Mongul is also explicitly a copy of Thanos (who is explicitly a copy of…Darkseid), so there's that bit of hilarity.
It is rather frustrating that Superman has a pretty thin rogues gallery.
Mongul is also explicitly a copy of Thanos (who is explicitly a copy of…Darkseid), so there's that bit of hilarity.
It is rather frustrating that Superman has a pretty thin rogues gallery.
Who's Darkseid again? The DC analogue to Thanos or something?
edit: ninja'd by Cyan, what timing!
ANyway, while yes, Braniac and Darkseid can be considered villains for the DCU as a whole (Darkseid in fact not actually being in the Superman books much originally, but Jimmy Olsen and then New Gods) they are traditionally, Superman threats. Partly because Supes is the license that gets the screen time and we'll never have a New Gods series on its own merit, but… mostly because with Braniac at least... he's consistently a Superman threat.
Mongul is fine as an enemy in an ongoing franchise, but he's not one that I would pick to go in the top 5 must sees... not when Darkseid does his shtick better. Mongul only works when you have the Death Star style War WOrld to contend with and... that's also something Braniac can do.
Ohhhh, to have Brainiac in a Superman movie. One of the few villains who I think can REALLY give Superman a run for his money.
I'll always say I'd love to see Lobo in a movie though.
I'm seeing BvS this weekend. Because in the end you should make your own opinion. But if I actually like like it I'll be surprised.
@Cyan:
sniff Oh, Superman Animated Series. To think what crap followed you . . . . .
I might be seeing BvS again this weekend. It goes without saying I won't be paying for it a 2nd time.
While I don't believe Superman was out of character or changed at his core in either movie (that is personal interpretation of a character ) I do believe his character progression took a few important steps backwards in BvS. In MoS he was always in the moment. Moving forward with confidence and overall had other people's best interests at heart. There was only one time he hesitated and that was when Zod revealed himself to earth asking for them to turn in the alien hiding amongst them. Clark had to decide whether to put his trust in mankind knowing they'll most likely turn him over or to just remain in hiding. Of course, he ended up letting the military arrest him.
In BvS he was almost reluctant to go before Congress and his whole bathtub scene with Lois sounded dismissive of other people's problems in favor of Lois Lane. I need to see the movie again and make sure I got that right. Then at one point in the movie he just gives up being Superman because it's just….too much. That is not the Superman that we were shaping up to get by MoS. The hero who was supposed to be a ray of hope for mankind and a becaon of light. Sure, people saw him as inspirational and all that but, lol, he looked so damn sad while helping people. Uncomfortable, yes, with all those people groping at him but also sad like he didn't want to be there. I can understand bearing all that weight of blame, suspicion, and hate of people can weigh you down but he it's not like that's all there was. Clark Kent even remarked on the support Superman had in his conversation with Bruce Wayne at that terrible dinner party. For goodness sake they built a statue of him in Metropolis! It wasn't until the very end of the film that Superman felt like he was back on the right track but by then for obvious reasons it was kind of too late.
Rin, I respect what you wrote (a lot). I guess the easiest thing I'm trying to say here is that, BvS might not be the perfect representation of these characters in an alternate media (for Batman I believe that is the video game Arkham City for the majority of characters), but I don't understand how the movie can be equatable to anything worse than average. I'll bring up another DC movie to highlight my point (full disclosure: I like DC more than Marvel and my favorite Marvel character, Hawkeye, wasn't done justice in Avengers which disappointed me a lot).
I had the opportunity to see Green Lantern in the movie theater for free. I didn't have to pay for it so I had no need to justify my purchase. Before the movie had even come out into the theatres I had issues with nearly everything about the movie. The castings were bad (Blake Lively as Carol?), the villain choice was terrible (Hammond? Really?), The costumes and choice design for them and the lantern was extremely dumb (director wanted them to look "alien"), and the purported focus on Earth Hal with the ignorance of the rest of the universe made me think this movie was going to be terrible (Why wasn't Geoff Johns more involved and was is he now on characters he never wrote well on?)
