, the first movie with Johns' direct involvement is Wonder Woman, as he wrote the screenplay. So what we all suspected in the Justice League thread about a script doctor handling the script is apparently true, and that man was Geoff Johns.
I don't appreciate the implication: I don't need to "learn" anything, since I'm not comparing the two. I'm simply saying the two fell at a similar spot on my personal rating meter.
I went into it hoping for a good movie. Not one that requires a thorough understanding of the comics, or leans too heavily on what has happened in other films (even if I've seen MoS and BvS). In that sense, it worked: it was very self-contained.
The Marvel bias is always there, and while critics have always denied that, it is the perception that because Marvel did it first, that is the standard that all other comic book movies have to go by in order to get a good rating.
Marvel did the Extended Universe thing first, but it's hardly the first purveyor of comic book movies. This has been touched on numerous times — @niky covered it pretty thoroughly right here — so I have little to add.
What Suicide Squad had going against it was Guardians of the Galaxy, and while, admittedly, Guardians had a better method in getting all of the heroes into one team within one film, it didn't really take the time to explain WHY they had to be together in the first place (and then there is the whole Power gem thing). Suicide Squad, to me had a lot better execution in how they got the villains together, and a better reason as to WHY they should stay together. That is why the movie got the score that it did out of me.
Er, Guardians very much did explain why they all had to stay together. Strange that you just mentioned how DC and Marvel movies shouldn't be compared, and then do just that to justify your rating of Suicide Squad, however.
For comparison:
In Movie A, the reason for the loveable misfits to stay together is a mix of a vague sense of "doing the right thing", and self-interest ("if X dies/Y reaches full power, we all die").
In Movie B, the reason for the loveable misfits to stay together is a mix of a vague sense of "doing the right thing", and self-interest (if X dies/Y reaches full power, we all die").
The villains in both are almost interchangeable in their one-dimensional nature. Plus, in both we even get...
A member of the team revealing a power nobody else saw coming, to sacrifice themselves to save the team.
It was a fun enough romp, and it's hovering around a 6/10 for me if I were asked. I think that's more than fair.
I don't appreciate the implication: I don't need to "learn" anything, since I'm not comparing the two. I'm simply saying the two fell at a similar spot on my personal rating meter.
I was referring to you in a general sense. It was nothing personal, and I would say the same thing if I was sitting next to Angry Joe, or any other movie fan who loves comic books.
I went into it hoping for a good movie. Not one that requires a thorough understanding of the comics, or leans too heavily on what has happened in other films (even if I've seen MoS and BvS). In that sense, it worked: it was very self-contained. It was fun enough, but it
Marvel did the Extended Universe thing first, but it's hardly the first purveyor of comic book movies. This has been touched on numerous times — @niky covered it pretty thoroughly right here — so I have little to add.
True, but many concepts that DC is doing on film originally did come from Marvel's films, so it is really an apples to apples comparison. For the purposes of DC movies since 2013, it had every intention of creating a self contained universe, hence that is where the comparison comes from. Had it been in the days of where every hero is in its own little box, then this subject is moot.
Er, Guardians very much did explain why they all had to stay together. Strange that you just mentioned how DC and Marvel movies shouldn't be compared, and then do just that to justify your rating of Suicide Squad, however.
Did you even read my review in the movie review thread? Not once did I mentioned Guardians, and I judged the film on its own merits dispassionately. Read that review and then read everyone else's. I'm sure that if you pick 10 random site's reviews of the film, a pretty good majority will mention Guardians at least twice, maybe multiple times. I was just following the natural progression of the conversation when I mentioned Guardians, not use it to justify my score.
True, but many concepts that DC is doing on film originally did come from Marvel's films, so it is really an apples to apples comparison. For the purposes of DC movies since 2013, it had every intention of creating a self contained universe, hence that is where the comparison comes from. Had it been in the days of where every hero is in its own little box, then this subject is moot.
This is confusing. You've been suggesting people shouldn't be comparing the DC and Marvel movies, but here you say it's an apples-to-apples comparison. So why shouldn't they be compared?
Did you even read my review in the movie review thread? Not once did I mentioned Guardians, and I judged the film on its own merits dispassionately. Read that review and then read everyone else's. I'm sure that if you pick 10 random site's reviews of the film, a pretty good majority will mention Guardians at least twice, maybe multiple times. I was just following the natural progression of the conversation when I mentioned Guardians, not use it to justify my score.
Fair enough, but look at the following paragraph and tell me it doesn't imply a direct comparison to justify a score:
What Suicide Squad had going against it was Guardians of the Galaxy, and while, admittedly, Guardians had a better method in getting all of the heroes into one team within one film, it didn't really take the time to explain WHY they had to be together in the first place (and then there is the whole Power gem thing). Suicide Squad, to me had a lot better execution in how they got the villains together, and a better reason as to WHY they should stay together. That is why the movie got the score that it did out of me.
