Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth:
That's probably a fair assessment. A few of the characters people are familiar with, but a lot of them aren't. 98% of moviegoers knew nothing about GotG, but they managed to introduce the characters without even getting much into any of their backstories.
Granted, GotG sets a pretty high bar that I doubt the sequel will duplicate, but I'm so tired of every new character spending the first movie doing an origin story. Yes, Pratt's character had a pseudo origins background, but the film really just hit the ground running and didn't handhold throwing you into the entire universe of characters without a bunch of exposition.
Considering that 1 version of the film introduced almost all the characters right out of the gate, and Ayers' version introduced characters on a rolling basis, some even in the final 1/3 of the movie, it just seems like it would be impossible to marry the 2 versions and not end up with a mess.
I came away form the movie with the feeling that Margot Robbie is a good actress who was cut off at the knees in the editing room to make way for another 'everyman' performance by Will Smith. [Reply]
Maybe that's the problem with it. Harley Quinn should have been the star of this movie and Robbie had the chops to do it, but it wasn't allowed to happen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Maybe that's the problem with it. Harley Quinn should have been the star of this movie and Robbie had the chops to do it, but it wasn't allowed to happen.
I wouldn't be surprised if it actually "happened" but was chopped in editing.
Originally Posted by listopencil:
I came away form the movie with the feeling that Margot Robbie is a good actress who was cut off at the knees in the editing room to make way for another 'everyman' performance by Will Smith.
They tried too hard with Quinn's character and the randomness and quirkiness was tiring toward the end. If they cut some off while editing, it was a good thing. Her character is one that's only good in small doses. Posted via Mobile Device [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
Suicide Squad, officially the third film in the DC Extended Universe, has finally opened in theaters, but the response is surely not what Warner Bros. was hoping for. Writer/director David Ayer’s villain-centric film has been a highly anticipated one for some time, and even in the wake of disappointment over Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad offered hope that Warner Bros. was going to release something refreshing and exciting for the DC library. The resulting film, unfortunately, is a messy, poorly edited, borderline incoherent superhero pic, and has netted a bevy of harshly negative reviews.
However, according to a story from THR, Suicide Squad may have been the victim of too much second-guessing and rejiggering in post-production, a result of a production that was rushed to begin with, racing towards a release date without a finished script. And as we’re now firmly into the DC Extended Universe without a critically acclaimed hit, it’s time to step back and assess the damage, and admit that Warner Bros. may have rushed into this thing without learning the most important lesson from its most successful DC adaptation: Christopher Nolan’s iconic Dark Knight Trilogy...
Originally Posted by listopencil:
Because Marvel is better than DC? Batman is my homie but I'd give the overall nod to Marvel.
Marvel, and Disney, have their shit together because, in chief, they've wisely laid out a road map, and been given near autonomy. DC is foolishly trying to play catch up and as such in their rush to put down the broad strokes, they're overlooking the finer details.
First, there’s no race. DC is rushing to get comprable franchises up on screen. You can't shortcut over a decades worth of work to catch up. Instead of trying to rush to get even with Marvel, DC should have been pursuing to beat the pace time Marvel had set at each leg of building up the MCU.
Keeping with the subject of time. It's still temporary. Marvel is going to hit rough stretches and new leadership and creative talent doesn't come with a guarantee of repeated past success.
That's what I mean by neither Marvel or DC is better or worse. This isn't Coke vs RC. They have equal footing even if currently Marvel is in bloom. DC has to deal with WB, and maybe the new management is already addressing it? Otherwise, WB seems to be telling DC to stick with "New" Coke when Classic is the right play.
Historically speaking, DC has the the biggest iconic characters, and they've managed to bring most of them to the screen with 2 left feet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth:
Marvel, and Disney, have their shit together because, in chief, they've wisely laid out a road map, and been given near autonomy. DC is foolishly trying to play catch up and as such in their rush to put down the broad strokes, they're overlooking the finer details.
First, there’s no race. DC is rushing to get comprable franchises up on screen. You can't shortcut over a decades worth of work to catch up. Instead of trying to rush to get even with Marvel, DC should have been pursuing to beat the pace time Marvel had set at each leg of building up the MCU.
Keeping with the subject of time. It's still temporary. Marvel is going to hit rough stretches and new leadership and creative talent doesn't come with a guarantee of repeated past success.
That's what I mean by neither Marvel or DC is better or worse. This isn't Coke vs RC. They have equal footing even if currently Marvel is in bloom. DC has to deal with WB, and maybe the new management is already addressing it? Otherwise, WB seems to be telling DC to stick with "New" Coke when Classic is the right play.
Historically speaking, DC has the the biggest iconic characters, and they've managed to bring most of them to the screen with 2 left feet.
I was taking a glance at which characters fall into which universe last night. I did it because I never followed these guys with any depth. TBH-I'm really not a comic book hero guy at all. I read Mad, Cracked, and Peanuts collections as a kid. My two favorite comic book heroes are Batman and Wolverine. So...looking at a list of each set of super heroes, the Marvel universe characters have more appeal to me. I would expect the Marvel movies to be better than the DC movies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by listopencil:
I was taking a glance at which characters fall into which universe last night. I did it because I never followed these guys with any depth. TBH-I'm really not a comic book hero guy at all. I read Mad, Cracked, and Peanuts collections as a kid. My two favorite comic book heroes are Batman and Wolverine. So...looking at a list of each set of super heroes, the Marvel universe characters have more appeal to me. I would expect the Marvel movies to be better than the DC movies.
Growing up, loved me some MAD magazine, Cracked (though distant 2nd compared to MAD), and The Far Side. Toss in a side of Calvin and Hobbes. [Reply]
