After BvS, they actually hired an editor from the company that created the trailers and there was 2 cuts. Ayers cut and the other. Warner basically forced them to hack together parts of both cuts and was the reason for reshoots because combining the 2 was required to make the continuity work.
Congratulations, WB! They spooked after BvS and now have themselves a Frankenfilm.
If they would have just released the UC BvS the press would have been a lot more positive and Suicide Squad would be a VERY different movie.
Studio execs can't get out of their own way to keep from fucking up and shitting the bed. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth:
Warner screwed it and panicked.
After BvS, they actually hired an editor from the company that created the trailers and there was 2 cuts. Ayers cut and the other. Warner basically forced them to hack together parts of both cuts and was the reason for reshoots because combining the 2 was required to make the continuity work.
Congratulations, WB! They spooked after BvS and now have themselves a Frankenfilm.
If they would have just released the UC BvS the press would have been a lot more positive and Suicide Squad would be a VERY different movie.
Studio execs can't get out of their own way to keep from ****ing up and shitting the bed.
I disagree. I think the reshoots were just to lighten the mood and make it more "GotG" and less "MoS" and "BvS". The film DID seem like two different halves, but that was out of necessity; the first hour was introducing characters and setting up the flimsy "capture the flag" plot, the rest was the group trying to capture said flag. There really wasn't much plotwise, it was mostly just the characters quipping lines at each other--and even then it was basically "The Will Smith and Margot Robbie Show (with a Special Appearance by Jared Leto)". [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
I disagree. I think the reshoots were just to lighten the mood and make it more "GotG" and less "MoS" and "BvS". The film DID seem like two different halves, but that was out of necessity; the first hour was introducing characters and setting up the flimsy "capture the flag" plot, the rest was the group trying to capture said flag. There really wasn't much plotwise, it was mostly just the characters quipping lines at each other--and even then it was basically "The Will Smith and Margot Robbie Show (with a Special Appearance by Jared Leto)".
What's to disagree about? It's what happened [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
I disagree. I think the reshoots were just to lighten the mood and make it more "GotG" and less "MoS" and "BvS". The film DID seem like two different halves, but that was out of necessity; the first hour was introducing characters and setting up the flimsy "capture the flag" plot, the rest was the group trying to capture said flag. There really wasn't much plotwise, it was mostly just the characters quipping lines at each other--and even then it was basically "The Will Smith and Margot Robbie Show (with a Special Appearance by Jared Leto)".
Don't remember where (maybe Hollywood Reporter) saying exactly what Anyong said. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!:
Don't remember where (maybe Hollywood Reporter) saying exactly what Anyong said.
The facts, yes, but his supposition that this action created a "Frankenfilm" and was the sole reason it is supposedly a bad film is, IMO, incorrect. If anything, it seems like the execs probably stayed out of it more than they usually do; it seemed to me, like "GotG", that "Squad" was more a film made by people who, if they weren't making the film, would want to see the film they were making (if that makes sense). Honestly, it's not a great film, but given the source material I'm not sure how it could've been much better. It's a large cast so it has the problems any film with a large cast does, like "Avengers", or "GotG" or "Legends of Tomorrow" on TV, which is what the film feels most like--a bunch of losers who end up in a group. And since it comes after "GotG" and "Legends" it has an unavoidably derivative feel; if this film had come before "GotG" it probably would've gotten better reviews.
If I had one complaint I'd say they did try to make it TOO accessible and family-friendly; I've heard comments about violence but frankly there really isn't any--there was more violence in the scene in "BvS" where Batman rescues Clark's mom than there was in the entire "Suicide Squad" film. The film almost isn't dark enough; it's akin to the first "Batman" film, really. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
The facts, yes, but his supposition that this action created a "Frankenfilm" and was the sole reason it is supposedly a bad film is, IMO, incorrect.
90% of all films are created in the edit bay. Without a great edit, the most amazing script, direction and photography can be absolutely destroyed and turned into garbage.
