|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2016 10:06:08 GMT
Suicide Squad. My Kid went, I asked him for a review. "Started extremely average and failed to get much better" Rotten tomatoes currently has it at 27%, poor, and state My Kid didnt read that before he went, but offers "Dont bother its disappointing" as a review. Which is a dayum shame, as the trailer makes it look quite good?... www.rottentomatoes.com/m/suicide_squad_2016/I will watch it eventually, but not at full price .... so maybe in two or three months when it hits the "remainders" bins?.. I am accepting my Kids review, as we like pretty much the same things, he says its a dark action film, so dont watch it in bright lit room, he says there are some humorous parts, but not full on comedy. And no where NEAR as funny as Deadpool type laugh loudly and pause it 'till you stop funny.... Does this again open up the argument that DC comics cant make a good film?... is there a dark sinister reason why Rotten Tomatoes scores it so badly?.. or is it just that it isnt as good as the trailer makes out... again... and that why all DC comics films score so bad?. If anyone else has seen it, please tell me it aint as bad as all that?. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2016 10:20:14 GMT
PS, Just to make it plain, I did not eagerly await this as a chance to "slate" DC Extended Universe films again, I was rather hoping it came out good, because there is not much happening in new releases right now, and the TV is bloody boring.
I have no reason to slate DC films other than independent film-by-film analysis that "there is something missing", in the hope they fix this, because they have good material potential, if they just try a different way to make it better?...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 16, 2016 18:44:27 GMT
We had free tickets to go and see it, using up some Nectar Points, it was not dreadful just a bit adverage.
It was hampered by a few things, and if you know about the history of the film and its millions of dollars of reshoots
Originally it was going to be quite a dark film, but after Deadpool came out and the comparative failure of Batman Vs Superman it was decided to lighten the tone and add more comedy than was originally written in the scrip, and get a lower rating.
The also played around with editing for example in one scene in the original script Mr J pushes Harley Quinn from a moving helicopter to kill her, in the new version he pushes her out to save her as the chopper crashes this alters the relationship between them.
They also filmed some darker scenes that were originally put into the trailer, like Mr J after the chopper crash all bloody with a hand grenade but did not use these more bloody scenes in the finally cut.
The monsters that the Suicide Squad fight are quite poorly CGIed blooby monsters that look like something from Dr Who almost, I wonder if in the original cut we would have seen them fight more human looking monsters, think of what happened with the computer game Carmaggeddon when it was released in the UK green blood as the things you were killing were zombies, and the mod that came out turning it red.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 16, 2016 19:58:37 GMT
Rotten Tomatoes doesn't actually review films. They simply aggregate reviews from other places. They also have no reason to mark DC films down given that until very recently they were part owned by, errm, Time Warner.
Suicide Squad was written in six weeks, which explains a LOT of the problems people seem to have with it. A typical "positive" response from people who are not rapid "fanboys" (such as the individual who's trying to get rotten tomatoes shut down because DC films haven't had the best scores...apart from the Nolan Batman films that is) seems to be "decent, but quickly falls apart in the third act".
Box office wise (US Domestic) the film broke records for an August release on its opening weekend. But it has seen a drop off comparable to BvS since then. It is still at the top of the US box office as of typing, but hasn't exactly got any major competition to deal with.
The general impression is of a film that is actually similar to BvS, if with less vitriol as it wasn't hyped as much. Plenty of interest in the characters, with Joker being somewhat divisive which is not that surprising. But not a great film people want to go back and see again for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 17, 2016 4:08:13 GMT
I read an essay that was intended to explain why Marvel films are currently doin so much better than DC films, and the summary has to do with being faithful to the source, taking time to develop the characters, and not trying to rush to keep up with Marvel.
batman is actually a VERY good example.
consider: Robert Downey Jr. is Iron Man. who is Batman?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 17, 2016 5:43:20 GMT
I am BatDragon....
Faithful to the source, DC or Marvel, Go ask an Aussie about Ford versus Dodge, your one or the other.
Ask a Mancunian about football, Man City or United. Pick one, stick with it...
