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

[Lord Liaden]

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.

 

Years ago (pre-Thor movie), Marvel Comics themselves redefined the Asgardians as super-advanced aliens. I've lost track of where the reboots and revisions have left them in current continuity; but the concept is far from unprecedented.

[Lord Liaden]

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.

 

Well, as others have said, it's not really a "hero's" job that they're being sent out to do. In a lot of ways it's a concept very much from the Iron Age of comics -- people far from the traditional heroic ideal, doing dirty jobs in a more ruthless manner than most heroes will condone.

 

What was more interesting to me than that, was that these natural antagonists for the heroes were being forced to be protagonists against their will. The series explored a dimension of these characters we don't normally get to see. How do people like these interact with each other? How do they respond in these extraordinary circumstances? What goes on in their minds and hearts beyond simplistic "villainy?" What does doing good in spite of themselves do to their self-image, their perception of their role in the world? At their best, the Suicide Squad stories are a thought-provoking deconstruction of the whole concept of the comic-book supervillain.

[Lord Liaden]

There's actually an incident from the current official Champions timeline that, while not a direct parallel to the Suicide Squad, opens the door to similar activities in the CU. In 2005 Menton manipulated the people of the (fictional) Central American nation of Guamanga into electing him their president. While international governments and law enforcement knew what Menton had done, no one could find any proof, and without proof none of them were willing to move openly against an apparently democratically-elected head of state.

 

UNTIL decided to work covertly through "back channels" to hire a team of mercenary supervillains for a black op to take out Menton, by whatever means necessary. Actually, they hired two teams. The first was made up of B-list villains, who weren't told they were merely a stalking horse to distract Menton from the real team of A-list super-mercs.

[Bazza]

Years ago (pre-Thor movie), Marvel Comics themselves redefined the Asgardians as super-advanced aliens. I've lost track of where the reboots and revisions have left them in current continuity; but the concept is far from unprecedented.

That reminds me of late 90s Thor...as one example.

[Pattern Ghost]

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.

 

Don't ask me, I was just explaining the setup. I haven't read the comic, so can't really guess at authorial intent. I haven't really read comics in years, and when I had a regular pull list, only a few DC titles made it b/c their continuity and reboots tended to confuse me.

 

Some dead guy (dang if I can find the reference online at the moment) once said that to critique something, first ask what the artist intended, then ask if it was done well, then ask if it was worth doing. I think it was a dead Greek guy. And I may have gotten numbers two and three reversed.

 

I'd say that the larger issue here may be that you can't arrive at the first: Authorial intent. If the author's/creator's intent isn't clear on experiencing their creation, then there's probably a fundamental problem with the work.

 

Now, speaking theoretically, not having seen the movie or read the book, the basic setup could work. You just need some characters who at least have some potential for sympathy from the readers. Joker is too much of a psychopath, but Riddler has recently done what I hear is a well-received heel-face turn. You don't want a bunch of characters who are totally beyond redemption, and need some solid character building. As to the government side, you also don't want the Iron Age Evil Government running things. Playing with the gray areas is going to be the strength of this kind of book, and takes some level of finesse. Unfortunately, finesse is something that Hollywood lacks and the big two comic companies only rarely achieve.

[Greywind]

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.

 

Slipknot, as I recall, was in the Suicide Squad for a very short period of time. Just long enough to prove to Captain Boomerang that the explosive bracelet they were all fitted with was indeed live. Slipknot ran off beyond the transmitter's range and he lost his hand.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

I've seen a lot of movies introduce larger casts by quick vignettes of each cast member, so it can't be a totally discredited methodology.

 

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.

I think the film could easily have done with a smaller cast. Slipknot, however, served the purpose of showing that the explosives were real. My recollection of the comics matches Greywind's - he served a similar purpose there. If you look back over my posts, I forgot to even include Katana, and agree there was no real reason to include her. I'm not sure whether I would have preferred Capt Boomerang be written out or his role expanded, but his presence in the movie felt pretty much like "he's been a staple of the comic so put him in". Killer Croc, got the nod, I think, because the comic King Shark would have been much more expensive in SFX - a good choice to replace him, though.

