DC flops again: Suicide Squad 34%

[Deleted]

Here's a link: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batma...vie-89397.html

Yes, I believe it did cost WB more to make Suicide Squad.

You believe it cost nearly double?

[Astalnar]

Those critics' opinions nowadays are worth as much as the toilet paper. Good enough only for wiping your ass. The disconnect between the critics and the audience is astonishing. And it's the audience that matters, not the critics, especialy so when it comes to summer blockbusters, only thing that matters at the end of the day is the profit the film makes, not the ratings it recieves from a bunch of "critics".

[Jtbrig7390]

The man is clearly pissed about how the movie was handled.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sui...GSS-05-10aaa0b

"I always wished this film were rated R.

Suicide Squad actor Jared Leto, who played Joker in the action movie, has spoken up to say he wishes the record-breaking movie was rated R. He also remarked that he shot enough scenes for an entire Joker movie, though many of these were apparently cut.

"I always wished this film were rated R," Leto told BBC, as reported by Entertainment Weekly. "It felt like, if a film was ever going to be rated R, it should be the one about the villains."

For his part, director David Ayer told MTV News it was always his goal to make the movie PG-13, though he acknowledged that pushing it to R would be something "worth lobbying for."

Suicide Squad did not contain as much footage of the Joker as fans might have expected or wanted. Many of the Joker scenes were cut, and they apparently amounted to enough to fill an entire Joker movie.

"I think that I brought so much to the table in every scene, it was probably more about filtering all of the insanity," Leto said. "Because I wanted to give a lot of options, and I think there's probably enough footage in this film for a Joker movie.

"If I were to die tomorrow, maybe the studio would roll something out. Rated R or rated X performance in there somewhere.

I enjoyed the movie but couldn't agree more, this is a movie about villains and it should have been R rated. His scenes shouldn't have been cut ether.

[Deleted]

Because of the reshoots, rewrites and large marketing, yes, I think that number is probably accurate.

Let me just get this straight.

You believe that Suicide Squad, cost not only more than the $410 million that BvS cost, cost more than On Stranger Tides, which is the most expensive movie of all time, which supposedly beats BvS on being overbudget by 600k.

And not only do you believe that, you believe that it completely obliterated the previous record, and that Suicide Squad, Suicide Squad, has become the most expensive film of all time.

And you think that because of a few reshoots?

Infact, don't answer, i'm done with this topic, if you honestly believe all that, your crazy.

[Shinzai]

Here's a link: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Batma...vie-89397.html

http://movieweb.com/batman-v-superma...tions-nervous/

Yes, I believe it did cost WB more to make Suicide Squad.

The reshoots cost in the tens of millions range. Not hundreds of millions. The marketing was around the usual $100 million mark. Most people who actually analyze financing for movies suggest it cost $375 million all in. The reason the $800 million figure is tossed around, is because that would be a flat 100% profit margin.

DC and all involved would of course like the movie to make a solid $800mil, just to compare to Marvel's figures. At the moment, DC simply doesn't have the comparative clout in the cinema, where as any Marvel movie released is almost guaranteed a full 100% return.

The film factually cost less to make and market than BvS. Re-shoots included. To flat break even, the film will have to make around $400mil. $800mil is a note worthy success in DC's eyes.

[Shinzou]

Let me just get this straight.

You believe that Suicide Squad, cost not only more than the $410 million that BvS cost, cost more than On Stranger Tides, which is the most expensive movie of all time, which supposedly beats BvS on being overbudget by 600k.

And not only do you believe that, you believe that it completely obliterated the previous record, and that Suicide Squad, Suicide Squad, has become the most expensive film of all time.

And you think that because of a few reshoots?

Infact, don't answer, i'm done with this topic, if you honestly believe all that, your crazy.

Don't drink what he is selling.

http://deadline.com/2016/08/suicide-...ie-1201799046/

But when BvS was flogged for being too dark and serious at the end of March, news hit that Suicide Squad was returning for reshoots (some say that cost the studio an extra $22M, which is included in the pic’s estimated $175M production cost).

