SUICIDE SQUAD (2016) Breaking Weekday Records

[DavidBanner]

This is looking like it will be an even larger bomb than I had thought possible. I really wish they would have taken my suggestion and just put it out as a direct-to-video remainder at supermarkets.
I don't know if it's too late for them to pull back on the other movies in this "franchise" idea before they lose over a billion dollars on them.


There's also a simple truth to comics that these guys are forgetting. Comics are meant to be bold, loud and in primary colors. They were never meant to be particularly deep - they're fun, and occasionally they give you a twist you weren't expecting. DC for years was known as the house of super-powered people who were almost godlike - like Superman and Wonder Woman. Marvel was known as the house of more approachable characters with more angst, like the teenage Spider-Man and the outcast X-Men. And for years, we rarely saw good movie or TV adaptations of this stuff, because the material didn't translate well, or because the TV producers neither understood the material or cared about it that much.

The Hulk and Wonder Woman made for good TV shows because they found ways to serialize for TV and ways to make those stories work as TV adventures. Superman worked fine as a TV show, and worked well in two Richard Donner movies with Christopher Reeve before falling apart.

It isn't too far off to play Batman dark, but the modern filmmakers keep forgetting that the counter to that darkness was always the wild color of the villains. The whole idea was Batman was dark and brooding, but these guys like the Joker and the Riddler were outrageous and bright as a contrast. It was never thought of as everything being dark and gloomy. Superman was always a bold, red and blue image, an unabashedly, unapologetically heroic figure who is happy to see he stands for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Superman is a story of optimism and hope, about someone who is an example that the world isn't an awful place after all. The new take on Superman that Snyder has inflicted is frankly a slap in the face to the guys who created him and to people who have enjoyed and appreciated the character for the past 80 years.

What these movies are missing is a sense of fun. Spontaneity. And until WB figures out what they've blown here, they will continue to alienate viewers, who will in turn refuse to spend their money or time sitting through these inflictions.

[AndyDursin]

Handing over the keys to Zach Snyder was a massive mistake. Absolutely massive clusterbleep decision, because it sounds like HIS fingerprints are all over this film.

I still believe, firmly, SQUAD will make a killing this weekend. It will have a huge opening regardless of reviews because the fanboys will want to see Joker and Harley Quinn. Beyond that, though, I'd be afraid of huge drops and poisonous word of mouth, just like BATMAN v SUPERMAN.

I agree with David, I still cannot believe they are going through with THE FLASH & AQUAMAN movies. WONDER WOMAN looks bad enough, and if SUICIDE SQUAD isn't a hit, how they can continue on with this line of films is just baffling. Like its own kind of suicide (as that review mentioned!).

[Monterey Jack]

I agree with David, I still cannot believe they are going through with THE FLASH & AQUAMAN movies. WONDER WOMAN looks bad enough, and if SUICIDE SQUAD isn't a hit, how they can continue on with this line of films is just baffling. Like its own kind of suicide (as that review mentioned!).

Considering how well DC has done for themselves on TV, both in animation (Batman: TAS, Justice League) and live-action (the well-regarded and entertaining Arrow and Flash shows, plus Supergirl), it's doubly baffling how they've totally whiffed with EVERY SINGLE superhero property they've brought to the big screen over the last decade, with the notable exceptions of the Nolan Batman films (and, good as they are...when was the last time you felt compelled to watch them again? I've had The Dark Knight Rises on Blu-Ray for the last TWO YEARS, and still haven't watched it). Considering that Marvel has managed to take C-list superhero characters like Ant-Man and the Guardians Of The Galaxy (that NO ONE outside of hardcore comic readers have ever heard of) and still make entertaining and commercially successful movies out of them, and DC can't even get people excited about a movie with BATMAN and SUPERMAN (only the two most famous superhero icons of ALL TIME) fighting each other, just proves what a ludicrous botch their feeble attempts at launching their own "cinematic universe" has been. Going though Arrow and The Flash on Netflix has been a far more gratifying and, more importantly, fun exercise than the glum, pretentious "seriousness" that Zack Snyder has slathered over DC's movies as of late (and I'm not trapped in a theater for an ungodly three hours -- including trailers -- to watch those TV shows).

[AndyDursin]

The thing that I've mentioned before, that I can't understand, is how WB gave the SMALLVILLE producers crap for EIGHT YEARS about how they couldn't use Superman, the costume, etc. etc., all because they were fearful of it confusing viewers of the movies or whatever their rationale was.

Yet, now they have 2 FLASHes running around. They just cast their own SUPERMAN in SUPERGIRL. None of them are in the least connected and the "Snyder universe" is its own thing, totally separate from what the TV side is doing.

HOW does this make any sense? It's just ridiculous.

As for Snyder, his decision to "kill off Jimmy Olsen for fun" -- for FUN -- in BvS says everything about who Snyder is and how he regards these characters. "Fun" has no place in his universe, and apparently neither does satisfying entertainment and developed characters.

