Jump to content
Cassandra

The Coming Epic Failure of the DC Movie Universe

Recommended Posts

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!!!  :jawdrop:

[sarcasm acknowledged & appreciated] Exactly. Financially-speaking, comparing comic books to movies is like comparing video games to tabletop gaming - they're so far apart they have basically nothing in common. Comic book movies are not made for comic book fans - period. Sorry.

 

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".

"Questionable" in terms of there are intelligent grown-ass people who disagree on the matter. And right or wrong it is the kindof stuff that actually happens in the real world. Personally I happen to agree with your assessment - as do the writers of the comics for the most part. That's kindof the whole point of the series, and why they can't get superheroes to do it.

 

I get that it's not your taste - fine. It's not high on my list either. But you keep insisting the premise is fundamentally flawed and uninteresting, despite it having supported several decades worth of comics* and a major summer blockbuster.** As has been pointed out before, "not for me" does not automatically equal "fundamentally flawed and uninteresting."

 

 

* Which you insist on judging despite not having read.

** Which I insist on judging despite not having watched, so...

 

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

Well, he put the bow down because Coulson called him off. The scene would've played out the same if he'd used a gun; the bow just gave him an ounce of memorability. But yeah, glorified Easter egg is about it. IIRC, the reaction from my non-comic-reading friends was basically: the "I'm starting to root for this guy" line was kindof funny, not sure what was up with the bow & arrow [shrug].

 

Marvel's actually been pretty savvy about how & where the drop their eggs, sometimes because they have plans to use it later, sometimes just to see what kind of fan reaction it gets.

 

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.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Questionable" in terms of there are intelligent grown-ass people who disagree on the matter. And right or wrong it is the kindof stuff that actually happens in the real world. Personally I happen to agree with your assessment - as do the writers of the comics for the most part. That's kindof the whole point of the series, and why they can't get superheroes to do it.

 

I get that it's not your taste - fine. It's not high on my list either. But you keep insisting the premise is fundamentally flawed and uninteresting, despite it having supported several decades worth of comics* and a major summer blockbuster.** As has been pointed out before, "not for me" does not automatically equal "fundamentally flawed and uninteresting."

 

Yes, that stuff happens in the real world, no question. And when it does, it should be setting off everyone's inner ethics alarm, loudly. Still, I think that's a poor example if only because there really is no viable debate to be had there. But even the example of taking out a rival nation's "superhero creation program" (perhaps written to be a sort of allegory for the nuclear programs of scary totalitarian regimes) doesn't support a "let's send in our villains" approach. When we do this in the real world we send in Navy SEALS, not supermax prison inmates, regardless of how much political egg might end up all over our faces if they are caught.

 

So yes, the premise of the Suicide Squad movie (and the comic plotlines I've seen trotted out as examples) are fundamentally (i.e., logically) flawed. It isn't my "cup of tea" because it makes no sense, not because I dislike the notion of villains as primary characters. It takes a lot of skill to write a compelling and convincing story in which supervillains like those in the SS are protagonists rather than antagonists, and that skill was sorely lacking in the screenplay for the movie. Moreover, the box office performance of the movie says nothing at all about the quality of the script or the validity of its premise. Only that a lot of people were suckered into theaters by the trailer because they were really curious to see if DC could make a fun movie for once. Oh, and a lot of dudes really wanted to see Margot Robbie in booty shorts and a tight t-shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't think the premise was that flawed, any more than the original Dirty Dozen was flawed.  SS could have been about a bunch of freakish antiheroes thrown together on this impossible mission, overcoming their differences along the way, and succeeding where others assumed (or wanted) them to fail.  And there was a little of that in what we got.  But it was poorly executed and diluted with too much extraneous crap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that stuff happens in the real world, no question. And when it does, it should be setting off everyone's inner ethics alarm, loudly. Still, I think that's a poor example if only because there really is no viable debate to be had there.

Well I'm certainly not going to argue with you because - as I already stated - I happen to agree with you. But I'm also aware that there are a shitload of people who disagree with us. [obvious commentary on current politics redacted to avoid pointless flame war] So saying there's no "viable debate" frankly seems a little egocentric. But even if we allow it: feel free to insert your own "morally grey" scenario that might be debatable, but that most superheroes still wouldn't touch. I don't know about you, but I don't want comics to go back to the Iron Age of making superheroes do questionable shit in order to tell those kinds of stories. So think of Suicide Squad as a great way for DC to tell stories that you don't have to read, without them having to crap all over real heroes.

 

When we do this in the real world we send in Navy SEALS, not supermax prison inmates

Sure the "we have to draft bad guys to do jobs we can't get good guys to do" premise doesn't stand up to rigorous logical scrutiny. But no less so than a dozen beloved comics tropes we could name off the tops of our heads. And "set a thief to catch a thief" is hardly a new trope, nor is it unique to comics. (I have friends who love La Femme Nikita, but I could never get past the ludicrous premise of pretending to kill criminals and then blackmailing them to do covert ops no one else will do because it's too risky? No government in history has ever had a shortage of young people eager to die for a cause.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Suicide Squad, back when it first came out was in 1959 (in The Brave and the Bold), and featured normal but skilled guys in a sort of special forces/super scientist/explorer team going out on missions none of them expected to come back from.  In the 1980s, the rebooted the concept with the (quite good) Legends series and retconned the Suicide Squad to be an ongoing thing as part of Task Force X to deal with problems using highly skilled normals.  When Darkseid sent a horrendous monster called Brimstone to earth, Waller formed the task force with supervillains and sent them after the thing, then later was able to set up the task force permanently as a government wetworks/special forces team to deal with problems around the world.  They mostly went after super-terrorists.

 

Incidentally Deadshot was pretty much an obscure nobody until Ostrander put him in Suicide Squad and made him kinda interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally Deadshot was pretty much an obscure nobody until Ostrander put him in Suicide Squad and made him kinda interesting.

Good point. There are a number of now well known villains who would be far less well known if it weren't for their SS appearances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see a speedster wanting to integrate something like motorcycle leathers into his outfit if he ran a similar risk of crashing at high speed. I'm far more worried about the writing, since the best-written DC film so far is a Lego movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the too much lightning, that actually seems to be the norm now for the comics and the Flash tv show (although red in the tv shows case). It's their representation of the speed force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, from what I recall, Barry Allen had a force field when running that obviated the need for protection.

I thought it was an experimental Russian pilots suit meant to be able to handle high g-force maneuvers and tough enough not to shred due to friction. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×