DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think its more how its done than the identical elements.  Suicide Squad introduced the characters with vignettes, which they then repeated later, and then did a deeper character introduction so it felt like a series of "hey, here's x person!" rather than an organic part of the story.  In other words, the problem was inferior writing rather than number of characters.  Personally I've never heard anyone criticize SS for having too many new characters.  Not treating them very well or true to the character in the comics yes, but too many, no.

[Greywind]

Marvel movies tend to hit the essence of the characters.

 

DC movies tend to lose the characters in sfx and bad stories.

[Cassandra]

Wait a minute. Let me mull this over.

 

Marvel movies like Guardians of the Galaxy are great. GoTG had to introduce Star-Lord, Gamora, Rocket, Groot, Drax, Yondu, Ronan and Nebula (all of whom are featured in spots advertising GoTG 2), not counting more “bit players” like the Collector, Korath or the Nova Corp, or Thanos who was introduced earlier (limited audience familiarity).

 

But DC movies suck. Suicide Squad sucked because they tried to introduce too many characters all at once – Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo, Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Rick Flag, Amanda Waller and the Enchantress, not counting “bit players” like Slipknot and Enchantress’ brother (“Incubus”?), or the Joker (who is a much better known character than Thanos).

 

I am not seeing the huge difference in the cast which had to be introduced to the audience. And the background scenery in Suicide Squad, present-day Earth, needed a lot less introduction than an alien prison and far-flung alien worlds.

 

I think DC is getting judged to a different standard...

 

I think the main difference is that Marvel is making movies with established actors, while DC is hiring actors people think are popular.  They're going all dark and depressing because they think that worked for the Dark Knight series.

 

The big weakness is that Marvel movies are fun to watch, and DC are as painful to watch as Agents of SHIELD.

[dmjalund]

If WW1 is set in WWI does that mean the sequel is going to be set in WWII?

[bigdamnhero]

Suicide Squad sucked because they tried to introduce too many characters all at once...

Because GOTG did it well, while SS did it poorly. (IMO obviously.) 15 minutes into GOTG I was heavily invested in all the main characters even tho I knew little-to-nothing about them walking in. By the end of MOS, BvS and SS, I still didn't care about any of the characters. As with most things in film making, execution is everything.

 

Thinking on it, the Wonder Woman trailer gets dismissed, while Thor: Ragnarok is gushed over.

Um...most of the comments I've read here on the WW trailer have been "The trailer looks promising, but the previous DC movies have been so awful and Snyder's name is still attached to it, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much." The two studios' track records to date have been dramatically different, so of course we're going to judge their trailer's differently.

 

For that matter, WW sucks because no invisible jet, but Thor gets a pass on changing Asgardian myth to Stargate style super science?

The invisible plane was always one of the sillier pieces of WW lore, especially once they decided she could fly. Complaining about its absence is just Who Moved My Cheese - Fanboy Edition. I promise you if the movie is any good, no one will remember or care about the damn plane; if it sucks, that will be the least of the complaints.

 

As for changing Asgard to sci-fi: I recall there was some nerd rage (or at least skepticism) before the first Thor movie came out, but I think most of us were still just living in Please-Just-Tell-Me-It-Won't-Suck land. The bar's a little higher now.

[zslane]

I think Hugh is responding to the apparent double-standard expressed in opinions like those below:

 

Man, why does DC insist on doing things out of order?

:

Suicide squad was too early. Those villians should have been introduced in other movies first.
:

 

NSG isn't the first to put forth the idea that DC is doing things wrong because they are failing to put characters in solo films (or whatever) before putting them together in a team movie. Hugh's counter-argument is that starting with a team movie worked for GotG so why couldn't it also have worked for a movie like Suicide Squad?

 

I think the answer is that it could have worked just fine, had Suicide Squad been given a good story (and a whole lot less studio interference).

[Old Man]

Exactly.  As has been pointed out above, GotG introduced its characters organically, while SS literally read its characters' dossiers to us.  In a way that made the characters out to be the unsympathetic villains that they were.

 

Then again SS had twice as many members to introduce, so that didn't help.

[zslane]

I never read the comic version of Suicide Squad, but if the idea (behind the film) was for it to basically be "The Dirty Dozen, but with supervillains," then it was a doomed premise to begin with.

[Christopher R Taylor]

the comic really worked, but it was written well.  The bad guys were still bad, but directed against other bad guys by a very powerful figure (who was ruthless but not basically evil like in the movie) and Colonel Flag was someone you did not mess with, period.  He kept them in line, plus the bomb collars, plus the insider.