[Monterey Jack]

The thing that I've mentioned before, that I can't understand, is how WB gave the SMALLVILLE producers crap for EIGHT YEARS about how they couldn't use Superman, the costume, etc. etc., all because they were fearful of it confusing viewers of the movies or whatever their rationale was.

And yet, for all the "Dawson's Creek" sniping that fanboys made about Smallville throughout its run, it's still the best live-action iteration of the Superman character for the last thirty years. It respected what came before, instead of sheepishly sweeping it under the rug for the sake of making the character "relevant" for a grim, post-9/11 world by draining every bit of humor and joy out of the idea of tying a cape around your neck and learning to fly. Yeah, it ran a few more seasons than it should have, but Smallville was a terrific show at its best, and the fact that it continued to run for five years after the resounding "meh" that greeted Superman Returns proves just how well-oiled an entertainment package it was. And I'm sure that the current Arrow and Flash shows will still have a loyal audience long after the current wave of DC movies have crashed and burned.

It just amazes me that WB continues to throw more money into their "cinematic universe" when it's obvious it's not working. Who wants a superhero movie that kids can't watch, except for aging fanboys who were calling their comic collections "graphic novels" when they were fifteen and continue to equate "grim & humorless" with "adult and challenging". They're honestly going to waste HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars before it finally sinks in, while the Marvel films continue to chug happily along because they're actually entertaining to watch.

[AndyDursin]

Well, there certainly wouldn't be a "better" way to cap one of the worst movie summers of all-time with this, the Seth Rogen animated "comedy" SAUSAGE PARTY next week, then the BEN-HUR remake nobody wanted on the 19th.

Hollywood needs to wake up and realize this crap they're feeding us is the reason people would rather stay home. It's not ticket prices or screaming kids and talking teens -- the product, first and foremost, has never been worse than this.

[Eric Paddon]

It isn't too far off to play Batman dark

Actually it is. Probably one of the greatest frauds that's ever been pushed is the idea of the "dark" version of Batman representing the true essence of the character in the beginning. That is not true because I have read many of the Batman comics from those early years and Batman is anything but a dark, brooding character. Yes, there is more violence as befitting the standards of the day but take a look at Batman #1 and you see a Batman who breaks the fourth wall to tell the readers that crooks are cowards without their guns! (this is when he lets Robin singlehandedly go after some thugs he's already rounded up). You see a Batman who cracks jokes during fights and a Batman who seems quite comfortable in his own skin. Even in the issues of Detective Comics that preceded Batman #1 this template was coming into play and at *most* the other image of Batman wasn't something that dominated the early issues nor was it the one that took hold with readers that made the character a success. Honestly, read *any* Batman comic book from the 1940s and you can practically hear Adam West's voice already coming off the pages.

The "dark" version of Batman is almost entirely the creation of 1970s comic writers who were so hell-bent determined to escape the image of the TV series that they tried to pass off what they were doing as a "return" when it was really an invention. People can legitimately call this vision more successful for a later generation etc. but I wish there could be some truth regarding where this concept of Batman really began because those who pick up the reprints of the 40s comics who expect early versions of the "Dark Knight" are going to be in for a surprise.

[DavidBanner]

Eric, I don't know that you're completely on the mark here.

The original iteration of Batman was not just more violent - he actively killed criminals and carried a gun in the beginning. In Detective Comics #27, he punches the bad guy through a railing, off a roof and into an acid pool, commenting afterward, "A fitting end to his kind." He was considered to be another variation on the idea of The Shadow. And his origin story begins with the murder of his parents. It's true that having Robin around helped soften him, and it's also true that he didn't spend every single moment brooding. But his was not the bright, happy, optimistic story of the Superman books. Batman was a character built on getting revenge against criminals for what they had done to his parents. This was toned down later on, particularly in the 1950s after the overall backlash against comic books had reared its head - particularly after the notorious Wertham book "Seduction of the Innocent" came out in 1954. At that point, Batman was effectively sunny-sided up. And it was this version of Batman that would get pushed all the way into camp by the 1966 Adam West TV series.

It's true that the Adams/O'Neil Batman comics of the very late 60s going into the 70s turned the lights back out again, but I don't know that it's true that they were somehow inventing a new version of the character. They were simply returning him to his gritty roots.

My point from before is that the wildness of Batman's villains is an intentional counterpoint to the basic darkness of his character. If the Joker and the Mad Hatter weren't so outrageous, the original iteration of Batman would really just be The Shadow. The villains' gallery is what really catapulted the character to a different place.

[Eric Paddon]

David, I'm not the only one who has put forth this argument. Jim Beard's essay in the anthology "Gotham City 14 Miles" has a very thorough study of the early issues of Detective Comics and shows how even the Batman there isn't as far off from how the character is in the TV series as people like to think. And this again takes up a very short amount of time in the overall history of the character which by the time of Batman #1 is even more suggestive of what Batman on TV would be in terms of basic template. Yes, Batman uses guns and yes there is more violence but that's more a comment on the general standards of what was allowed in those days when villains in general would often meet death.