[Jeleh]

Dire reviews have not stopped fans it seems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37008775

$135m in it's opening weekend makes it the biggest august release - beating guardians ($94m)

It's also made an estimated $132m additionally worldwide so far.

I am hoping to go and see it tomorrow so will see what I think of it then. However, the hype appears enough to keep it afloat. Even if it bombs in the coming weeks, opening earnings like that should see it crawl over the line.

[Deleted]

Dire reviews have not stopped fans it seems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37008775

$135m in it's opening weekend makes it the biggest august release - beating guardians ($94m)

It's also made an estimated $132m additionally worldwide so far.

I am hoping to go and see it tomorrow so will see what I think of it then. However, the hype appears enough to keep it afloat. Even if it bombs in the coming weeks, opening earnings like that should see it crawl over the line.

Oh yeah it'll make its money back easy, BvS did that as well, whether it'll actually be considering a success by WB is another thing though.

[Deleted]

Those critics' opinions nowadays are worth as much as the toilet paper. Good enough only for wiping your ass. The disconnect between the critics and the audience is astonishing.

If you base your decision on watching a movie on a critics opinions, then you are just stupid.

Critic reviews should be looked to for perspective and to help understand the style of said movie before you see it. "Is it my cup of tea? Is it a genre I will enjoy? Why was it so good or bad in those scenes? Did the actors perform well? Was the story well told?"

At the end of the day, it's just a personal opinion and a statement on a work of art. And we all damn know how art is subjective.

[savagetommy]

There's a saying in my mother language:

A critic and an eunuch are the same - both of them know how, but none can.

[Beefsquatch]

Come on, it's easy. They were afraid of feminist backlash. It's the same reason why Negan was never going to bash a woman's brains in on The Walking Dead. You can't show women being abused in films anymore. Men blown to pieces? All good.

I really hope that isn't the reason they changed a very important aspect of these iconic characters. It basically makes Joker look even more like a crazy thug instead of a psycho serial killer that likes to fuck with people (mainly Batman) just for shits and gigs.

[Zeek Daniels]

There are magazines / websites that liked it. Which is why I was asking why people use Rotten Tomatoes as the be-all-end-all (but only when a film gets shit reviews)?

Maybe because RT has 200+ reviews of a movie that you can pick through to see if you want to see the movie or not. And no I am not talking about the tomato meter, i mean actually reading the reviews to get some real opinions.

[The Stormbringer]

Critic reviews =/= how well a movie does.

[Bigbazz]

Whether or not it flops depends on how much profit it makes, if any. The critics didn't like it, but from what I tell a lot of the real comicbook movie fans did like it, and it's doing well financially so far. So really it should be considered a great success? Critics have praised movies that flopped financially and were not well liked by the general fans, and really considering it's a money business that's where the real flop happens.

[eschatological]

I really hope that isn't the reason they changed a very important aspect of these iconic characters. It basically makes Joker look even more like a crazy thug instead of a psycho serial killer that likes to fuck with people (mainly Batman) just for shits and gigs.

I think it may have more to do with the idea of the re-shoots wanting to make Suicide Squad a more upbeat film after BvS. That was, in fact, the point of the re-shoots, and I don't think it was just to add humor.

So WB shot themselves in the foot - a really important story element that is very serious and very dark they neutered because they thought people didn't like that stuff in BvS - as opposed to it being out of place, specifically, for those characters, especially Superman.

[Mahourai]

I think it may have more to do with the idea of the re-shoots wanting to make Suicide Squad a more upbeat film after BvS.

I'd watch the Ultimate Edition of Suicide Squad with Ayer and Zack Snyder re-editing the film to spec. Instead of running away in fear from BvS, they needed to embrace it (and also discard the incipient "extended universe" in favor of simply making films).