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/770677993/
Green Lantern is rated at 26% on Rotten Tomatoes.
After seeing this movie in the theaters I turned to the person I was with and said "I do not understand how this movie was rated poorly but Thor was rated great. Besides liking this movie more the quality was the same!".
Honest Trailers summed up, basically, what I felt about this movie:
"You've already seen Spider-man, Ironman, X-men, The Dark Knight, and Thor. Now prepare for a movie that you would've liked way better if those hadn't already come out"
Green Lantern was not that bad of a movie. Was it very generic? Yes! It caused a lot of disappointment and didn't seem like it held up to other movies but it was still enjoyable enough to me. The thing is, though, BvS is objectively better than Green Lantern. The scores and rating don't seem to reflect that, however.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_v_superman_dawn_of_justice/
Rotten Tomatoes audience rating disparity is HUGE. The audience rating is what the movie should be considered (7/10). I don't think this movie was really made for comic fans, to be honest, as comic fans seem to be the ones hating on it most (or anyone who has watched every comic book movie so far, unfortunately). Zack Snyder hasn't proved that he really is someone who knows how to make movies, based off of comics, to correctly capture the feel of the comic they were based on without sacrificing something. An example of this would be Watchmen.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/
This movie was criticized for supposedly being TOO CLOSE to the source material! Honestly, I was a little surprised that they kept Snyder around to make Man of Steel after Watchmen wasn't really a financial success but here's where we are now (and where were all of those supposed comic fans at when Watchmen came out in the theatre anyway?).
I've learned that, when it comes to comics, people cannot even agree what the essence of a character is between fans. An example of this is a topic on GameFAQs about whether or not people like the idea of Batman retiring or not. It turns out that a lot of people say that Batman would never stop fighting….which is directly in conflict of how I see Batman myself! The Batman that I like most (O'Neil Batman) is basically non-existent in most modern media! He makes jokes, smiles, has relationships, and hobbies other than being Batman. Having said this, however, is directly in conflict with the way people on this board view Batman when they talk about the "core" of the character. As far as I am concerned (and feel like Batman: The brave and the bold validated me by) There are multiple ways to interpret the character(s) and they can all be correct. DC hasn't really produced anything I view as being the "correct" versions of the character [in the comics] for years (really, I'm supposed to accept that random guy as Wally West???).
A few things I wanted to comment on:
The Martha thing: You pretty much pointed out everything, correctly. It's true that Snyder was trying to drop major hints as he did the EXACT same thing in Watchmen with The Comedian (which bothered me a little because it cuts out any actual thinking when it's shoved down your throat). I feel like….I knew what he was going for, but it was a little ham-fisted.
Lex Luthor: His motivations....were there but they might have been better helped if they explained more. He has a monologue about how his dad used to abuse him and he prayed to god to help him but realized (after nothing happened) that if god did exist than he didn't care and if a god was good than it couldn't be god. He wanted to prove that Superman wasn't all good because of past transgressions (Why couldn't he have existed to help me when I needed him? Why do others get to be saved by him?) Yes, he was crazy. He was a genius, but crazy. I'm hoping that there is more on the Ultimate Cut because it would better service the movie with more information. The usual (modern) interpretation of Lex is that he hates Superman because he wants humans to do things for themselves instead of relying on a God and that he feels he deserves the recognition that he had to work hard for instead of being born with. Honestly, I have a hard time seeing most people even understand this motivation. Here's the thing (I swear I'm not making this a DC vs Marvel conversation as I like both): Why weren't Whiplash and Malekith criticized as much by film critics? Most critics have no knowledge of the characters outside film so they base all of their understanding on the film itself. How are the motivations here any better? They weren't. Add a few jokes, a couple of one liners, and you have a movie that critics like but will forget about next year. The worst part, to me, is that they had a character like Hawkeye who was primed for the one-liners and jokes....and had him get a spoonful of "serious business" while Thor was dropping one liners as if he was the new comic relief character.