Warner's is doing a terrible job in their comic universe post Nolan. If they had released the BvS UE edition instead of the watered down, overly edited version, there would be far less outcry and a more unified vision moving forward.
Now, they're likely screwed for a while and may never get it back on track. [Reply]
Originally Posted by JD10367:
The facts, yes, but his supposition that this action created a "Frankenfilm" and was the sole reason it is supposedly a bad film is, IMO, incorrect. If anything, it seems like the execs probably stayed out of it more than they usually do; it seemed to me, like "GotG", that "Squad" was more a film made by people who, if they weren't making the film, would want to see the film they were making (if that makes sense). Honestly, it's not a great film, but given the source material I'm not sure how it could've been much better. It's a large cast so it has the problems any film with a large cast does, like "Avengers", or "GotG" or "Legends of Tomorrow" on TV, which is what the film feels most like--a bunch of losers who end up in a group. And since it comes after "GotG" and "Legends" it has an unavoidably derivative feel; if this film had come before "GotG" it probably would've gotten better reviews.
If I had one complaint I'd say they did try to make it TOO accessible and family-friendly; I've heard comments about violence but frankly there really isn't any--there was more violence in the scene in "BvS" where Batman rescues Clark's mom than there was in the entire "Suicide Squad" film. The film almost isn't dark enough; it's akin to the first "Batman" film, really.
Asking people what they want to see is the biggest mistake. Talent is talent, and should be visionary. It's a presentation of artistic achievement, and frankly, 90% of the public has either poor taste or no creative talent.
If you want want a say, go read a choose your own adventure book.
Homogenized film is terrible. Studio execs are rarely "talent"- especially these days.
There's a reason why Robert Evans was so successful as a studio head in what was the last golden era of film in Hollywood. It baffles me that more visionary talent isn't in place to head up exec decisions when it comes to final say when the studios wanna tinker with a movie. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth:
Warner screwed it and panicked.
After BvS, they actually hired an editor from the company that created the trailers and there was 2 cuts. Ayers cut and the other. Warner basically forced them to hack together parts of both cuts and was the reason for reshoots because combining the 2 was required to make the continuity work.
I have several friends that edit trailers, whether blockbusters or indie films.
It's absolutely nothing like editing a film, whatsoever, and they'll tell you that honestly and upfront. They're two completely different animals.
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
I have several friends that edit trailers, whether blockbusters or indie films.
It's absolutely nothing like editing a film, whatsoever, and they'll tell you that honestly and upfront. They're two completely different animals.
What a mess.
Having done some editing in college, and as you mentioned in your last few posts, what may seem a dry job when compared to, say, director, couldn't be further from the truth.
Anyone who's done basic editing can appreciate how genius and talented a great editor can weave magic.
Take 20 clips of b roll and ask 10 people to put together a 30 second commercial. You'll be astonished at how much bland and obvious a lot of them will have in similarity. You'll be even more astonished when you see someone with an eye for editing and the subtle choices and using shots in a sequence that didn’t seem obvious to 90% of the everyone else.
Now, do it for a dozen hours of film shot, and slice it down to 90-120 minutes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth:
Having done some editing in college, and as you mentioned in your last few posts, what may seem a dry job when compared to, say, director, couldn't be further from the truth.
Anyone who's done basic editing can appreciate how genius and talented a great editor can weave magic.
Take 20 clips of b roll and ask 10 people to put together a 30 second commercial. You'll be astonished at how much bland and obvious a lot of them will have in similarity. You'll be even more astonished when you see someone with an eye for editing and the subtle choices and using shots in a sequence that didn’t seem obvious to 90% of the everyone else.
Now, do it for a dozen hours of film shot, and slice it down to 90-120 minutes.
I always find it hilarious when people with zero experience say they're going to purchase Final Cut Pro or Sony Vegas 14 or Premiere and become "an editor".