 

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

I'm not sure that's an argument in favour of SS - I typically find I haven't heard of many Oscar nominees "Best Action Blockbuster" isn't a category yet, is it?

 

 

Years ago (pre-Thor movie), Marvel Comics themselves redefined the Asgardians as super-advanced aliens. I've lost track of where the reboots and revisions have left them in current continuity; but the concept is far from unprecedented.

As I recall, that was Earth X, which was more a "Marvel Elseworlds" than anything else.

 

Well, as others have said, it's not really a "hero's" job that they're being sent out to do. In a lot of ways it's a concept very much from the Iron Age of comics -- people far from the traditional heroic ideal, doing dirty jobs in a more ruthless manner than most heroes will condone.

 

What was more interesting to me than that, was that these natural antagonists for the heroes were being forced to be protagonists against their will. The series explored a dimension of these characters we don't normally get to see. How do people like these interact with each other? How do they respond in these extraordinary circumstances? What goes on in their minds and hearts beyond simplistic "villainy?" What does doing good in spite of themselves do to their self-image, their perception of their role in the world? At their best, the Suicide Squad stories are a thought-provoking deconstruction of the whole concept of the comic-book supervillain.

Thunderbolts did pretty well at Marvel, and also thrust the villains into the heroes' role, although with a different approach to getting them there. The more recent incarnations have been more "black ops Supers", perhaps closer to SS in tone if not backstory. In the middle, Luke Cage lead a team that was made up of incarcerated villains working for reduced sentences, which seems like Marvel cribbing from DC's playbook.

 

Drafting incarcerated criminals to undertake dangerous government missions in exchange for reduced time could be viewed as a dark, iron age commentary on the cynicism of the justice system, or a very liberal-minded work release program. Like most premises that get some play in the comics, it's seen both well written and not so well written incarnations.

 

Anyone remember The Liberty Project? I liked that short-lived series, and it had a similar premise, with the added innovation that the villain of the first two issues was on the team in issue 3.

[bigdamnhero]

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?

Point taken. I think it's fair to say that introducing a ton of characters at once is more difficult than introducing them one at a time in their own movies. Certainly it can be done as GotG proved, or even X-Men. Given that the DCEU has so far failed to make me care about any of their characters even after (way too many) hours with them, trying to make us care about a bunch of new characters all at once was probably a bridge too far.

 

I think DC/WB feels like they're 5 years behind Marvel and are racing to catch up before the superhero trend peaks (it's coming...) and they've missed the boat. So much of what they're doing feels rushed and slapped together. The last-minute re-shoots for SS didn't help.

 

Sadly, the representation of Waller in the movie is pretty spot on. She really is that ruthless and, in some ways, evil.

I wouldn't describe Waller as evil per se, but certainly ruthless in a total End-Justifies-The-Means sort of way. And she tends to get tunnel vision on what's "good" in the sense of narrow political interests, rather than the broader "good" the Justice League et. al. tend to worry about.

 

Similarly, the Squad's missions (at least in the comics) aren't meant to be portrayed as unethical, so much as questionable. Say the US Government decides the world would be a better place if Kim Jong Ill got himself dead, so Waller sends in a team to assassinate him. She can't send superheroes because most of them won't do something so morally dubious. But we've got these relatively-low-level supervillains taking up perfectly good prison space, so we send them instead. If they succeed, great; if they die we haven't lost anything. Waller considers that a win-win. It gave DC an opportunity to tell stories they couldn't tell with conventional heroes.

 

In the comics it works because the characters are well-written enough that we care about them, the same way we cheer for bad guys in movies all the time. (See Breaking Bad, the Professional, every heist movie ever, every Mafia movie ever, etc.) Personally I'm not a big fan of most "cheer for the bad guys" stories on principle, but clearly it can be done well and be hugely popular, so "the concept" isn't the problem here.

 

I recommend looking over some of the 80's run of the comic line.

See also the Justice League Unlimited episode Task Force X, which is the Suicide Squad in all but name.