Rotten Tomatoes audience rating disparity is HUGE. The audience rating is what the movie should be considered (7/10). I don't think this movie was really made for comic fans, to be honest, as comic fans seem to be the ones hating on it most (or anyone who has watched every comic book movie so far, unfortunately).
The audience rating has been declining pretty much from the minute the film was released. The main reason it's still as high as it is is because it benefited from an early influx of positive ratings; many of which came before the film was even released.
The movie's real audience score was a B, which is the score Catwoman received.
Those 2 are/can be JL villains, not just Superman.
As Robby said, they've been superman villains traditionally - it's just that since they're so powerful AND they have interesting things to say they also make great JLA/crosssover villains.
The best JLA villains they'll never use are guys like Vandal Savage (currently being wasted on tv), Solaris and Prometheus. There are surprisingly few that are usable, as JLA level villains that don't come from supes more often then not tend to be one note characters with no decent characterisation (see: Imperiex, Mageddon, Anti Monitor).
I wouldn't mind seeing:
Bizarro
Metallo
Parasite
Cyborg Superman
Mongul (can he be considered close to top tier villain?)
Cyborg Superman felt like he may become a legitimate big time villain after coast city and the supes trial, but he kinda trailed off after that. I wouldn't be interested at all in seeing any of the others as lead villain.
There were a couple new villains in the new 52 that can be considered top tier:
He'l
The Daxamite King (I don't remember his name)I wouldn't mind seeing Supes throw down with:
Lobo
Black Adam
The only one of those that would make any sense is Black Adam.
That would actually make a ton of money too, since I think the Rock is going to play Black Adam
Who's Darkseid again? The DC analogue to Thanos or something?
edit: ninja'd by Cyan, what timing!
The first time he meets supes in STAS is one of the best things ever in DCAU.
Just watched the movie last night. I share all your sentiments, basically. I liked it better than Man of Steel I guess, right after the film was over I would have marked it as mediocre and thought the score on Rotten Tomatoes was a little too low. But after thinking about the film afterwards, it just gets worse and worse.
! I'll start with the positives:
! - Wonder Woman was cool and badass. She felt a bit shoe-horned in, but what was there I liked.
! - Ben Affleck was alright. I didn't care that much for this version of Batman and overall, I prefer both Keaton and Bale. But the problems all lay with the writing of the character, not the acting. And I gotta say, Ben Affleck really looks how I always imagined Bruce Wayne to look like (obviously a few years older, but still).
! - I liked this version of Alfred. If he had more time to flesh out the role, Jeremy Irons could be as good as Michael Caine.
! - I liked Perry White a lot more than in Man of Steel.
! - The movie looked really good and the action scenes were mostly nice, which is pretty much the thing that saves the movie from being outright horrible…..at least this part was done competently.
! - I really liked the early scene of seeing the destruction in Man of Steel from a human perspective. I think it could have been portrayed even better, but overall, it was pretty effective and laid out a very good reason why Batman would be worried about Superman.
! - The scene where Batman saved Martha Kent's life was great and about the only time Batman actually felt, you know, heroic, and not just obsessed and sadistic.
! - I think the score was pretty good too. Wonder Woman's theme was already mentioned. I also liked the hints of Luthor's theme, which was sadly way underused. I'm talking about the theme that starts playing, for example, when he is getting the spaceship and Zod's body from the government
! I guess that's all the good stuff sigh
! The Bad Stuff:
! - I said already that I didn't care much for this Batman. He's a paranoid, angry mess and the movie never takes it's time to explain this. And why doesn't it? The first hour and a half drags so much and nothing happens, why not use it to better round out Batman's character, his motivations, why he became so dark etc. But the movie isn't really interested in giving any character reasonable or understandable motivations.
! - Instead, our time is wasted with absolutely incoherent, what the fuck type of nightmares. As I mentioned, seeing the Man of Steel climax through Bruce Wayne's eyes was great, but it is very badly followed up on, and when Bats and Superman FINALLY confront each other, its long forgotten. Instead, it comes across as if Batman is just irrationally pissed at Superman because he had some paranoid nightmares about him.