 

Turning one of the members into the main villain is a trick you do 3 movies down the road, not the first one out.  Nobody even knows who anyone is or cares enough if they betray anyone or not yet. The bad guy was impossible to figure out, the main threat was so nebulous and unknowable there was no sense of threat, the characters acted without discernible purpose or reason other than "they have to, for the story to work," and they changed Deadshot into Will Smith with a pistol, so he lost everything that made him work in the comics.  That and the "here's a guy you don't know or care about whose only purpose is to show the bomb collars work" character.

[zslane]

I guess I just don't buy into the concept of sending villains out to do a hero's job. I'm struggling to discern what is "cool" about that.

[Christopher R Taylor]

They weren't really hero jobs.  They were jobs that people weren't expected to come back from, it had a real dirty dozen feel to it, with a chance for villains to do something constructive and positive for once with their powers and maybe earn time served in the process.

[zslane]

That really doesn't make sense to me though, to be honest.

 

Self-sacrifice in the service of saving/protecting innocents and the greater good is at the top of the hierarchy of heroic traits. I simply don't buy Waller's idea that you "expend" supervillains for this purpose. From a meta-narrative standpoint, their "constructive purpose" is to be the evil that heroes triumph over. From a plausibility standpoint, they shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day, much less put out into the world, exploding collars notwithstanding.

 

And as The Dirty Dozen demonstrated, these missions are never as completely suicidal as they sound. Good guys always find a way to triumph, even if a few of them become casualties along the way.

[slikmar]

That really doesn't make sense to me though, to be honest.

 

Self-sacrifice in the service of saving/protecting innocents and the greater good is at the top of the hierarchy of heroic traits. I simply don't buy Waller's idea that you "expend" supervillains for this purpose. From a meta-narrative standpoint, their "constructive purpose" is to be the evil that heroes triumph over. From a plausibility standpoint, they shouldn't be allowed to see the light of day, much less put out into the world, exploding collars notwithstanding.

 

And as The Dirty Dozen demonstrated, these missions are never as completely suicidal as they sound. Good guys always find a way to triumph, even if a few of them become casualties along the way.

Part of the problem, as others mentioned, is that the mission/threat in the movie was a much more superheroic type mission. The Suicide Squad's main purpose was to be the group that the US (through Flagg and Waller) sent to places they aren't supposed to be to end threats that are beyond a standard army/marine unit (other then a superhero whom the govt doesn't trust), aka the Dirty Dozen. A better story would have been Foreign Power (say a country that superficially resembled North Korea) had a crazy leader (I know, could never happen) who developed a device that could be used to create their own super operatives. In the comics, the SS would have been sent to retrieve said device. If caught, well it was just a bunch of supervillains trying to steal it, not a covert ops team. It really does work in the comics. They aren't meant to be heroic. Sometimes, certain characters really buy into it and act that way. Harley in recent years (her character arc has been fabulous), Deadshot (with the idea that at least his daughter could have something to be proud of) and El Diablo (who is trying to make up for a tragic event he was the cause of) come to mind. Sadly, the representation of Waller in the movie is pretty spot on. She really is that ruthless and, in some ways, evil.

[Bazza]

The point of Suicide Squad was to make villains into sympathetic anti-heroes. Why? Because...

 

The standout character was Harley Quinn and I still don't give a rats about her.

 

The original Dirty Dozen film had an adequate storytelling purpose: "this is a suicide operation; but the mission needs to be achieved; as we are at war, we need extra bodies; we are asking you to do your duty to your country."

[zslane]

A better story would have been Foreign Power (say a country that superficially resembled North Korea) had a crazy leader (I know, could never happen) who developed a device that could be used to create their own super operatives. In the comics, the SS would have been sent to retrieve said device. If caught, well it was just a bunch of supervillains trying to steal it, not a covert ops team. It really does work in the comics. They aren't meant to be heroic.

 

That's the cover story used in the narrative to provide Waller and the US government plausible deniability in the event the mission goes sideways and the team gets caught. It is not the underlying ethical basis for sending a team into a dangerous situation to serve the greater good. As readers we see past the thin veil of cynicism the premise presents us, and we understand that at the end of the day, bad guys are being sent in to do a job meant for good guys. On that basis it doesn't work, at least not for me.

 

Now if your villains are villains in name only, and they are actually sympathetic figures wrongly accused or truly repentant and seeking to make up for their crimes, then the story can be seen as something of a redemption tale. But that's not the case for most of the members of the team. Yet the movie asks us to cheer for them as though they were heroes merely because they are doing a job normally meant for heroes.

 

Really, nothing about the concept works for me. I'm surprised it works for anyone.

[Pattern Ghost]

 It is not the underlying ethical basis for sending a team into a dangerous situation to serve the greater good.

 

The point is that it was an unethical operation. The villains provided both a cover story and disposable assets. There's not really an ethical basis.