 

What was more interesting to me than that, was that these natural antagonists for the heroes were being forced to be protagonists against their will. The series explored a dimension of these characters we don't normally get to see. How do people like these interact with each other? How do they respond in these extraordinary circumstances? What goes on in their minds and hearts beyond simplistic "villainy?" What does doing good in spite of themselves do to their self-image, their perception of their role in the world? At their best, the Suicide Squad stories are a thought-provoking deconstruction of the whole concept of the comic-book supervillain.

What LL said. The villains who get drafted into the Suicide Squad aren't world conquerors/destroyers. Some are killers for hire, some are just crooks, and some of them are more antiheroes or decent people who got dealt a bad hand.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Katana should have been important, her role is critical to the team's function and stability.  But she was so poorly used in the movie she was irrelevant to the story.  Yeah they needed her magic sword, but only because the plot was shaped in such a way to require it, not because she was a key player.  Making an entire character a maguffin (see: Slipknot) is a bit unfair to the actor and the audience.

[DasBroot]

Point taken. I think it's fair to say that introducing a ton of characters at once is more difficult than introducing them one at a time in their own movies. Certainly it can be done as GotG proved, or even X-Men. Given that the DCEU has so far failed to make me care about any of their characters even after (way too many) hours with them, trying to make us care about a bunch of new characters all at once was probably a bridge too far.

 

 

I think what made GoTG work was that literally nobody outside of a few comic book fans knew any of the characters.  Even I was only really familiar with was Drax - but not the Drax in the movie.  The rest I knew OF but didn't *know*.  In that regard there was no expectations on any of them save whatever could be conveyed in the trailer.  Green Black Widow? Fine.  Space Indiana Jones? Whatever.  Talking Racoon? Sure.  Tree alien? Why not.

 

DC films usually use bigger names (character and/or actor wise) with broader cultural penetration, on average, so for them to push out a 'no names' film was an unusual choice.  To have one of these 'no names' be played by WILL SMITH, though, instantly elevates audience expectations.  To have one of the antagonists be the Joker and played by Jared Leto pushes it up a level.  Hell, even my wife considered seeing it just because Viola Davis was in it.  Drawing in a large audience to a niche franchise was always going to be risky, whether they knew it or not.  

 

(As mentioned a risk that totally paid off, though - massive blockbuster dollars for everyone involved.  Just like BvS it doesn't really matter that a vocal minority of critics and fans 'hated it' - it made back its bank anyways.)

[Christopher R Taylor]

Suicide Squad is the kind of film Hollywood loves most.  It was relatively cheap to make for its genre, had a huge opening weekend, then tailed off rapidly and made a lot of money.  They don't like films that last and last in the theater, because every week the studio gets a smaller cut from the box office (theaters get more).  A big bang at the front and enough buzz to set up a sequel and they are happy.

[bigdamnhero]

(As mentioned a risk that totally paid off, though - massive blockbuster dollars for everyone involved.  Just like BvS it doesn't really matter that a vocal minority of critics and fans 'hated it' - it made back its bank anyways.)

Fair point, tho the critics that hated SS were hardly a minority - it got pretty universally panned. Ditto BvS, and even MoS. And while both movies made money, they made fan less than the studio expected; don't underestimate the Hollywood Ego Factor.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I've said it before, but Suicide Squad was half a decent film.  They should have kept the feel and tone of the first half but I'm almost 100% certain the not awful part of the movie was the rewrites section, where they added more fun and character.  The second half of grinding misery and failure against a pointless and undefined foe based on a betrayal that didn't connect at any level with the audience was the original film.

[Ranxerox]

Katana should have been important, her role is critical to the team's function and stability.  But she was so poorly used in the movie she was irrelevant to the story.  Yeah they needed her magic sword, but only because the plot was shaped in such a way to require it, not because she was a key player.  Making an entire character a maguffin (see: Slipknot) is a bit unfair to the actor and the audience.

 

What if those characters have larger roles in the sequel?  By introducing them in this film, that get the introductions out the way and lays groundwork for SS2.