Interesting that we're talking about how we're about to enter the Johns era of DC movies. Notorious bomb Green Lantern was largely based on his concepts for the comics. I only hope that with more Johns and less Guggenheim in the mix we may get a purer representation of his work lol.
I gotta admit I enjoyed the episodes of Smallville he was involved in writing.
We also asked Leto if he was upset about any of his scenes getting cut – as previously reported – to which he responded.
“Were there any that didn’t get cut? I’m asking you, were there any that didn’t get cut? There were so many scenes that got cut from the movie, I couldn’t even start. I think that the Joker… we did a lot of experimentation on the set, we explored a lot. There’s so much that we shot that’s not in the film.
“If I die anytime soon, it’s probably likely that it’ll surface somewhere. That’s the good news about the death of an actor is all that stuff seems to come out.”
Okay so I round all reviews and watch some clips of the movie (not watch the movie itself just yet.) and I gotta say its not about the cliche and more about how messy the performance and editing is. Its almost cringeworthy in occasion.
I think it's exactly Ledger's situation he was intending to invoke, not realising that Jesse Eisenberg already based his own performance as Lex Luthor on that of the deceased actor's lol.
I think it's exactly Ledger's situation he was intending to invoke, not realising that Jesse Eisenberg already based his own performance as Lex Luthor on that of the deceased actor's lol.
I haven't had a chance to see the film, but Leto has featured heavily in promotional material and from what I have seen, I don't think he's trying to channel Ledger - both of them are actually pretty consistent with the source material.
Jesse Eisenberg already based his own performance as Lex Luthor on that of the deceased actor's
Just watched the movie yesterday and I agree what @Sanji Himura said that Leto was underutilized.
Other than that, I see Deadshot more of an anti-hero and leader of the Suicide Squad. But what made me question is that since I didn't watched BvS yet (you can spoil me if you want.) what happened to Superman?
Just watched the movie yesterday and I agree what @Sanji Himura said that Leto was underutilized.
Other than that, I see Deadshot more of an anti-hero and leader of the Suicide Squad. But what made me question is that since I didn't watched BvS yet (you can spoil me if you want.) what happened to Superman?
He died. There were two burials for him, a public one in I want to say Washington DC that had no body, and a more private one in Smallville, arranged by Bruce Wayne, where he was actually buried. He is actually recovering his strength for Justice League.
I haven't had a chance to see the film, but Leto has featured heavily in promotional material and from what I have seen, I don't think he's trying to channel Ledger - both of them are actually pretty consistent with the source material.
I don't know what he's trying to do but when he talks about actors dying it's not much of a leap to imagine he's talking about the last actor to play his part... who died. He's not channelling Ledger but invoking his situation like I said.
Believe what you want (and thanks for editing out my lol btw). It was closer to the Joker than any version of Lex ever played on screen and the floppy Ledger-like hairstyle was similar. Again, not a total leap if you have a sense of humour.
Eisenberg's speech patterns and mannerisms felt almost entirely lifted from Ledger's iconic performance, to the point where he walked the dangerous grey line between respectful homage and downright thievery.
what we've seen of Eisenberg presents Lex as a high-pitched, highly social goofball, drawing many comparisons to the Joker or the Riddler. While that kind of upbeat personality has always been an effective foil for Batman, it's a less effective device against the weird mirror of Superman, who is a character that represents optimism and hope.
Interesting Joker theory, one that is somewhat based on the comics (all 80 years of history with the Joker character).
In Justice League #42 (2015), Batman gains access to the Mobius Chair, in summary, a larger version of Wikipedia. To test the chair's abilities, he asked the chair a question that only he knows the answer to, who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne? The chair gets it right (Joe Chill). He finally then pushes the chair's abilities even further and asked a question that he, and quite frankly everyone else, wanted to know. Who is the Joker? Justice League #50 spoils the chair's answer, as Bruce told Green Lantern that there was not one, not two, but three separate and different Jokers.
To understand the answer, you have to first understand Joker's history on film as a whole. In the 1966 Batman TV series, Joker was played by Cesar Romero, in 1989, Joker was played by Jack Nicholson, in 2008, he was played by Heath Ledger, and finally in 2016, we have Jared Leto. Sure, we had animated Jokers sprinkled throughout that 50 years, but strictly speaking in live action, we have those four.
Setting aside Leto for a moment, because quite honestly, we have no idea where he fits at the moment, but when you consider the other three, you can see precisely how they fit in the comic's Three Joker's theory.
Want the proof? Here it is. Comics are generally divided into four distinct ages, The Golden Age(1938-1950), The Silver Age(1956-1970), The Bronze Age (1970-1985) and The Modern Age (1985-Present), and with them different interpretations of the Joker.
