Suicide Squad

[The Laughing Fish]

Suicide Squad has outgrossed more money than the first Iron Man to become the 50th highest grossed domestic film of all time.

Source: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1561419/suicide-squad-just-notched-another-box-office-win-over-rival-marvel-studios

Great news for the film, and the DCEU. It's only three films in, and the profits thus far make it painfully obvious that there is indeed interest and support from audiences/fans in the product WB has been dishing out. 

I think I read somewhere that the MOS, BvS and SS grossed more money than the first MCU films combined, although the first two DC films had enormous budgets in comparison to the Iron Man films.

Nonetheless, the speculation over the gross revenue/lost returns seems petty to me now. When BvS was released back in March, I read lots of news sites making conflicting estimations over much money the film needed to make to break even, and speculated the movie is a money pit for WB in any case for not making a billion. But that seems to die down now the film earned something around $872 million and the Ultimate Edition was on top for four weeks in DVD sales. Yes, I bet WB is disappointed that the film headlining two of the biggest names in comics failed to earn a billion, but what BvS earned in the end is far from the disaster the naysayers were proclaiming.

[The Laughing Fish]

Here is a gallery of new character portraits as photographed by Clay Enos.

http://batman-news.com/2016/11/17/suicide-squad-portraits-clay-enos/

[The Laughing Fish]

David Ayer has come out admitting he would make the Joker was the main villain if he could redo the film again. I agree with him.

https://twitter.com/DavidAyerMovies/status/822948443110842369/photo/1

[thecolorsblend]

I'm not really open to that. Part of what makes the movie work is the Joker as a supporting antagonist rather than the big bad. Two movies in the last 30 years have shown the Joker as the lead villain. Using him as an adjunct threat for additional peril (and for character-building purposes for Harley) is an effective use of the character in the post-Nicholson and post-Ledger world.

[The Laughing Fish]

My problems with Joker in Suicide Squad was his plan to capture Harley in Midway City was a waste of time, and his scenes with Harley's backstory felt rather rushed and pulling its punches, so to speak. Considering there was a lot of material that go cut out and will probably never see the light of day, I just don't think the film utilised Joker to his potential.

[The Dark Knight]

I'm not really open to that. Part of what makes the movie work is the Joker as a supporting antagonist rather than the big bad. Two movies in the last 30 years have shown the Joker as the lead villain. Using him as an adjunct threat for additional peril (and for character-building purposes for Harley) is an effective use of the character in the post-Nicholson and post-Ledger world.

Agreed. I think the bigger problem was reducing his abusiveness. Looking on the bright side, the extended cut makes the Joker's flashback scenes flow better. We see Harley looking at the bike, and we transition to her moment with Joker where he tries to reject her. Then later, we have the continuation of the flashback where he lets Harley into his life with the chemical bath scene. So I like that consistency and flow. It makes Joker's role in the film feel a little more prominent too, even if it's still minor. I think Leto had just enough content, even though they trimmed it back. It was more about Harley and what happened to her. She is a squad member and Joker moves in and out of the story.

[The Laughing Fish]

Agreed. I think the bigger problem was reducing his abusiveness.

I've come to realise that the producers were smart to play this down, considering that we live in a time where political correctness is out of control more than ever.

[thecolorsblend]

Agreed. I think the bigger problem was reducing his abusiveness.

I've come to realise that the producers were smart to play this down, considering that we live in a time where political correctness is out of control more than ever.

I need to be careful how I say this. But one thing that the whole "violence against women" thing has never done is make sense to me.

First, it's fiction. So right there I don't see an issue.

Second, this same movie and dozens of others just like it show characters beating the snot out of each other, shooting off guns, running people over with trucks and who the hell knows what else. Is violence unacceptable? Or is violence only unacceptable when it affects women?

And if the latter, what about violence from women which affects men?

I'm not saying you're wrong. If anything, I'm saying you're probably right. I'm also saying I'm getting lost in the weeds here by even making these comments. But this insipid idea that movie violence can be done only to men is so idiotic that merely typing it has cost me a few IQ points.

[The Dark Knight]

Equality is a lie. People complain when things are too equal. Then the 'isms' are predictably thrown out, hoping at least one of these baseless slurs will stick. The filmmakers were gutless to water down The Joker, a fictional character. I truly believe political correctness is shattering because it's being challenged every day. The public can see how hypocritical and hysterical things are, and are rightly turning their back on it. Even if it's just private discussions in their living rooms - OR the privacy of a polling place.

[The Laughing Fish]

I need to be careful how I say this. But one thing that the whole "violence against women" thing has never done is make sense to me.

First, it's fiction. So right there I don't see an issue.

Second, this same movie and dozens of others just like it show characters beating the snot out of each other, shooting off guns, running people over with trucks and who the hell knows what else. Is violence unacceptable? Or is violence only unacceptable when it affects women?

And if the latter, what about violence from women which affects men?

I'm not saying you're wrong. If anything, I'm saying you're probably right. I'm also saying I'm getting lost in the weeds here by even making these comments. But this insipid idea that movie violence can be done only to men is so idiotic that merely typing it has cost me a few IQ points.

I agree wholeheartedly, but look at the hysteria surrounding the Killing Joke-inspired Batgirl comic cover last year, and the baseless accusations of misogyny aimed towards at creators and fans. I'm convinced it would've given detractors ammunition to attack the entire DCEU if Leto's Joker was allowed to demonstrate his brutal potential. After all, given Suicide Squad had undergone reshoots following BvS's release, I'm convinced the film is a victim of bullsh*t, pathetic hyperbolic backlash surrounding the 'darkness' in Snyder's film. Whether the real vision of the film would've made SS better, is another story.

Equality is a lie. People complain when things are too equal.

Equality can be real. After all, the Western world has made great strides in the last couple of decades where women are allowed to prosper, despite what feminists will have you believe. But there is something wrong when there are people out there who claim to champion for women's rights and complain endlessly about violence and sexual objectification in film, TV, video games, comics...but stay silent when there are women who actually suffer from oppression and terror in other parts of the globe. It pisses me off, as do fanboys who still complain about Batman killing on screen, despite the fact the only WB live action film where he never killed anyone was B&R. The difference, of course, is the former is far more socially relevant and important to the world than some petty pop cultural non-controversy.

Excuse me for my socio-political rant, if you can call it that. I'm pissed off.