[Christopher R Taylor]

That would be a good way to handle it, with a better story.  One where Enchantress is just showcased as crazy powerful but controlled by love with Rick Flagg, for instance.  Instead of being the villain, save that for movie 2 when the betrayal actually means something and you've shown how powerful she is so its dramatic to have her turn.  Put them up against some nasty terrorist group with "superheroes" that are actually just a regime's enforcers.  Take a movie to set up the concept and show how villains act when not being villains as said above.  Show their behind the scenes scheming on how to beat heroes, with experience.

[Hugh Neilson]

Katana should have been important, her role is critical to the team's function and stability.  But she was so poorly used in the movie she was irrelevant to the story.  Yeah they needed her magic sword, but only because the plot was shaped in such a way to require it, not because she was a key player.  Making an entire character a maguffin (see: Slipknot) is a bit unfair to the actor and the audience.

 

Hardly unprecedented in the comics, though. Ever heard of Thunderbird? He was created specifically to die in the 2nd adventure of those All-New, All-Different X-Men to show that this was serious, and people could die. When was the next time anyone did? Slipknot was pretty obvious - oh look - ONE guy gets no dossier, they all have bombs in their heads and the title is SUICIDE Squad. But really, Slipknot in the comic version served basically the same "we warned you what would happen - we were serious" purpose. Force Awakens?  What's that?

 

Fair point, tho the critics that hated SS were hardly a minority - it got pretty universally panned. Ditto BvS, and even MoS. And while both movies made money, they made fan less than the studio expected; don't underestimate the Hollywood Ego Factor.

I don't find critics generally love action/adventure flicks any more than the Oscars do. I've seen more than a few who make me wonder why someone who hates so many movies that much would choose to make them the focus of a career.

 

Both made enough to get a sequel, didn't they?

 

What if those characters have larger roles in the sequel?  By introducing them in this film, that get the introductions out the way and lays groundwork for SS2.

IOW, what if they are in the film for reasons identical to what we praise the MCU for (seriously, what purpose did Hawkeye serve in Thor?)? No, that just could not be!

 

Certainly, no one would spend huge parts of an entire movie introducing a franchise, would they?

 

It would certainly NEVER happen in a Star Wars movie!!! 

[Hugh Neilson]

We're so used to slamming DC and praising Marvel that the DC moviemakers may as well give up on us and just make a bunch more movies that bring in a few hundred million in ticket sales from moviegoers, rather than try to appeal to the fans who buy over 110,000 copies of each of the three top-selling books in a month!  http://www.comichron.com/monthlycomicssales/2017/2017-01.html  Just imagine if movies could rake in that kind of attendance!!! 

[DasBroot]

My sarcasm detector is malfunctioning but ...

 

The numbers you list add up to nearly $16 mililon dollars a year in sales.  They really are better off pandering to the $150M to make, earn $500 M crowd who doesn't care there's no invisible jet or that the villain in BvS was the Riddler pretending to be Lex Luthor.

 

I think it really is just a difference in how the studios perceive things: Disney is about brand recognition and family entertainment so they keep things colorful, family friendly, and recognisable for merchandising purposes.  Warner Brothers doesn't have theme parks so brand recognition and merchandising is good enough.

 

edit: A google search shows that Warner Brothers do have a themepark in Australia (?) and one under construction in Abu Dhabi.  Huh. Live and learn.

[Christopher R Taylor]

seriously, what purpose did Hawkeye serve in Thor?

 

 

Almost none, but the intro was interesting and you liked him right away.  He was interesting, and if a side character, one you were intrigued by and wanted to see more of.  Plus, it helped establish SHIELD as more than just one agent in a suit, it made the organization feel bigger and more established.  Whereas Katana was a maguffin on legs.

 

Nobody introduced the characters in Suicide Squad then gave them short shrift and poor writing in order to set up the next movie.  They just didn't do well writing the characters or the story, so it didn't work.  That does not prevent them from doing a better job next time but lets not turn into contrarians and start praising DC for its MCU-like genius at sucking.

[zslane]

Similarly, the Squad's missions (at least in the comics) aren't meant to be portrayed as unethical, so much as questionable. Say the US Government decides the world would be a better place if Kim Jong Ill got himself dead, so Waller sends in a team to assassinate him. She can't send superheroes because most of them won't do something so morally dubious. But we've got these relatively-low-level supervillains taking up perfectly good prison space, so we send them instead. If they succeed, great; if they die we haven't lost anything. Waller considers that a win-win.