! - And a short rant here: Okay, so these weird, flying monkey types in his nightmare were Parademons from Darkseids homeworld, yes? And that incredibly weird scene afterwards was the Flash time-traveling or hopping dimensions or some bullshit to warn him about some other threat that has nothing to do with this movie at all? Well, that's fucking great to know, really. And how is your average movie-goer supposed to understand what the hell is going on when the Flash hasn't even appeared before in this universe and none of this is brought up again???? I'm not a big comic book geek, but I'd say I know more about this stuff than your average movie watcher, and I had no clue what was going on!!
! Now, the Marvel movies often have references that only the fans will understand. Sometimes they are in the post-credits scene, which is specifically made for the big time comic fans, so no trouble there. Sometimes they are in the middle of the movie, and in these instances, I either get them OR I completely miss them and don't notice anything OR I notice them and just make a note to check out what this is about later on. In the last two cases, I usually get on the forums and look up what you smart people have to say about this And thus, my comic knowledge grows. BUT I can't remember ever feeling this confused by something like this in any Marvel movie. I can't recall an instance in the MCU where they have an comic nerd insider reference that just interrupts the story, really slaps the audience in the face and leaves them dumbfounded and confused for five minutes....and to top it off, isn't mentioned again afterwards at all!!! Man, this was done so badly! Okay rant over!
! - I've been reading in some reviews on here that at least Batman shows his detective side more in this version. Uhm what? How is this Batman a great detective? He makes assumptions for absolutely no reason! Why does he think Superman has anything do to with that Senate hearing being blown up (in fact, why does anybody think that??)? Why does he assume that it's Superman sending him these mock letters??
! - Also, I'm not a fan of him using so much gunfire to fight. I'm not even that horrified that he kills people...Keaton's Batman did so with glee and Batfleck at least seems to have some trauma that gives him a reason for being so brutal. But, and maybe it's just me, relying so much on machine guns and everything makes Batman kinda...boring. Any chump can pick up a machine gun and shoot people. In fact, it instantly reminded me of these chumps in The Dark Knight that tried to imitate Batman by wearing his costume and shooting at criminals, and there was even a side remark from some character that this is absolutely not Batman's style, lol.
This is ultimately why I prefer Bale's Batman. Yes, okay, the voice was too much, but he had plenty of great, pure Batman scenes the The Dark Knight Trilogy, like capturing that Chinese business man, freeing the hostages from the Joker and saving them at the same time from the police etc. The only scene in this film that compares is, again, the scene where he saves Superman's mom.
! - Superman, smile more. Seriously, he has the same frown on his face for about 90% of the movie. It's like he is incapable of showing any other emotions. Even when the freaking Senate hearing getsblown up, dozens of people killed, how does Superman react?? Is he surprised, worried, shocked? No...he frowns. Like always. God! Of course, he also never gets a scene where he gets to explain his point of view, or anything. He just listens to people talk...and frowns. But again, this film does not care about explaining a character's motivation. I gotta hand it to Man of Steel and Batman vs. Superman though: They managed to convert me into a Superman fan! Because, as I was watching them, a thought popped into my head: You know what would really do these movies a lot of good?? Superman! Actual, good-natured boy scout Superman! Someone to offset all the gloomy grimness! A superhero that believes, maybe a bit naively, but still, in the goodness in people, that this world can be a good place, that just wants to help people and is happy if he can! You really start to miss someone like that in the film. Henry Cavill's Superman barely is this. Yes, on paper, he is supposed to be, the general public is supposed to see him like that, but it is never really shown. People are always angry and he seems always depressed, throughout both films!
