Suddenly I have an interest in this... thing? I thought it was a TV series, but I guess it's a movie? Whatever. I just know that when it comes to comic book stuff like this, positive critic and fan reviews mean I'm guaranteed to dislike it. I really don't mean to sound like a contrarian, I just evidently have very different tastes from the mainstream. Hell, my favourite comic book films (the only ones I like, really) are Watchmen and Batman vs Superman.
Well, I'm not surprised. The trailers tried way too hard and everything I've heared about 'Suicide Squad' seemed to be ripped off of either 'Guardians', 'Deadpool' or 'Ant-Man'.
Aside from Cara Delelvingne's transition into Enchantress (which looks really cool) there seems to be nothing new.
Marvel has, outside of the movies, completely destroyed the Fantastic Four IP, from killing them off in the comics (of course with the door being left open for them to come back) to removing all the merchandise from every store shelf, there is basically nothing left from the team outside of used products being resold.
None of which causes Fox to release crappy movies no one wants to watch, nor prevents them from making good movies that people will actually go out and see, so to act like any of this is at all relevant to how poorly Fox has handled the Fantastic 4 movie rights is pretty ridiculous.
Good Fantastic 4 movies from Fox would be FAR greater of a draw towards Fantastic 4 comics and merchandise than vice versa. But in the face of poor sales and a lack of interest from a wider audience that they're getting from their own movies, why wouldn't they focus on the properties they're actually making money from rather than FF? That's not sabotage, that's just a sound business decision.
I think you missed the point. Its not laying the failures of FF4 at Marvel's feet. It's that Marvel is making a bad situation worse, by stripping away any 'in built' audience. Making a situation where Fox's FF4 is the only FF4 currently around. So no unwitting fans of the current comics are going to go give the films a shot, because the comics are gone. Also makes getting money for future products harder because there is less of an IP to fall back on.
On the reviews bit:
Reviews are weird. They're such a 'Know your target audience' deal. That first review just makes me want to see it because they sound like a humourless pretentious bastard. They laid it on so thick, that I don't just dismiss their opinion, I feel the need to go and form my own.
But then to the right audience, its probably pretty damning.
Well, I'd expect it to be a poorly edited mess, considering they hastily re-shot half the movie and jammed the pieces of the two together. Given that it apparently had a darker tone, with bits of black comedy thrown in, beforehand, and then they tried to spin it around to a more half-comedy affair in the wake of BvS's tone falling so awkwardly (and the tone was probably not the biggest of that movies problems)
Its prettymuch Destiny (the game) storytelling at that point, trying to cobble together assets to form something coherent after the original was choppped apart and half-unusable.
'of' Instead of 'have' sounds weird! It does not even make sense to say out loud! Why not use ''ve'? There's the faster version already!
OT: Sad. I wanted it to be good, was the only DC movie I was a bit interested in seeing, because the trailers looked fun. Seems like they really don't get it.
Honestly, I was doing the opposite. BvS was so God awful that it killed my interest in Suicide Squad, which I was actually looking forward to as opposed to BvS.
undeadsuitor said:
Dc needs to learn some better editing. It would help if they stopped shoving flashbacks into everything
I feel there is a difference between the kind of "bad" films you mention, which are just plain unpleasant or boring to watch and a film like Batman V Superman.
BVS is the kind of bad film the internet (ironically) adores and which a large part of it thrives on, like The Phantom Menace. A film that can be analysed and picked apart by YouTube personalities and with enough material for jokes and rants. The "right" kind of bad movie can prove to be quite a valuable commodity these days.
In general I feel that alot of people have been desperate to find the next 'Phantom Menace' for a few yeara now and have been actively trying to push that kind of reputation onto a lot of films such The Hobbit Trilogy or Man of Steel. Howecer with the diversity of opinion on the internet now though its difficult to find that kind of consensus of opinion.
Especially the Hobbit movie comparison, on a technical level they were not bad movies yet people are blowing them out of proportion bad. Its especially sad to the performances of Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf, etc.
The music (especially the first movie)
The atmosphere, etc.
Just people like to bring up the Lord of the Rings movie which if are really comparing the movies then the Hobbit book is inferior to the Lord of the Rings book.
As a DC/superhero fanboy I'm obligated to see it. Haha
I've also found I'm generally more easy to please then the average nerd. The only nerd movies that I have truly hated are the Transformers films and Abrams Trek.
Also, I really want this film to do well because I think villain based movies are very interesting and exist outside of that one outline that is used for every superhero flick ever.
...It?s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film?s highly fetishized violence doesn?t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo. (Oh, how the movie wants to be both of those things.) It?s simply a dull chore steeped in flaccid machismo, a shapeless, poorly edited trudge that adds some mildly appalling sexism and even a soup?on of racism to its abundant, hideously timed gun worship...
?Suicide Squad is weird. And it?s an interesting kind of weird: awash in black magic, gooey eyeball monsters, and Escape From New York-like explosive neck devices...it could just be an excuse to have a bunch of costumed actors wander around, shoot guns and crack flat jokes...