 

Sure, because Waller is utterly amoral and thinks the ends justify the means. I'd say that your example scenario is as unethical as they come, and not merely "questionable". If an entire generation of readers raised on a steady diet of Iron Age comics feels that assassinating the leader of a sovereign nation in a clandestine "black ops" manner falls into some ethical/moral gray area, then I'm not at all surprised that the concept of the Suicide Squad finds broad acceptance among active comics fans.

 

I can see how it might be interesting to read a comic that studies the path to redemption (whether it succeeds or not) of a well-known DC villain. However, the movie was not making any effort to be such a story. It also wasn't a story studying the notion of "capital punishment by other means" (i.e., a suicide mission). It was trying to be "The Dirty Dozen but with psychotic supervillains", and that's why it failed on conceptual grounds.

[Greywind]

There was an issues of Suicide Squad near the end of the original run where two of Waller's advisors, one was the team's shrink, were going through the list of available candidates applying the judgement that they figured Waller wanted. Mostly because they were tired. They had gotten to know the members of the team, including some that hadn't come back. The discussion was along the lines of: "Yep, this one has a death wish. Add him to the active pile." "Oh, hey, this one is really good at X!" "Add him to the active pile."

 

Basically, they stopped caring and didn't see the candidates as people any longer. Just pieces to be used. Just like Waller.

[Hugh Neilson]

My sarcasm detector is malfunctioning but ...

I think you detected the sarcasm. 

 

Almost none, but the intro was interesting and you liked him right away.  He was interesting, and if a side character, one you were intrigued by and wanted to see more of.  Plus, it helped establish SHIELD as more than just one agent in a suit, it made the organization feel bigger and more established.  Whereas Katana was a maguffin on legs.

We did? I was left with the sense that, did I not already know who Hawkeye was, I would be wondering why some guy in SHIELD is using a bow and arrow to line some guy up in the sights, then put the bow down and walk away. I also got the sense they had not really figured out how he should look in the MCU yet. Given his "extensive" screen time, "Easter Egg" felt about right - Katana got a lot more screen time to add pretty much nothing to the movie.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure, because Waller is utterly amoral and thinks the ends justify the means. I'd say that your example scenario is as unethical as they come, and not merely "questionable".

The joy of ethics is that no one agrees on what they are. The "Batman is immoral - every murder the Joker commits is on him because he lacks the moral fiber to snap Joker's neck" crowd comes to mind. And that's just a snapshot of an argument over capital punishment.

 

If an entire generation of readers raised on a steady diet of Iron Age comics feels that assassinating the leader of a sovereign nation in a clandestine "black ops" manner falls into some ethical/moral gray area, then I'm not at all surprised that the concept of the Suicide Squad finds broad acceptance among active comics fans.

The first arc in the Suicide comic (first run) was something on slipping into a foreign nation - IIRC to stop their own Supers program; not sure there were assassinations involved. But I don't think the readers in 1987 were raised on a steady diet of Iron Age comics for a generation prior to reading it.

 

I can see how it might be interesting to read a comic that studies the path to redemption (whether it succeeds or not) of a well-known DC villain. However, the movie was not making any effort to be such a story. It also wasn't a story studying the notion of "capital punishment by other means" (i.e., a suicide mission). It was trying to be "The Dirty Dozen but with psychotic supervillains", and that's why it failed on conceptual grounds.

I will suggest it was trying to be a summer blockbuster action movie that made a ton of money, and any moral lesson or allegory to society was not high on the list of objectives. But I also think Shakespeare thought about paying his rent when he wrote his plays, and not about whether people would study them in school a few centuries later.

[Greywind]

Renner's Hawkeye scene was done later, after primary filming was done. It was one of the things that annoyed Branagh.

[Lawnmower Boy]

I think you detected the sarcasm. 

 

 

 Katana got a lot more screen time to add pretty much nothing to the movie.

That's a horribly mean thing to say about Cute Actress #3.