I didn't like how they portrayed Waller in this one they made her too hokey, in the original Suicide Squad she was like ruthless gangster employed by the government. [Reply]
Too many insignificant characters that existed for no other reason than to serve a messy death. Weasel? WTF was that? A giant weasel that jumps into the ocean when it can't swim? The beginning felt like a total rip off of Deadpool 2. There were so many characters and so many deaths, it was hard to really care about any of them. The bad guy being a giant one-eyed starfish was pretty stupid too. Like a cyclops Patrick from Spongebob.
Ohh, and defeated by rats. Yeah...
I'm usually a Gunn fan. But this was a turd. Better than the original.
But it felt like they were trying too hard, and it just didn't work..
It was definitely more fun to watch than the first one. Starro and King Shark were cool. I like seeing lesser known villains like Ratcatcher and Polka Dot Man. I've been a fan of David Dastmalchian since he was in The Dark Knight. He's a Kansas City guy. [Reply]
According to Samba, 2.8 million people watched #TheSuicideSquad on HBO Max this weekend. If every single one of them paid $10 to see it in theaters the weekend gross would have been $54.5 million.
The first movie made $64.8 million in a single day.
According to Samba, 2.8 million people watched #TheSuicideSquad on HBO Max this weekend. If every single one of them paid $10 to see it in theaters the weekend gross would have been $54.5 million.
The first movie made $64.8 million in a single day.
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
I feel like weasel needed more screen time. Is that a real thing from the comics??
I had to look. Technically, yes. But it was one of the most brief comic cameos ever. In the comics, he apparently wasn't even a weasel, but wore a costume. Didn't have any powers. And died immediately.
Not sure why you'd want more screen time. They did absolutely nothing to fill in any backstory other than "Well, he did kill ~20-30 kids." Can't remember the exact quote. But nothing else for backstory. That wasn't mentioned in the comics. He said nothing. Did nothing. Other than a bit of intrigue factor, it was a complete waste. It made bringing him back at the end to be completely pointless. I don't really get it.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
I had to look. Technically, yes. But it was one of the most brief comic cameos ever. In the comics, he apparently wasn't even a weasel, but wore a costume. Didn't have any powers. And died immediately.
Not sure why you'd want more screen time. They did absolutely nothing to fill in any backstory other than "Well, he did kill ~20-30 kids." Can't remember the exact quote. But nothing else for backstory. That wasn't mentioned in the comics. He said nothing. Did nothing. Other than a bit of intrigue factor, it was a complete waste. It made bringing him back at the end to be completely pointless. I don't really get it....
Oh ok thanks. Weasel was basically just a funny throwaway gag. I liked his tiny bit of screen time, but admit it would be hard to build a full character around that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Deberg_1990:
Oh ok thanks. Weasel was basically just a funny throwaway gag. I liked his tiny bit of screen time, but admit it would be hard to build a full character around that.
During watching, I actually hoped it was going somewhere. Kinda thought they were doing a similar to Rocket Racoon setup. But, no... [Reply]
I'm perplexed by the negative reaction to this movie here. It's like we saw a different movie. Also I'd like to mention, most of those characters from the beginning were Z-list, shit-tier characters. It's kind of a testament to Gunn that he made people care enough to be upset about them.
Although I have noticed, there is something about putting a character on screen that elevates it. In comics it might just be nonsense that some writer pooped out in 1973 because he was on a deadline and didn't have another idea, but when you cast an actor and put him in the costume it inherently adds a weight to it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jamie:
I'm perplexed by the negative reaction to this movie here. It's like we saw a different movie. Also I'd like to mention, most of those characters from the beginning were Z-list, shit-tier characters. It's kind of a testament to Gunn that he made people care enough to be upset about them.
Although I have noticed, there is something about putting a character on screen that elevates it. In comics it might just be nonsense that some writer pooped out in 1973 because he was on a deadline and didn't have another idea, but when you cast an actor and put him in the costume it inherently adds a weight to it.
Don't get me wrong, it's still easily a top 3 DC film. I think I raised my expectations way too high knowing Gunn was attached when it was simply good.
Something else I found issue with this film, was that most of the characters were way too...good? I thought this was supposed to be a movie about terrible criminals, when really only Peacemaker fit the bill. Everyone else was just too nice. [Reply]