Ouch, Warner and DC appear to have another dud on there hands. Looked decent from the trailers but these reviews make me wary. Why DC didn't appoint Geoff Johns from the start I'll never know.
Glorifies violence poorly? Rascist? Sexist?
To be honest, the first linked review almost makes me want to go see it now xD Just needs a few more -isms.
Seriously, glad I'm not the only one who thought that the reviews make is sound like a movie I would love!
Its a movie about a thrown together group of supervillians forced into kicking ass for truth-and-justice or die trying. What the fuck did they expect? The movie could literally be 90-120mins of dick jokes while they blast the shit out of stuff while Blitzkrieg Bop plays in the background and I would fucking love it.
This is not a thinking movie, nor was it ever supposed to be.
...How are you spiting Dawn of Justice... by proving to WB that you'll buy a ticket to a DC movie no matter what the hell they shovel into it the franchise?
Whatever, I'm a simple man who liked simple things.
I knew SvB was going to be bad for many reasons and while I did initially thought Sucide Squad did look bad from the photos but at least it has humor so I given them a chance thefore I paying to go see it unlike SvB.
Yes both are DC movies but I actually do hoped they can get their acts together like Marvel.
So the biggest problems are its disjointed, muddied, confused and poorly edited. Which to me sounds exactly like what a movie that was ordered to have emergency mandatory re-shoots following the disaster that was BvS would be like. Hacked together and recut a hundred times to make a movie that's good enough to make its budget back, but nothing else.
What's a sticking point to me is why does DC think these movies are good in the first place? BvS was a surprise to them. They legitimately thoughts they had a game changer. It all sounds like designed by committee where everyone is overruling everyone else to the point of bland, bleached generic uninspired boring movies are inevitable.
So the biggest problems are its disjointed, muddied, confused and poorly edited. Which to me sounds exactly like what a movie that was ordered to have emergency mandatory re-shoots following the disaster that was BvS would be like. Hacked together and recut a hundred times to make a movie that's good enough to make its budget back, but nothing else.
What's a sticking point to me is why does DC think these movies are good in the first place? BvS was a surprise to them. They legitimately thoughts they had a game changer. It all sounds like designed by committee where everyone is overruling everyone else to the point of bland, bleached generic uninspired boring movies are inevitable.
I think we're getting to a root cause here. The failure supers movies have people who aren't making the movie because they have a movie they want to make. Ultron had its visionary wanting o-u-t OUT of the franchise while Civil War had a bunch of people wanting to do the storyline and getting some moderate hype from RDJ about how he's back because he likes what was going on with his character. Apocalypse was made because they had to make another X-men while Deadpool was a passion project.
And then we get to the two most recent DC movies. I believe the quote was something along the lines of 'vs movies are when you run out of ideas' and SS is clearly because Marvel does 2 movies a year. Poor Batfleck, you have terrible timing.
There is already a petition to have Rotten Tomatoes shut down for having bad reviews of DC films.
Idiots have no clue that RT does not write the reviews.
I'd take the "X million dollars to break even" assessment with a grain of salt, to be honest. What's more relevant is that the film cost $175 million to make, which is pretty average for modern blockbusters.
The problem I've recently discovered - and which Hollywood has actually been dreading for some time - is that a lot of their revenue comes from international theatres, and international theatres pay a much smaller percentage of the ticket price back to the studio (~20-25% as compared to 50% and up). A massive international box office can translate into not that much money, so the better questions is how much of that $750-800 million box office is made in China and how much is made locally; that dramatically affects the amount of money the studio sees afterwards.
If we assume the marketing budget was the same size as the production budget (as it was with BvS, which was a colossal waste of money as far as I'm concerned - all the marketing they needed was in the freaking name of the film), then the film puts them out of pocket about $350 million. Assuming the studio gets half the box office, they'd need $700 million before they start turning a profit. So maybe that number isn't too far off; then again, I made a lot of assumptions, like an inflated marketing budget and a 50% ticket price return.
It's really hard to tell if a film is going to make a profit or not, which is partly intentional on the studio's part (look up Hollywood accounting sometime).
AccursedTheory said:
Crap. If even a quarter of what's in that article is half true, there's a special kind of shit show happening over at WB.
None of what that article stated is really that exceptional. They're trying to push out an MCU-sized franchise in a handful of years; everyone there is working under pressure. Six weeks for a script and a $175 million budget is, sadly, unsurprising.
The worst thing to be true in that article, if it's accurate, is the idea that they're getting the guys who edit their trailer to recut the film. That's just...that explains a lot about BvS, really. Trailers aren't produced by directors anymore; they're produced by marketing people. Marketing people know how to get an audience's attention in two minutes with some stock sounds, snappy licensed music and quick-cuts; they can't edit an entire film. Now I understand why the theatrical cut of BvS was full of scenes that only existed to set up unrelated future films at the expense of scenes where they explain what the fuck is actually going on in the plot.
minkus_draconus said:
There is already a petition to have Rotten Tomatoes shut down for having bad reviews of DC films.
