Actually, there is no irony. You see, I didn't decide to start a petition to make Marvel fire Nick Spencer or for DC to stop making movies. I just boldy expressed my dissatisfaction and defended my position.
It's one thing to publicly disagree with what a creator does to a property, it's another to complain when everyone doesn't like what you like or everyone doesn't agree with your opinion. I personally don't need a bunch of positive reviews of my favorite comics or movies to enjoy them - even if no one agrees with my take. Furthermore, I don't need everyone on these boards to see that Nick Spencer is a political hack for me to continue to enjoy engaging in debate and discussion on these boards.
I don’t think people are any more thin-skinned than they were a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago. People’s voices simply have a farther reach and greater potential for being heard now than they ever have thanks to technology. And a larger percentage of people feel empowered to make their voices heard thanks to a greater feeling of societal equality than ever before. Unlike Clint, I see the perceived sense of increased complaining as coming from a leveling of empowerment (which I consider a positive even though it raises complications) within society rather than a deterioration of society.
People like to feel “right”—and always have—and more often than not, will fight against being made to feel we are in the wrong. That just comes down to natural egoism (not egotism) which we all have to some degree or another. And I don’t believe that natural sense of egoism is something that’s either good or bad, it’s simply part of being human.
The problem lies in the fact that when people feel empowered to make their voices heard, they expect others to listen. And when those others don’t listen, or aren’t perceived to be listening—such as when those others dismiss a person as being “thin-skinned” and thus “wrong” and, even worse,“not worth being heard from”—the person feels like their power (real or only perceived) is being taken from them, which can lead to resentment, entrenchment in their beliefs, anger, etc.
I don’t think people are any more thin-skinned than they were a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago. People’s voices simply have a farther reach and greater potential for being heard now than they ever have thanks to technology. And a larger percentage of people feel empowered to make their voices heard thanks to a greater feeling of societal equality than ever before. Unlike Clint, I see the perceived sense of increased complaining as coming from a leveling of empowerment (which I consider a positive even though it raises complications) within society rather than a deterioration of society.
People like to feel “right”—and always have—and more often than not, will fight against being made to feel we are in the wrong. That just comes down to natural egoism (not egotism) which we all have to some degree or another. And I don’t believe that natural sense of egoism is something that’s either good or bad, it’s simply part of being human.
The problem lies in the fact that when people feel empowered to make their voices heard, they expect others to listen. And when those others don’t listen, or aren’t perceived to be listening—such as when those others dismiss a person as being “thin-skinned” and thus “wrong” and, even worse,“not worth being heard from”—the person feels like their power (real or only perceived) is being taken from them, which can lead to resentment, entrenchment in their beliefs, anger, etc.
Not sure I can agree with that hypothesis. The modern culture has definitely nurtured better informed newer generations and maybe part of that is technology, but saying that they aren't any more offended than previous generations is a bit of a stretch.
Pew Research has done extensive polling on a related issue. Between Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers, the generation most in favor of the government banning offensive speech against minorities is Millenials who favor it by a whopping 40%. Only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) agree and only about one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
Technology? PC Culture saturation? Abundant media exposure? Whatever the 'cause' of this disparity may be debatable, but ignorance of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect offensive and unpopular speech is one of the many results. If summing up this trend as 'easily offended,' 'thin-skinned' or as Clint said 'pussy generation' I still think it's pretty clear that it has been increasing over time.
I don’t think people are any more thin-skinned than they were a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago. People’s voices simply have a farther reach and greater potential for being heard now than they ever have thanks to technology. And a larger percentage of people feel empowered to make their voices heard thanks to a greater feeling of societal equality than ever before. Unlike Clint, I see the perceived sense of increased complaining as coming from a leveling of empowerment (which I consider a positive even though it raises complications) within society rather than a deterioration of society.
People like to feel “right”—and always have—and more often than not, will fight against being made to feel we are in the wrong. That just comes down to natural egoism (not egotism) which we all have to some degree or another. And I don’t believe that natural sense of egoism is something that’s either good or bad, it’s simply part of being human.
The problem lies in the fact that when people feel empowered to make their voices heard, they expect others to listen. And when those others don’t listen, or aren’t perceived to be listening—such as when those others dismiss a person as being “thin-skinned” and thus “wrong” and, even worse,“not worth being heard from”—the person feels like their power (real or only perceived) is being taken from them, which can lead to resentment, entrenchment in their beliefs, anger, etc.
Not sure I can agree with that hypothesis. The modern culture has definitely nurtured better informed newer generations and maybe part of that is technology, but saying that they aren't any more offended than previous generations is a bit of a stretch.
Pew Research has done extensive polling on a related issue. Between Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers, the generation most in favor of the government banning offensive speech against minorities is Millenials who favor it by a whopping 40%. Only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) agree and only about one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
Technology? PC Culture saturation? Abundant media exposure? Whatever the 'cause' of this disparity may be debatable, but ignorance of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect offensive and unpopular speech is one of the many results. If summing up this trend as 'easily offended,' 'thin-skinned' or as Clint said 'pussy generation' I still think it's pretty clear that it has been increasing over time.
You've got a bad link there, but the survey only addresses censorship of racially offensive speech. I'm (rightly or wrongly for this discussion) thinking more broadly than at just reaction to racially offensive speech, or unreasonable fan outrage over a movie portrayal of comic book characters (which is where this started)—each of which are separate, though in many ways related, issues.
If you want to limit the discussion to “Are people more likely to be offended by speech offensive to minorities?” then, yes, I completely agree that more people today are offended by that than in the past, and that younger generations are more likely to be offended than older generations. But I would definitely chalk that up in large part to technology. The internet and easier access to mass transportation have made the world smaller, and today’s children are far more likely to have friends from different cultural backgrounds, or at least be far more aware of people from different cultural backgrounds, than our grandparents were. It’s only natural that as we become more aware of those different than ourselves—either culturally, racially, economically, gender-wise, etc.—that we will humanize those people, develop more empathy for them, be less likely to ignore their problems, and be more likely to speak out on their behalf.