The Golden Age was the first emergence of the modern superhero stories, with Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Captain America all became popular with GI's and those who are suffering through the Great Depression. With the 1940 Batman #1, we have the first appearance of The Joker. This Joker was a sadistic serial killer with a deranged sense of humor. He even went as far as announcing his plans on the radio, and then just does it. In the first twelve issues, he killed dozens of people, and he even went as far as burning smiles on and stealing people's faces, and steals a diamond. The Golden Age came to an end in 1950 when Federic Wertham put out a book called "Seduction of the Innocent". In it, he blamed comic books for harming the quality of America's youth, and push for an outright ban on comic books (gee, sound familiar *cough*Jack Thompson*/cough*?) However, instead of waiting for the government to censor them, the industry censored themselves with the emergence of the Comics Code Authority in 1954, thus formally putting an end to the Golden Age once and for all.
The Silver Age brought a cartoony tone to the Joker. Instead of being a serial killer, he became a prankster jewel thief, who was always outwitted by Batman. In fact, in one issue entitled 'Joker's Millions', he inherited a bunch of cash, and promptly retired from crime, until he learned that the cash was counterfeit.
The Bronze Age brought back the killer Joker, but instead of being a criminal mastermind like The Golden Age, he was viewed as a psychotic mad man. The Modern Age doubled down on that trend.
When Geoff Johns said that there was three different Jokers, he was explaining 80 years of the Joker's history, one was a criminal mastermind, one was a prankster, and one was a psychopath.
Now how does that explain the film history? If you watch Batman '66, then you would know that the Joker was a jewel thief who loved to play pranks, that is the Silver Age Joker to a T. In Batman '89, Joker announced his plans on TV, and just does it, killing dozens of people in the process, Golden Age Joker. In The Dark Knight, the Joker was a deranged psychopath who belongs in a insane asylum, Bronze Age/Modern Age Joker.
And Leto? What if I told you that he was picking up the baton for one of those three?
Personally, I quite liked Grant Morrison's explanation in The Clown at Midnight, which is in the collected edition of Batman and Son. It explains that the Joker regularly goes through a period of metamorphosis, inventing and reinventing himself every time. I like it because it tries to explain why the Joker is out of step with criminology; criminals like the Joker only become much more deeply enmeshed in their own psychosis, escalating in the intensity and severity of their crimes to achieve the same high that they once did, like a drug addict who needs to take more drugs to get the same feeling. I thought that it was a pretty good way of working around the inconsistencies between the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages.
I also liked Scott Snyder's version where both the Joker and Bruce Wayne are completely reborn as ordinary men. Bruce Wayne reassumed the mantle of Batman, but the Joker hasn't returned yet. Given how Bruce Wayne did it, I'm curious to see how the Joker returns.
Personally, I quite liked Grant Morrison's explanation in The Clown at Midnight, which is in the collected edition of Batman and Son. It explains that the Joker regularly goes through a period of metamorphosis, inventing and reinventing himself every time. I like it because it tries to explain why the Joker is out of step with criminology; criminals like the Joker only become much more deeply enmeshed in their own psychosis, escalating in the intensity and severity of their crimes to achieve the same high that they once did, like a drug addict who needs to take more drugs to get the same feeling. I thought that it was a pretty good way of working around the inconsistencies between the Golden, Silver and Bronze Ages.
I also liked Scott Snyder's version where both the Joker and Bruce Wayne are completely reborn as ordinary men. Bruce Wayne reassumed the mantle of Batman, but the Joker hasn't returned yet. Given how Bruce Wayne did it, I'm curious to see how the Joker returns.
Now let's keep in mind that my above explanation only works for the movies, and basically nothing else. Grant Morrison's explanation goes along the Three Jokers theorem, but where Morrison and Johns differ is the physical number of Jokers that is in each argument (1 for Morrison and 3 for Johns). If Grant Morrison is to be believed, then Joker is simply suffering from a case of Multiple Personality Syndrome, while maintaining a lot of his core personality between the different ages. Just like Alan Moore said in The Killing Joke, "Something like that happened to me, you know. I... I'm not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Ha ha ha!"
Exactly, the supposed 'Wild Card' in Harley became totally predictable, painfully so.
I could barely make out what Croc was saying, and neither could the cinema - every one of his jokes fell to silence - that being said, maybe it was just an issue at the showing.
Maybe I shouldn't be laughing as movies performing less well than expected can sometimes have a very real and human cost if this open letter by ex-WB employee Gracie Law to Warner CEO Kevin Tsujihara is anything to go by. Needless to say it contains some NSFW language:
Just seen it.... it's fine at best. Largely forgettable and a terrible last act don't help. Don't like the Joker which is a massive issue, Leto is a great actor and he does nail the "creepy" vibe but not much else.
Some rather enjoyable easter eggs, one of them is such a tease that I hope they do
have Watchmen in this universe
.
But the movie hovers around the 6/10 mark which is more than I thought it will be.
bad WOM obvious reason. BVS's son indeed.