! - Lois Lane was again completely useless and her storyline was pure filler. Okay, so she spends several scenes trying to find out about this bullet.....and it finally reveals that Luthor is behind the stuff in Africa (what a shock!! The only villain of the film is behind this?! Well, I would have never guessed that!) So, great, I'm sure this will be really relevant! Does she tell Superman about this, making him realize that Luthor is evil and needs to be stopped? Nope! Does she tell Batman about it, and he realizes that Luthor has been duping him and needs to be stopped? Nope! Does she tell Perry White about it, he prints it and Luthor looses his face in public, driving him more towards madness? No, silly, that would give him actual motivation and character development! Instead she tells Lex Luthor about it, he confirms he did it, and...that is it. Great!
! - Lex Luthor. Worst villain ever mayhaps? He truly has no motivations for any of his actions, but still pees in a woman's drink, blows up a senate hearing, manipulates a very stupid Batman and a very anti-ethical Superman into fighting each other, and creates a huge, unstoppable monster. But his worst crime is annoying the audience in every single scene he is in with a hammy, ridiculous performance. God I hated this guy. And of course, we are also led to believe this lunatic is a corporate powerhouse that makes deals with terrorists and the government alike, when he can't even get through a little speech without coming across as someone that should better be put into an insane asylum. Also, why does he know everything about everybody????
! - And the actual conflict between Batman and Superman, the premise of this whole movie, is completely laughable. It takes an eternity to develop, and the actual reason they fight is: Superman is forced to by Luthor and Batman is a paranoid moron that doesn't want to talk or listen or anything, but would rather just like to push a kryptonite spear through Superman's head!
! - And it's resolved, completely resolved, by Batman's and Superman's moms having the first name. Now, alright, in general, I'm not against this. It's a cool coincidence, and using this to make Batman stop for a second and realize that Superman isn't a monster, but a person just like him, fine. But it can't end with this. They can't become best buddies just because of this. Batman's actual worries about Superman'S abilities are not unrealistic (they are just portrayed very irrationally because of these stupid nightmares). Their mother's having the same first name, good way to stop their fight. But it should lead to scenes were these guys come to an understanding, get to know each other, find a middle ground between their differing worldviews. Let Superman learn that the world isn't just black and white, that there are shades of grey. Let Batman learn that there is still hope for the world, that everything isn't as bleak as he thought. Let these guys really form an honest, respectful friendship out of this, and it would have been absolutely amazing, and I think would have also made Superman's sacrifice and death a lot more impactful.
! But because of the bad plotting, this of course immediately leads to the fight against Doomsday, where Superman dies. Batman and Superman barely interact anymore. Not that they interact much at all during the whole movie. It's not like Superman interacts with Wonder Woman either. Good job leading up to Justice League by having the Holy Trinity of Superheroes in one film....and barely have them form a relationship to each other sigh
Damn, this got a lot longer than I intended. I guess I had to get a lot out of my system.
As Robby said, they've been superman villains traditionally - it's just that since they're so powerful AND they have interesting things to say they also make great JLA/crosssover villains.
The best JLA villains they'll never use are guys like Vandal Savage (currently being wasted on tv), Solaris and Prometheus. There are surprisingly few that are usable, as JLA level villains that don't come from supes more often then not tend to be one note characters with no decent characterisation (see: Imperiex, Mageddon, Anti Monitor).
Cyborg Superman felt like he may become a legitimate big time villain after coast city and the supes trial, but he kinda trailed off after that. I wouldn't be interested at all in seeing any of the others as lead villain.
The only one of those that would make any sense is Black Adam.
That would actually make a ton of money too, since I think the Rock is going to play Black Adam
The first time he meets supes in STAS is one of the best things ever in DCAU.
Yeah, those villains I posted aren't top tier but I would love to see them. As for JL villains, I would love to see:
Injustice League (whichever group had Vandal Savage leading them)
Crime Syndicate (I want to see them the most)
Darkseid (duh)
Brainiac
Starro (I think he would be great as the first villain imo)
Anti-monitor (he would certainly be after Darkseid and the Syndicate)
I know I'm missing more.
sniff Oh, Superman Animated Series. To think what crap followed you . . . . .
Those meh straight to DVD movies like Death Of Superman and Brainaic Attacks?
Since Superman never got to have another series after that like Batman tends to do so.