[eschatological]

I'd watch the Ultimate Edition of Suicide Squad with Ayer and Zack Snyder re-editing the film to spec. Instead of running away in fear from BvS, they needed to embrace it (and also discard the incipient "extended universe" in favor of simply making films).

I agree - I think it should have gone something like this:

1. Man of Steel.
2. a movie about Superman and Doomsday - even keep the Lex+Zod origin story and make Lex the main antagonist, a sinister scientist who disdains the very idea of Superman-as-god, who wants to prove he's flawed and not to be trusted. Obviously make Doomsday look like Doomsday. Make Superman really come to question who is is and whether he can keep the faith. Even make him potentially do something bad that makes Batman really doubt him.
3. Solo Batman movie explaining wtf happened to Jason Todd and why he's broken. Last scene should be Man of Steel's ultimate fight. Sort of jarring us into the present.
4. BvS, first scene near the end of the Doomsday fight, with an actual fleshed out wonderment at the potential disaster a villainous Superman could be. With a cameo from WW. Let the story be about Superman coming to grips with his role in the world, and Batman coming to grips with Superman. Give a nod to the comics by Batfleck finding Lex's files while he's locked up, and start researching individual weaknesses of all the future JL members.
5. Splinter off into the solo movies, with cameos.
6. Justice League.


I mean, it's so easy. There's not even an excuse for why they didn't do it this way - Superman and Batman are bigger draws than any one of the Avengers by themselves, imo. How you don't build a universe on two of the most popular characters in modern media is beyond me.

[Beefsquatch]

I agree - I think it should have gone something like this:

1. Man of Steel.
2. a movie about Superman and Doomsday - even keep the Lex+Zod origin story and make Lex the main antagonist, a sinister scientist who disdains the very idea of Superman-as-god, who wants to prove he's flawed and not to be trusted. Obviously make Doomsday look like Doomsday. Make Superman really come to question who is is and whether he can keep the faith. Even make him potentially do something bad that makes Batman really doubt him.
3. Solo Batman movie explaining wtf happened to Jason Todd and why he's broken. Last scene should be Man of Steel's ultimate fight. Sort of jarring us into the present.
4. BvS, first scene near the end of the Doomsday fight, with an actual fleshed out wonderment at the potential disaster a villainous Superman could be. With a cameo from WW. Let the story be about Superman coming to grips with his role in the world, and Batman coming to grips with Superman. Give a nod to the comics by Batfleck finding Lex's files while he's locked up, and start researching individual weaknesses of all the future JL members.
5. Splinter off into the solo movies, with cameos.
6. Justice League.


I mean, it's so easy. There's not even an excuse for why they didn't do it this way - Superman and Batman are bigger draws than any one of the Avengers by themselves, imo. How you don't build a universe on two of the most popular characters in modern media is beyond me.

I 100% agree with everything here. This, this is what they should have done. Suicide Squad should not have come this soon. The "villains" in SS could've been touched upon in the Batman solo movie, and that would've freed up a good 30-45 mins in SS for story development. How do you think they should fix the fuck ups they have done? Do you think a reboot is necessary at this point?

[Beet]

And 'critics' are trustworthy?

Yeah I'd say so for sure. Most movies critics gush over have been pretty damn sick. I used the critics ratings when I was a kid to go back and watch movies I missed out on like Goodfellas, Shawshank etc. That's two movies right there that critics would say are among the best ever made and I'd greatly agree with them. Whereas some user reviews claim Tyler Perrys Madeas Family Reunion is a masterpiece and I really really have my doubts that's the case.

[Mahourai]

I agree - I think it should have gone something like this:

I'm not sure you do agree, unless you're saying that you agree SS should be recut, not about the extended universe stuff.

Three should never have been a Justice League film, or Aquaman, or Flash or any of that - unless they can succeed first as films, not as pieces of marketing for themselves. The very idea of a 10-step plan to Justice League or whatever is anathema to making good movies.