Idiots have no clue that RT does not write the reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes is terrible for an entirely separate reason; they aggregate all film reviews into either "rotten" or "fresh." Meaning a guy could give a film a 49/100, and as far as RT is concerned, he may as well have given it a 0.
That's not even getting into the problems with reducing review scores to a binary state to begin with. Some reviews don't even give a score. Most don't use a percentage system. And the way RT interprets the scores is, frankly, kinda dodgy - I saw them give a C+ review the "rotten" ranking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an A-to-F scale is essentially a 1-6 scale, and a C+ should be on the positive end of 3 - i.e., the top half. Reading a C+ as "rotten" only makes sense if they're grading on a curve, essentially - and they shouldn't be doing that, because reviewers aren't required to review every film released and are probably only going to review the ones that get the most attention. It'd be like only taking exam results from your smartest students and then declaring half of them below-average students.
There's zero room for mediocrity in Rotten Tomatoes, is what I'm saying. Maybe if every film critic in the world used a percentage score, it'd be accurate. But lots of critics don't do that. Yahtzee is one of my more trusted video game reviewers, and sometimes I don't think even he can tell whether his review was positive or not. How can RT do it?
I'd take the "X million dollars to break even" assessment with a grain of salt, to be honest. What's more relevant is that the film cost $175 million to make, which is pretty average for modern blockbusters.
The problem I've recently discovered - and which Hollywood has actually been dreading for some time - is that a lot of their revenue comes from international theatres, and international theatres pay a much smaller percentage of the ticket price back to the studio (~20-25% as compared to 50% and up). A massive international box office can translate into not that much money, so the better questions is how much of that $750-800 million box office is made in China and how much is made locally; that dramatically affects the amount of money the studio sees afterwards.
If we assume the marketing budget was the same size as the production budget (as it was with BvS, which was a colossal waste of money as far as I'm concerned - all the marketing they needed was in the freaking name of the film), then the film puts them out of pocket about $350 million. Assuming the studio gets half the box office, they'd need $700 million before they start turning a profit. So maybe that number isn't too far off; then again, I made a lot of assumptions, like an inflated marketing budget and a 50% ticket price return.
It's really hard to tell if a film is going to make a profit or not, which is partly intentional on the studio's part (look up Hollywood accounting sometime).
AccursedTheory said:
Crap. If even a quarter of what's in that article is half true, there's a special kind of shit show happening over at WB.
None of what that article stated is really that exceptional. They're trying to push out an MCU-sized franchise in a handful of years; everyone there is working under pressure. Six weeks for a script and a $175 million budget is, sadly, unsurprising.
The worst thing to be true in that article, if it's accurate, is the idea that they're getting the guys who edit their trailer to recut the film. That's just...that explains a lot about BvS, really. Trailers aren't produced by directors anymore; they're produced by marketing people. Marketing people know how to get an audience's attention in two minutes with some stock sounds, snappy licensed music and quick-cuts; they can't edit an entire film. Now I understand why the theatrical cut of BvS was full of scenes that only existed to set up unrelated future films at the expense of scenes where they explain what the fuck is actually going on in the plot.
minkus_draconus said:
There is already a petition to have Rotten Tomatoes shut down for having bad reviews of DC films.
Idiots have no clue that RT does not write the reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes is terrible for an entirely separate reason; they aggregate all film reviews into either "rotten" or "fresh." Meaning a guy could give a film a 49/100, and as far as RT is concerned, he may as well have given it a 0.
That's not even getting into the problems with reducing review scores to a binary state to begin with. Some reviews don't even give a score. Most don't use a percentage system. And the way RT interprets the scores is, frankly, kinda dodgy - I saw them give a C+ review the "rotten" ranking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an A-to-F scale is essentially a 1-6 scale, and a C+ should be on the positive end of 3 - i.e., the top half. Reading a C+ as "rotten" only makes sense if they're grading on a curve, essentially - and they shouldn't be doing that, because reviewers aren't required to review every film released and are probably only going to review the ones that get the most attention. It'd be like only taking exam results from your smartest students and then declaring half of them below-average students.
There's zero room for mediocrity in Rotten Tomatoes, is what I'm saying. Maybe if every film critic in the world used a percentage score, it'd be accurate. But lots of critics don't do that. Yahtzee is one of my more trusted video game reviewers, and sometimes I don't think even he can tell whether his review was positive or not. How can RT do it?
Oddly enough, Rotten Tomatoes has critics giving Dawn of Justice an average score (Not percentage liked) of 4.9/10 (49/100), about 5 points off of Metacritic (44).
Oddly enough, Rotten Tomatoes has critics giving Dawn of Justice an average score (Not percentage liked) of 4.9/10 (49/100), about 5 points off of Metacritic (44).
And that somehow translates into a 27% rating on the Tomatometer, which is twenty points out. And it's the lower number that gets the most publicity; reports on box office failures get more page views than reports on box office eh-coulda-been-betterer's.
This is why I fucking hate Rotten Tomatoes. Can you tell that I fucking hate Rotten Tomatoes? This is why.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