The movie's real audience score was a B, which is the score Catwoman received.
Keep in mind that a film's Cinemascore is determined by as favorable a group as a movie could hope for and that a C rating is basically a failure.
Heck, even the Star Wars prequels all got A- ratings.
Have fun seeing what movies are roughly as good or better than Batman vs Superman!
The Cat in the Hat? B-!
Ace Venture 2? B+!
Star Trek Insurrection? B+!
Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon? A!
Doesn't cinema score only poll opening night audiences? So, the people that are super excited to go and are in the theater surrounded by other people super excited to go?
I am a lot into any of the source material that exists but to be frank I don't care if they interpret the stuff completely different. Thats not what made the movie bad for me. I just didn't enjoy the script, the characters and the visual.
BvS Box Office news: insiders are predicting the movie will make a LITTLE more than Man of Steel at the Box office, but factoring in how much more it cost to make and market, it's looking like the profit margin will be about 20-30mil LOWER than Man of Steel.
Makes sense to me.
BvS Box Office news: insiders are predicting the movie will make a LITTLE more than Man of Steel at the Box office, but factoring in how much more it cost to make and market, it's looking like the profit margin will be about 20-30mil LOWER than Man of Steel.
Right now it is also doing a couple million less than the new Melissa McCarthy movie, which if it stands for a big movie such as this to only be number one for two weeks has to be seen as a disaster to a lot of people
Also going through the list of Superman's villain's gallery I have started to think that they really overshot going to directly to Darkseid and Luthor working with him when someone like Brainiac would have made a hell of a lot more sense , especially if you could tie in how he got access to the Kryptonian computers and giving him promises of knowledge and power over Superman, which has happened many times in the comics (and amazingly well in the DCAU pertaining to Superman TAS and Justice League and JLU)
Luthor and Braniac have a long history of working together in the comics and animations going back decades, Braniac really is a much more natural second step than Darkseid.
Darkseid is cooler, but mostly because he's THE big badass o the galaxy. But once you do him there's not much to step back to.
They shoulda just done a live action version of New Frontier.
New Suicide Squad trailer: http://www.mtv.com/news/2865158/suicide-squad-trailer-2016-mtv-movie-awards/
Whoever they got to make these SS trailers is a goddamn savante.
As much as I couldn't give a care at all about seeing Batman V Superman… I am super ready for Suicide Squad.
ANd the not-on-mtv's shitty site edition.
I do lke that it is running through the Wayne's World soundtrack, apparently. Can't wait for the Harley-centric trailer set to "Dreamweaver"
If they really are using all the funny scenes up in the trailers . . . . .
I'm really hyped for this!
If they really are using all the funny scenes up in the trailers . . . . .
According to this source, Faraci is full of bullshit.
For example, how many sites reprinted the story that the Suicide Squad reshoots were all about adding jokes to the movie because they used every joke in the movie in the last trailer? Sorry, but that’s just nonsense. There were some big reshoots, but it wasn’t just to add jokes, and they certainly didn’t use every single joke in the film in the last trailer. The reason everyone picks that up and runs with it is because they like how nice and neat it sounds. Reshoots. Add jokes. Fix movie. Never mind that people went crazy about my (accurate) reportage about how divisive early reactions were to Batman v Superman. People didn’t want to hear that story, so they attacked me and they attacked my reporting, determined to simply shout it down.
Read more at http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/harley-quinn-continues-to-dominate-in-new-suicide-squad-trailer#OUv6J0HLjeivHu0W.99
That article doesn't offer any sorts of facts to counter the "reshoots to add fun" narrative though. Beyond the fact that the second trailer also has a fun tone, and thus they didn't literally put every joke in the first trailer I guess?
Its currently impossible to judge whats "original" footage, whats reshoots or even whats previously cut material they decided to incorporate. It remains to be seen how cohesive the final product is, but however way the film was put together, its clear that they're doubling down on the vibe of the popular "Bohemian Rhapsody" trailer, not the more dour and moody first teaser.
