David Ayer on deleted scenes

[The Laughing Fish]

Earlier today, a fan on Twitter queried directly to David Ayer about some deleted Joker footage; specifically, when he's pulls the pin from a grenade with his teeth and says "bye bye". Ayer replied and explained what the idea was behind those deleted scenes.

After Joker dropped HQ from the help and crashed, Enchantress made a deal with him. He was going to take Harley home and be "King of Gotham" Harley stood up to him and refused to betray her new friends. The Squad turned on him and he escaped.

Source: https://twitter.com/DavidAyerMovies/status/977549416008581121

As good as that plot point sounds, it doesn't bode too well if Harley Quinn happily escapes with Joker by the end of the movie. That ending must've been a reshoot and not what was originally intended.

It's a shame really. If they kept that footage and didn't tone down the Joker's abuse i.e. cutting out the scene where he slaps Harley's face in a flashback, Harley Quinn's arc would've been much better.

[Catwoman]

I won't go into all the reasons that the slap should have stayed in, I'll just say it should have and they should have been more explicit with him doing the ECT on her, etc. It really waters down just how f***ed up their relationship and Harley specifically are if they just glance past the ugly bits or omit them completely. That's why you have teenaged girls saying they want a relationship like Harley and her "puddin.'" Uh, no sweetie, you don't.

I guess they had to do it, though. If they had shown it the way it should have been shown (think "Mad Love"), they couldn't have sold many Harley dolls and t-shirts to those teenaged girls I just mentioned. Or it would have been Batman Returns/Happy Meals all over again. Yay for taking one of the most interesting and brutal character dynamics and dumbing it down to be toyetic.

[thecolorsblend]

...

That's a good point, actually. It kind of says something that people don't have an eye for context. Harley struggling with abuse, overcoming it and turning her back on her abuser is a pretty solid arc for her. But you can only really get there by showing her being abused. It was ballsy to ever write and shoot that stuff in the first place. But once it was written and shot, it shouldn't have been cut out.

[Catwoman]

...

That's a good point, actually.

You seem surprised.

[The Dark Knight]

I won't go into all the reasons that the slap should have stayed in, I'll just say it should have and they should have been more explicit with him doing the ECT on her, etc. It really waters down just how f***ed up their relationship and Harley specifically are if they just glance past the ugly bits or omit them completely. That's why you have teenaged girls saying they want a relationship like Harley and her "puddin.'" Uh, no sweetie, you don't.

I guess they had to do it, though. If they had shown it the way it should have been shown (think "Mad Love"), they couldn't have sold many Harley dolls and t-shirts to those teenaged girls I just mentioned. Or it would have been Batman Returns/Happy Meals all over again. Yay for taking one of the most interesting and brutal character dynamics and dumbing it down to be toyetic.

Very good points.

[The Laughing Fish]

I guess they had to do it, though. If they had shown it the way it should have been shown (think "Mad Love"), they couldn't have sold many Harley dolls and t-shirts to those teenaged girls I just mentioned. Or it would have been Batman Returns/Happy Meals all over again. Yay for taking one of the most interesting and brutal character dynamics and dumbing it down to be toyetic.

I don't like to excuse WB because I think their meddling and handling with these films have been a PR nightmare. But you can't underestimate the  hypocrisy from the critics, and even some of the fans. The SS reshoots were made in retaliation to try to satisfy the negativity surrounding BvS. Now, I'm not saying everybody who didn't like the film is a hypocrite, but let's face it, the moral outrage people had for it was rather fake when you consider some of the recent DC films in the past had dark subject matter and dubious creative choices that nobody called out on.

I even find the praise for WW to be rather obnoxious because nobody seemed to care if Patty Jenkins objectified Steve Trevor in the nude, but people then kick up a fuss about Diana and the rest of the Amazons supposedly being objectified in JL. It's such horsesh*t. Sadly, it's perhaps a good thing WB toned down SS, because it would given these critics an excuse to attack the film and the entire franchise even further.

If the last decade in entertainment has taught me anything, it's that you'll get away with anything if your characters pay lip service to things or have contrived jokes to lighten up the mood. I do think there's room for improvement for the DCEU, but the level of the backlash for these films are met with are rather questionable to say the least.

In regards to making things toyetic, even the MCU is guilty of this. More so, as a matter of fact. Iron Man's alcoholism will never get explored, making Ragnarok into a comedy etc.

That's a good point, actually. It kind of says something that people don't have an eye for context.