Unless, like me, you abhor the amount of "Checkbook football" and the absurdly high hundreds of millions being paid for players, and wonder why I am surrendering my Man United fan club membership, because what was once a weekly affordable working mans passtime, watching the footie, has now become a weeks wage to go and see if I take the Kids.
I cant AFFORD to be a Man Utd fan any more, and despise the weekly wage of one player who would pay the whole teams running costs of a team one or two divisions below (Inc wages of all the players...)
The weekly Wage bill of "Rooney" plus all his corporate sponsorship would pay off all the running costs of FC United and pay off the mortgage on the ground in two months, onwards to three to four months would pay off the running costs for the whole year.
On to the films and franchise...
I am neutral of DC/Marvel.
If anything, I am a Lego fan (heh heh heh big kid?..yep..) and have all the games of the DC/Marvel lego hero's.
I cant see why the cant get together better and make better films for all of us.
The public wants both, so a shared pool of resources would just make better films for all?..
The combination of all in the games for Lego worked quite well. The humour just was the icing on the cake.
Prior to the BvS film, the interplay of them in the films worked well.
A Film can be serious as it needs be, but, when a few of our lads left for war zones around the airfields of UK, did the humour stop?. did it all become too serious?.. hell no, the pranks and jokes if anything increased, so serious and humour works, by human nature, hand in [shaving foam filled] glove...
(yes, one of the wags at our station thought it funny to fill my motorcycle gauntlets full of shaving foam...)
I see your point abut the faithful, but I ask, are we all that faithful?.. I still quote Bill Shankley whaqn I say "Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.'", he was a Liverpool Legend, "opposition".
He ALSO said, "'Pressure is working down the pit. Pressure is having no work at all. Pressure is trying to escape relegation on 50 shillings a week.
'Pressure is not the European Cup or the Championship or the Cup Final. That's the reward.' ", which brings my point to a close, if you are in a Final, you are in the bloody final is all?.. hell that means you are in the top TWO in the competition?.. thats reward enough, now go out and enjoy the game, because NO ONE is better than you two at this point.
There will be a winner, of course, but, you both deserve to be there.
So DC is "Slightly behind" in the game, get your game together, and be competition, not a "sore looser"?.. to win, you must up the game, not drag everyone else down to your level.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 17, 2016 14:11:15 GMT
to be clear on the "faithful" comment: it is like the difference between the LOTR trilogy and the Hobbit trilogy.
LOTR was considered a masterpiece, because Jackson was faithful to the books. Hobbit was considered a bloated sack of (something or the other) because he padded it out to be the LOTR prequel trilogy. instead of being faithful to ONE book that was half as thick as the thinnest of the books in LOTR.
the point is, what's in the comic books WORKS. Marvel cinematic universe uses what's in the comic books, DC cinematic universe has been wandering off into unexplored territory. the result is if Manchester United decided to hire on Peyton Manning to lead the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 17, 2016 19:06:07 GMT
As for putting Marvel and DC together, they do not share the same world and have different ways of working.
A major difference is the world of D.C. Is full of alternative places Central City, Jump City, Metropolis,Gotham etc. the Marvel universe character exist in a world more like our own, many like Spider-Man, the Fantasitic 4, Luke Cage, Captain America come from New York and have their adventures in the same place.
It's explored a little bit in the crossover comic book with the Avengers and the Justice League.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Aug 18, 2016 16:04:16 GMT
I rather enjoyed SS. From all the negative I heard about it, I went in with low expectations, and it was better than those low expectations. They gave some background on their characters and continued to develop them through the story. They had a relatively coherent plot that they stuck to through the entirety of the film and all side plots where just that, side stories. It had plenty of action (some say too much, but I didn't mind), and a resolution in the end.
Where there some boring spots, sure... where there some inexplicable happenings or WTH moments, absolutely. Still, the overall movie was enjoyable as a movie. But then, I'm one that goes to have fun and lose myself in the show, not pick it apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 8, 2017 4:00:12 GMT
yep. I watched it. I was entertained. was it good storytelling? no. but I was entertained.
|
|
perch. And you can print that."