 

Arrow handled its take on the SS better, IMO.

[zslane]

The point is that it was an unethical operation.

 

And as readers we're supposed to go along, riding proverbial shotgun on an unethical operation and cheer for its success? If not, then are we supposed to cheer when the villains die and get their comeuppance? I'm trying to understand what the authors (of either the comic or the film) want us to feel about the villains in this scenario. And about the scenario itself.

[Hugh Neilson]

Exactly.  As has been pointed out above, GotG introduced its characters organically, while SS literally read its characters' dossiers to us.  In a way that made the characters out to be the unsympathetic villains that they were.

Actually, given SS is drafting the characters into service, having dossiers on them makes sense.

 

Then again SS had twice as many members to introduce, so that didn't help.

GoTG had 5 main "hero" characters plus three major antagonists, as well as a universe to populate. That's 8 major characters. SS has Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo, Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Rick Flag, Amanda Waller, Katana and the Enchantress. Incubus, Joker and Slipknot aren't any more "major" to the movie than Collector, Korath, the Nova Corps are to GoTG. Not really sold that Waller and Katana are all that "major" in the movie either. The numbers are not that different. 

 

I guess I just don't buy into the concept of sending villains out to do a hero's job. I'm struggling to discern what is "cool" about that.

Then the premise isn't going to work and you're not going to like the movie however good a job they do. Just like someone looking for superheroes who take the job seriously are unlikely to love GotG.

[zslane]

Then the premise isn't going to work and you're not going to like the movie however good a job they do. Just like someone looking for superheroes who take the job seriously are unlikely to love GotG.

 

Tone problems may cause a film to be a disappointment to some, but a film with a deeply flawed and completely muddled premise should never have been greenlit in the first place.

[Hugh Neilson]

The premise of drafting superpowered incarcerated villains has carried the comic series in many incarnations.

 

"I do not like the premise" is not the same as "the premise is deeply flawed and completely muddled to the point of unworkability"

 

While I assume the spread is just pocket change you'd pull out of your couch, for most of us the spread between $745M gross and $175 production costs is a pretty decent payoff, I think.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dc2016.htm

 

I suppose only $575 million of profits doesn't compare all that well to GotG, with its $773 million box office - $170 million budget = $603 million profits, but I'd probably be able to eke out a meagre existence off of either of those, assuming careful budgeting.

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2014a.htm

[zslane]

The premise of drafting superpowered incarcerated villains has carried the comic series in many incarnations.

 

"I do not like the premise" is not the same as "the premise is deeply flawed and completely muddled to the point of unworkability"

 

I agree. I'm not saying that I merely dislike the premise. I claim it is deeply flawed and completely muddled. At least the way it's been described here and expressed on film.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I recommend looking over some of the 80's run of the comic line, I can't recommend more recent incarnations because I know nothing about them.  You might be surprised.  Or it might just not be your cup of tea.

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree. I'm not saying that I merely dislike the premise. I claim it is deeply flawed and completely muddled. At least the way it's been described here and expressed on film.

It appears a lot of moviegoers disagree with you. As Christopher suggests above, it may not be your cup of tea.

 

There are lots of people who think all superhero fiction is stupid, or all sci fi and/or fantasy, or comic books, or RPGs. That does not mean any of these are deeply flawed, only that they are not of interest to those people.

[Old Man]

Actually, given SS is drafting the characters into service, having dossiers on them makes sense.

It makes sense in the context of the premise, but it's still a poor way to introduce characters to the viewer.

 

 

 

GoTG had 5 main "hero" characters plus three major antagonists, as well as a universe to populate. That's 8 major characters. SS has Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo, Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Rick Flag, Amanda Waller, Katana and the Enchantress. Incubus, Joker and Slipknot aren't any more "major" to the movie than Collector, Korath, the Nova Corps are to GoTG. Not really sold that Waller and Katana are all that "major" in the movie either. The numbers are not that different.

 

Then it's even more inexcusable that SS did such a bad job of introductions. In fact it's good that you brought up Slipknot and Katana, who I surmise are full members of the comic SS but are totally incidental to the film. In fact I'd argue that the movie would actually have been better off without them, especially Katana, whose movie presence was incredibly contrived and pointless.

 

On the other hand SS won more Academy Awards than all the MCU films put together, so there's that.

[Lord Liaden]

Thinking on it, the Wonder Woman trailer gets dismissed, while Thor: Ragnarok is gushed over.

 

I've seen, heard, and read a great deal of gushing over the Wonder Woman trailers. While the past performance of DC-based movies has led to caution among many fans, one of the comments I hear the most often is, "this looks like it could be the movie that turns the DCEU around."