No sh*t! Case in point: the complaints about Batman's brutality in BvS, despite the fact it was an integral part of his arc.

[thecolorsblend]

No sh*t! Case in point: the complaints about Batman's brutality in BvS, despite the fact it was an integral part of his arc.

To be fair, it's a bit much to expect everybody to get it. Some people don't have a very literary mindset so they shouldn't have it held against them that they don't understand character arcs.

Of course, the problem is their opinion is thought to be the equal of mine and that's where I have to get off the bus. People are not entitled to their opinions. They're entitled to their informed opinions. I can tell you about the arcs, symbolism and sophistication of BVS but that doesn't somehow magically grant me some kind of authority to give medical advice or something. Not all opinions are equally valid and whoever coined that phrase hopefully caught some kind of STD as penance for the intellectual disease they help spread.

[The Laughing Fish]

To be fair, it's a bit much to expect everybody to get it. Some people don't have a very literary mindset so they shouldn't have it held against them that they don't understand character arcs.

Of course, the problem is their opinion is thought to be the equal of mine and that's where I have to get off the bus. People are not entitled to their opinions. They're entitled to their informed opinions. I can tell you about the arcs, symbolism and sophistication of BVS but that doesn't somehow magically grant me some kind of authority to give medical advice or something. Not all opinions are equally valid and whoever coined that phrase hopefully caught some kind of STD as penance for the intellectual disease they help spread.

Maybe that's true. After all, I've even seen some people describe Batman a "serial killer" in BvS, which is so hyperbolic that it deserves to be laughed at. It speaks volumes about their lack of awareness of what a serial killer is and the type of MO they engage in. It's even quite ironic considering that Batman spared the sexual predator he branded, despite he was responsible imprisoning all these women underneath his basement. But nah, Batman's brutality makes him the fictional equivalent of BTK and the Night Stalker to some people. Damn fools.

[Dagenspear]

I even find the praise for WW to be rather obnoxious because nobody seemed to care if Patty Jenkins objectified Steve Trevor in the nude, but people then kick up a fuss about Diana and the rest of the Amazons supposedly being objectified in JL. It's such horsesh*t. Sadly, it's perhaps a good thing WB toned down SS, because it would given these critics an excuse to attack the film and the entire franchise even further.

Eh. There's some people that complained about Joss Whedon having Barry fall on top of WW in JL. I think it's mostly about necessity. WW has never seen a man before in person. It's a little weird, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's objectification. If some think one set of outfits are more needlessly revealing, that's their thing, though I don't necessarily think it's true.

If the last decade in entertainment has taught me anything, it's that you'll get away with anything if your characters pay lip service to things or have contrived jokes to lighten up the mood.

The DCEU does the same, just without contrived jokes.

In regards to making things toyetic, even the MCU is guilty of this. More so, as a matter of fact. Iron Man's alcoholism will never get explored, making Ragnarok into a comedy etc.

Iron Man 1 deals with normal human emotions more naturally than any of Snyder's DCEU movies. True about T:R, though I don't think the general audience cares about how serious or not ragnarok is taken.

No sh*t! Case in point: the complaints about Batman's brutality in BvS, despite the fact it was an integral part of his arc.

But that isn't really integral, because the movie dismisses it and never holds Batman accountable for it. He continues to needlessly and counter-intuitively be brutal when he saves Martha.

Maybe that's true. After all, I've even seen some people describe Batman a "serial killer" in BvS, which is so hyperbolic that it deserves to be laughed at. It speaks volumes about their lack of awareness of what a serial killer is and the type of MO they engage in. It's even quite ironic considering that Batman spared the sexual predator he branded, despite he was responsible imprisoning all these women underneath his basement. But nah, Batman's brutality makes him the fictional equivalent of BTK and the Night Stalker to some people. Damn fools.

Batman isn't a serial killer. He doesn't kill those human traffickers either. He just tries to kill what he thinks is another hero, based on his existence.

[The Dark Knight]

Batman did NOT view Superman as a hero. He didn't even view him as a man. He viewed him as a threat to society that needed to be taken down. He saw himself doing the public a favor against an unchecked threat.

Someone who also threatened him directly. "The Bat is dead. Bury it."

As Batman narrates to himself when he locks KG Beast inside the sewer to starve, "sometimes you have to ignore the rules. Sometimes circumstances are such that the rules pervert justice. I'm not in the business to protect the rules. I serve justice."

In the context of BvS, Batman was willing to ignore any rules to take down Superman permanently. In his mind it had to be done, so he set about doing it. I can see why he felt the way he did.