At the end of the day, the "narrative" is still: Bombastically Grim and Serious Batman V Superman is followed by fun and kooky-looking Suicide Squad.
Wasnt it the claim that all the jokes were up in the previous trailer? This trailer has more fun scenes in it and the reshoots that were supposed to add more are happening right now.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Daz:
Its currently impossible to judge whats "original" footage, whats reshoots or even whats previously cut material they decided to incorporate.
I find that highly improbable given the timeframe.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Oh btw, is WB still keeping Zack Snyder? How the hell lol?
Idunno how the timeframe on these things are, but the Queen trailer was three months ago, which seems like enough time to respond to the positive feedback, and shoot some quippy dialogue. But yes, this trailer seems to indicate they didn't put literally all the humor in the first one; that doesn't mean that reshoots can't serve to further cement the tone these trailers are selling.
What I'm saying is, I don't think this trailer is grounds for saying Faraci, and anyone else reporting on the reasoning of the reshoots, are "bullshitting".
The reshoots started this weekend.
Also Drew McWeeny was THE ONLY ONE (shockingly) who said "I've heard stuff about BvS, it's not great, Warner is worried" and he was right. To now say "well I don't believe it when he says the reshoots to add jokes thing is bunk" because it doesn't cite sources feels like cherrypicking the rumours you want to believe.
Reshoots happen in every movie. All MCU movies have had them, all X-Men movies have had them. Star Trek Beyond is currently doing reshoots.
Everyone is making something out of nothing with this story because everyone wants it to be WORRY, PANIC, DOOOM!!! with DC. Hell even the director has hat to come out and saying something about this crap:
The reshoots started this weekend.
Also Drew McWeeny was THE ONLY ONE (shockingly) who said "I've heard stuff about BvS, it's not great, Warner is worried" and he was right. To now say "well I don't believe it when he says the reshoots to add jokes thing is bunk" because it doesn't cite sources feels like cherrypicking the rumours you want to believe.
Plenty of people said that though, including Devin Faraci, whom Lef's post was sniping at? But yes, this ultimately comes down to rumors on both sides, which cannot be concretely disputed or confirmed. Which is why you can't say "This articles opinion regarding the rumors proves that this other guys opinion is bullshit!" - especially when this second article is based on "see, this trailer is also cut to have a fun vibe" and not "I have direct proof that the "reshoots to add fun" theory is bullshit".
Whatever perspective is correct will likely never be verified, because we will never see a "pre-reshoots" cut of the film, and even if the "add fun because negative response to BvS" was true, no one involved in Suicide Squad would ever admit that; that'd be throwing a movie still in theaters under the bus.
So obviously neither side can be taken as cold hard fact; but the assesment that the reshoots are to further fine-tune the films tone based on audience reception is a fair suspicion to have, is all I'm saying.
At any rate, Suicide Squad looks more fun than BvS:DoS, and thats all that matters.
The information concerning Suicide Squad getting reshoots was available before Faraci added the "Reshoots to make SS more fun" narrative, those who took and run with it cite him. This rumor even reached me on other platform. I don't mind that the rumor exist, I mind that people keep referencing it and then it can very well transform into-
"Well looks like they sure did use all of the funny scenes in the new trailer, now"
"Well sure looks like them reshoots added that element of fun"
It depends on just how literally you take "they used every joke in the first trailer."
If you really think the entire 2 hour film had a total of six jokes in it, that's a bit much and hard to believe. But if the entire film has four or five minutes of jokes, mostly from Harley, that's enough to fill several trailers but still have used up a fair ammount of it pretty quickly. ANd then there's a difference betwee jokey moments like the bar scene, or just one liners.
In any event, regardless of what's going on with the movie, its very clear the MARKETING changed its direction. The first trailer, tying into the BvS trailers, was pretty dour, and then the second one was super fun. ANd this one is doubling down and also using hte Wayne's World secondtrack. Regardless of what the movie is or was meant to be, how it's being presented and the mood they want to set is vastly different than it was a couple months ago.