I think the general point is that the basic template one sees of Batman in the 1940s is not as far removed from the initial template of the TV series as one thinks (I refer here to the slightly less outlandish tone of Season 1 when actual comic book stories from the "New Look" Batman era were being adapted for some of the early episodes). The reason I sad the dark version is "almost entirely" the creation of 70s writers is because yes they did go back to a basic germ of an idea in the initial concept but then they ran with it under the false pretext that what they were now doing was exactly how it had been done then which isn't the case at all.

The first Catwoman story with a non-costume "Cat" also shows how Batman could be rather light in tone and wisecracking even without an outlandishly costumed adversary.

[DavidBanner]

Granted all your points Eric. But the Adam West Batman never committed murder. The original Batman had no problem doing so. No problem shooting criminals with a gun or killing them by other means. As he noted in his first appearance, "A fitting end to his kind" after punching the bad guy off a roof to his death.

I agree that the 1970s Batman revival after the end of the TV series is not necessarily the identical match of what Kane and Finger were doing 30+ years earlier. But they were going back to the original intention of the comic, and of the kind of character he had originally been. As I noted, it's similar to the original character of The Shadow, but with a different approach.

And it's not a surprise why they wanted to dim the lights after the TV series concluded - in the end, that series had gone WAY over the top in terms of the camp factor and the guest celebrity factor. Denny O'Neil clearly felt that they were losing the thread of what makes Batman Batman, and so he went back to the original nature of the crime fighter that all the criminals fear.

And again, it's interesting that the common denominator throughout has been the colorful nature of the villains gallery for Batman, even when he himself has not been that colorful.

[AndyDursin]

SUICIDE SQUAD
5/10

Well, the Enchantress was hot....and, that's pretty much it.

Full review on the front page:

http://andyfilm.com/2016/08/03/8-9-16-k ... hout-more/

[DavidBanner]

I know several people who paid money to go see this. Not a single one of them came back with a good review. One person noticed that they seemed to have a lot of shots of Margot Robbie's rear end. The overall consensus was that the movie was trying too hard to be outrageous and pretty much just sucked.

The really odd thing is that they had announced a much higher budget before this week. I'm not sure how a movie's budget suddenly plunges from 250m to 175m, particularly after the movie just went through a series of panicked reshoots (as was the case with Star Trek Beyond). Either they got a LOT of cross-promotional money back in, or, more likely, WB wants to minimize how bad the loss will appear in public.

I'm thinking they'll take at least a 70% drop-off next weekend. From the numbers they were showing before, they would need 750m to break even. Even if we split the difference, they'll need somewhere around 600-650m to break even, and they have no chance of that. I'm thinking they'll wind up somewhere around half the box office of BS from earlier this year. That one made money, this one won't. They're probably looking at somewhere around a 200m haircut. I wouldn't want to be in the WB exec offices next week. They need to seriously think about how much money all these "DC Franchise" movies will cost the parent company. WB already had a bad year last year, compounded by a really bad year for HBO. They cannot have another bad year without severe consequences for the company and all its divisions.

[AndyDursin]

I thought it sucked pretty much too, but I'll part company with you on the commercial analysis. This opening is stellar, just as I expected it would be. It will drop for sure, but 70%? Not happening. I can see 60%, but kids are still out of school so it's unlikely to completely fall off the face of the Earth. It has no competition for the rest of the summer and will pretty much own the rest of the month. It also opened big overseas, breaking a number of records in foreign territories, so they are poised to put up big money with the start they have.

The budget according to Deadline was $175 mil -- and at least according to the article running today, that included the $22 mil in reshoots. I don't know how accurate that is, but I also never read anyone saying the budget was north of $200 million.

Barring a massive collapse around the world (and again, we'll see if the bottom drops out during the week and next weekend), the reality is that the movie is very likely going to be profitable. Hopefully the next one will be better! Just imagine -- if they actually made a good film, this would've been an absolute monster.

[DavidBanner]

You may well be right that this one will be able to get to the break-even. I honestly don't know. My instincts say it will plunge from all the bad word of mouth. I really have yet to hear a single good review of this movie.


I remember reading 250m as the budget in the Wikipedia listing as late as last week, and possibly in the Box Office Mojo listing as well. As of today, those numbers are now showing 175m. Maybe I misread the earlier listings. But I also remember that the Star Trek Beyond budget was shown on both Wikipedia and Box Office Mojo as 150m until right before it opened, and then the umber suddenly ballooned up to 185. (I think the number changed in both cases at Box Office Mojo and was then reflected at Wikipedia.)

[AndyDursin]

I don't know either I was just going by what I was reading too. I am genuinely interested in seeing what happens this week...will be fascinating to track especially with the Olympics going on.