Re: DC's "Suicide Squad" (August 5th, 2016)
Jye do you agree with my original assessment that SS is better than both Avengers films?
Jye do you agree with my original assessment that SS is better than both Avengers films?
New scores. How many times you've seen the flick Zach? I'll add that in there if it's changed.
View attachment 284992
What the heck did I just walk into ?
Jye do you agree with my original assessment that SS is better than both Avengers films?
Please don't do this to me.
I'm gonna need a minute or two alone, boys.
Are you talking about the movie or this thread?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That actually sums it up pretty well, as it relates to my perspective on this one. Joker wasn't funny, but he typically isn't in the conics. Nicholson made him way funnier than he should have beenty templeton has his say ,looks like this guy wont be working foe dc anytime soon
I think you're largely right here, but I don't agree that a director puts themselves in such a negative position when a movie fails due in large measure to studio interference. Because I think outside observers are savvy enough to know when this happens, and to infer the truth even when the director says otherwise. And certainly, other studios, or particularly the same studio, are going to know more about the real ins and outs than any of us, because it's their job to know these things. They all play the game, can tell the hallmarks of interference, can discuss it with others who make decisions and are in the know, and act accordingly. It's like Israel claiming they don't have a nuclear arsenal. They can say it all day, but everyone who pays attention and has an interest knows the real truth. Particularly national leaders. And of course, that affects what other states do.It's a LOT more complex than that.
Director's are indeed doing a "job", but like any artist (not factory worker) you will be judged by the creative integrity of final product and that in the long term can drastically effect the rest of your career. It's money clashing with art. Film reviewers think they are art reviewers, studios think they are a business (with sprinklings of artist integrity, but only if it's financially sound).
It's whether you can pay your tax bills in 5 years time. Not some "hobby" as you mentioned. It's the real world kid. So watching from the shadows while a studio potentially destroys your artistic vision is a dangerous thing. Because in several months time you will be asked to go and sell whatever piece of **** THEY have created. Those sneaky committee cutting fingers disappear into the woodwork and you are left to take the rap. It's your vision, except it's not. very dangerous not just on this movie, but on your next project your career. Thats a very careful line to walk, play good dog with the studios or try to protect your own invested interests. There is no right and wrong move in a situation like this as it is just that, very situational. What Trank did was stupid, he wasn't in a position to act like a petulant spoilt brat, and he came across as just that. But if he had played ball with the studio the movie would have still tanked and he would have been labelled as a hack. It's lose lose. And before you start talking about the amount of money directors get paid and that it's a city baby response, it's not.
Sure you get paid a **** load of money on a project, but you may not work again for a couple of years on a feature and if your project flops and is destroyed by a studio, you take the rap financially. Directors for the most part are studio scape goats in this day and age. Unless you hit a certain level, but even JJ had holy war with Disney behind the scenes on SW.
Anyway my point being, your analogy to doing a job is not accurate. Just like musicians fight with record labels it's about artist product being misrepresented to the public and the LONGTERM ramifications of that. Play ball take the cash and have a short ****** career or fight the system, speak publicly and risk being blacklisted by the studio. Generally going against the studio is slow motion suicide.
Ayer made his decision and he got lucky, the movie has made $$$$$$. But if it had not the studios would have blamed him, the movie was critically panned and his name dragged professionally through the mud. That **** does matter in the real world because it's as real as getting fired from a job, in front of 100 million people, getting the next job is not so easy.
It's a gamble pure and simple, it worked for Ayer, lets see how Gareth Edwards gets on.. it may not be so rosy.
Or Snyder's JL. Big box office? doesn't matter about who did what, perceivable flop.. blame the director.
Ass-biscuits served two ways.
For me it's Cap trilogy, Batman Begins, Suicide Squad, then all the rest.
Coherent and well edited movies are over-rated, anyway.
Coherent and well edited movies are over-rated, anyway.
Ok, it wasn't as painful a thought process as I was expecting, going to the dentist is still worst.
OK here goes, while Avengers follows that same peaks and valley I applied towards BvS for me it simply can't be touched because it is as iconic a moment in cinematic superhero history as STM and Batman 89 were.
But since AOU is not protected with that iconic status, I think SS is a better overall movie than AOU.
I meant it when I said that SS is a solid movie with no valleys.
This was a studio interference that worked as far as i'm concerned, and i'll say it again, it is NOT interference when they own the damn property!
If I hire a nanny to babysit my kid I can still step in and do as I please!
OK fine not an exact comparison but you get the idea.
TWS/CW are 2 other movies with no valleys but their peaks are higher in the action department while SS is higher in the emotional department, so they're tied.
BB/TDK don't dip into deep valley territory, more like very shallow valleys.
BB shallow valley is the 3rd act.
TDK shallow valley is lack of action and Dent's turn.
But TDK has a huge peak with Ledger's Joker.
Whew, that was exhausting.
Coherent and well edited movies are over-rated, anyway.