@Daz:
Plenty of people said that though, including Devin Faraci, whom Lef's post was sniping at? But yes, this ultimately comes down to rumors on both sides, which cannot be concretely disputed or confirmed. Which is why you can't say "This articles opinion regarding the rumors proves that this other guys opinion is bullshit!" - especially when this second article is based on "see, this trailer is also cut to have a fun vibe" and not "I have a direct quote from the director that the "reshoots to add fun" theory is bullshit".
.
I could've sworn I had edited that out of my post, and added an "even if the "add fun because negative response to BvS" was true, no one involved in Suicide Squad would ever admit that; that'd be throwing a movie still in theaters under the bus." to the end. Director quotes are not absolute truth, and theres simply no way anyone would publically announce that "we know you're mad about the current film, so we're doing damage control and altering the new one, don't worry! Please support the current film though".
I'm hard pressed to see what it actually matters whether the theory is true or not, if the final film is representative of the advertised tone. If we could somehow see what the film was like pre vs post reshoots it could prove that Faracis sources were unreliable in this case, but even if that was the case, we still have a film thats' advertised in a polar opposite way to the studios' current controversial release, so it still creates the impression of a slight course-correction.
If you edited the post, I probably happened to load the thread before you edited it.
But yeah, I see your point, I just thought it was funny that we actually had the Director's word on it lol.
I think the original rumor of "It had like, 6 jokes in the entire movie, you saw all of them in the trailer" was, at the very least, exaggerated. I highly doubt they'd take a movie with The Joker, Harley Quinn, Captain Boomerang and Will Smith playing Deadshot and NOT have some humor naturally in it. Dark humor, mind, but still definitely humor. It's entirely possible that the reshoots they are doing now happen to have more comedy, would not doubt that for a second, but I find it difficult to believe that it was THAT devoid of it before.
It's official, Batflick Solo film and Ben Directing! Even though it was obvious lol
http://screenrant.com/batman-solo-film-ben-affleck-confirmed/
There's also a rumor I saw that said James Gunn wants to direct Shazam…...I wouldn't mind that
ANd the not-on-mtv's shitty site edition.
Something tells me I'm into something good that I'm going to enjoy Harley the most from this. And good on you, Will Smith, you finally get to make up for the dreariness and cinematographic torture that was After Earth, with something fun!
Jared Leto's Joker…..I'm getting Glenn Howerton vibes (Dennis from It's Always Sunny). I like it.
http://www.avclub.com/article/jared-leto-also-mailed-used-condoms-his-suicide-sq-235260
Jared Leto channels the internet in his Joker
Jared Leto is a douche if you ask me.
That's completely disgusting. He just lowered my opinion of him. I really hope this isn't true. You do not disrespect the Fresh Prince in such a way. Many other ways but not this…
http://www.avclub.com/article/jared-leto-also-mailed-used-condoms-his-suicide-sq-235260
Jared Leto channels the internet in his Joker
I can (?) understand the idea of trying to be in character or whatever, but….dude.
For the sequel, Leto will send the rest of the cast copies of BvS.
For the sequel, Leto will send the rest of the cast copies of BvS.
That's completely disgusting. He just lowered my opinion of him. I really hope this isn't true. You do not disrespect the Fresh Prince in such a way. Many other ways but not this…
Making a song about doing some pointless motion with your hair was already taken.
ANd the not-on-mtv's shitty site edition.
I do lke that it is running through the Wayne's World soundtrack, apparently. Can't wait for the Harley-centric trailer set to "Dreamweaver"
I need this almost as much as DC needs this.
http://www.avclub.com/article/jared-leto-also-mailed-used-condoms-his-suicide-sq-235260
Jared Leto channels the internet in his Joker
Wow. And I thought Daniel Day Lewis was a super-method actor.
Wow if Leto considers sperm-mailing as "being Joker" then we might be looking at a Joker being worst then Lex-pissing-in-cup.
In more Joker news, The Killing Joke will be an R-rated animated film.