Uh, there's much more than video editing software to media of any type, whether it's a Feature Film, Documentary, Reality TV, Single or Multi-Camera TV and so on. There's this thing called "feel" and "instinct", not just chopping together a bunch of scenes.
And the crazy thing is that most of the editors that I know can't even really describe their process. One friend does blockbuster trailers, a few more do Reality, one's been at ABC/ESPN since 1979 and used to cut film back in the day, then worked on Avid, then Final Cut, then back to Avid.
But when asked to actually describe the job, it's a whole lot of "Well, I felt that this worked here and that worked there and we were able shape it from that point forwards".
I had neighbors in a small 12 unit townhome community back from 2000-2003 that turned a janitor's closet (it was literally like 10'x12', tops, maybe smaller) in the building into a video editing suite. I used to hang out with them at night just to watch them edit game trailers and movie trailers. It was a complete blast.
Now, they're the Co-Presidents of Ant Farm, one of the largest post houses in the world. They're uber successful but it's because they know what something should become, not because of an Avid rig. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
I always find it hilarious when people with zero experience say they're going to purchase Final Cut Pro or Sony Vegas 14 or Premiere and become "an editor".
Uh, there's much more than video editing software to media of any type, whether it's a Feature Film, Documentary, Reality TV, Single or Multi-Camera TV and so on. There's this thing called "feel" and "instinct", not just chopping together a bunch of scenes.
And the crazy thing is that most of the editors that I know can't even really describe their process. One friend does blockbuster trailers, a few more do Reality, one's been at ABC/ESPN since 1979 and used to cut film back in the day, then worked on Avid, then Final Cut, then back to Avid.
But when asked to actually describe the job, it's a whole lot of "Well, I felt that this worked here and that worked there and we were able shape it from that point forwards".
I had neighbors in a small 12 unit townhome community back from 2000-2003 that turned a janitor's closet (it was literally like 10'x12', tops, maybe smaller) in the building into a video editing suite. I used to hang out with them at night just to watch them edit game trailers and movie trailers. It was a complete blast.
Now, they're the Co-Presidents of Ant Farm, one of the largest post houses in the world. They're uber successful but it's because they know what something should become, not because of an Avid rig.
Awesome. Yes. Editors are rarely given the limelight or due credit. It's a perfect description of blending technical savvy, storytelling and gut instinct of someone who has a creative mind and eye for taking jumbled mess like a jigsaw puzzle.
The extraordinary ones can take the puzzle pieces of what was originally some boring picture, cut the pieces individually to refit them together and turn out a totally different, unique, and phenomenal picture unlike what was expected.
I liked the film. Thought it was better than the second Avengers movie. Not as good as Guardians, but not nearly as bad as some of the reviews are making it out to be.
Seems like critics love Marvel, but have a different set of expectations for DC movies. I expect there to be a "Ultimate Edition" for Suicide Squad when it hits blu-ray. I think the DC universe is back on track. Wonder Woman and Justice League previews look good, and they have managed to establish that their universe is different from Marvel's (bit darker tone, etc.)
Suicide Squad easily is as good as several Marvel Movies (better than say IM2 or IM3, Ultron, and Thor 2 for example). [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Suicide Squad easily is as good as several Marvel Movies (better than say IM2 or IM3, Ultron, and Thor 2 for example).
This right here. After watching "Squad" the group of us all talking about how unrealistic people's rose-colored opinion of Marvel is. I still like the first "Iron Man" but "IM2" wasn't very good and "IM3" was a horrible shitshow of stupidity. The "Thor" films were mildly interesting to me but I can see why no one else liked them. Same goes for the "Hulk" films. "Avengers" was great, and I enjoyed "Civil War", but "Ultron" was a bit of a headscratcher. The bright spot for Marvel IMO are the Cap films (which I've loved) and the standalones "GotG" and even "Ant-Man", which was not amazing but was well-done and interesting enough. But people act like Marvel hits it out of the park 24/7, which is simply untrue. [Reply]