We can discuss constitutional law and its place in our evolving society another time though, as I think that’s getting a little off track of the thread. (He says as he posts the above comments.) ;)
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of other people not to listen" Tommy Smothers
I'm hearing the only two problems with Suicide Squad is that they should have just left the Joker out of it and saved him for a Batman film and that the third act is a jumbled mess. Other than that, it's more fun that Ghostbusters (2016).
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of other people not to listen" Tommy Smothers
I'm hearing the only two problems with Suicide Squad is that they should have just left the Joker out of it and saved him for a Batman film and that the third act is a jumbled mess. Other than that, it's more fun that Ghostbusters (2016).
Catch it at a matinee though.
I tend to catch everything matinee, unless I have a free ticket!
I have heard a lot of the "first half good/second half bad" reviews from my peers. Still, they're saying it's worth seeing, not "avoid like the plague" or "wait for DVD/Netflix" so there's that as well.
Planning on throwing in my money to the kitty this weekend...
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of other people not to listen" Tommy Smothers
I'm hearing the only two problems with Suicide Squad is that they should have just left the Joker out of it and saved him for a Batman film and that the third act is a jumbled mess. Other than that, it's more fun that Ghostbusters (2016).
Catch it at a matinee though.
I tend to catch everything matinee, unless I have a free ticket!
Same here. Except for one occasion, where it wasn’t my preference, it's been at least 15 years since I went into a theater when it was dark outside.
I don’t think people are any more thin-skinned than they were a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago. People’s voices simply have a farther reach and greater potential for being heard now than they ever have thanks to technology. And a larger percentage of people feel empowered to make their voices heard thanks to a greater feeling of societal equality than ever before. Unlike Clint, I see the perceived sense of increased complaining as coming from a leveling of empowerment (which I consider a positive even though it raises complications) within society rather than a deterioration of society.
People like to feel “right”—and always have—and more often than not, will fight against being made to feel we are in the wrong. That just comes down to natural egoism (not egotism) which we all have to some degree or another. And I don’t believe that natural sense of egoism is something that’s either good or bad, it’s simply part of being human.
The problem lies in the fact that when people feel empowered to make their voices heard, they expect others to listen. And when those others don’t listen, or aren’t perceived to be listening—such as when those others dismiss a person as being “thin-skinned” and thus “wrong” and, even worse,“not worth being heard from”—the person feels like their power (real or only perceived) is being taken from them, which can lead to resentment, entrenchment in their beliefs, anger, etc.
Not sure I can agree with that hypothesis. The modern culture has definitely nurtured better informed newer generations and maybe part of that is technology, but saying that they aren't any more offended than previous generations is a bit of a stretch.
Pew Research has done extensive polling on a related issue. Between Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers, the generation most in favor of the government banning offensive speech against minorities is Millenials who favor it by a whopping 40%. Only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) agree and only about one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
Technology? PC Culture saturation? Abundant media exposure? Whatever the 'cause' of this disparity may be debatable, but ignorance of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect offensive and unpopular speech is one of the many results. If summing up this trend as 'easily offended,' 'thin-skinned' or as Clint said 'pussy generation' I still think it's pretty clear that it has been increasing over time.
You've got a bad link there, but the survey only addresses censorship of racially offensive speech. I'm (rightly or wrongly for this discussion) thinking more broadly than at just reaction to racially offensive speech, or unreasonable fan outrage over a movie portrayal of comic book characters (which is where this started)—each of which are separate, though in many ways related, issues.
If you want to limit the discussion to “Are people more likely to be offended by speech offensive to minorities?” then, yes, I completely agree that more people today are offended by that than in the past, and that younger generations are more likely to be offended than older generations. But I would definitely chalk that up in large part to technology. The internet and easier access to mass transportation have made the world smaller, and today’s children are far more likely to have friends from different cultural backgrounds, or at least be far more aware of people from different cultural backgrounds, than our grandparents were. It’s only natural that as we become more aware of those different than ourselves—either culturally, racially, economically, gender-wise, etc.—that we will humanize those people, develop more empathy for them, be less likely to ignore their problems, and be more likely to speak out on their behalf.
We can discuss constitutional law and its place in our evolving society another time though, as I think that’s getting a little off track of the thread. (He says as he posts the above comments.) ;)
I think there's a line. Obviously, objecting to slurs be it racial, orientation, or religious are justifiable & should be addressed. I more have issues with the minute nonsense.
Notice the DirectTV ads with alternate versions of person are pulled? People got offended by the likes of "petite Randy Moss" & "skinny-legs Peyton". Supposedly they discriminated against people with disabilities & shortness.
Hell, even the Bon Jovi commercial about "reconsider that 2nd child" is taking heat.
Evans & Renner joked Black Widow was a slut and were blasted for "slut-shaming" a fictitious character (who's been promiscuous in the source material. I was told to stop "mansplaning".
There was an airline who listed everything the cheap tickets did not include. They got blasted for "shaming" people who couldn't afford better seats. I'm betting those same people would complain about not knowing what wasn't included if the airline didn't post it.
If someone gets called stupid on social media, he/she goes into a tizzy about it.
I know some of it is a sense of entitlement. There's some cases where people claim to be offended for other people. For example:
You call a buddy "Rico Suave" who's smooth with the ladies, but someone else claims your racist because your buddy is Hispanic.
I have heard a lot of the "first half good/second half bad" reviews from my peers. Still, they're saying it's worth seeing, not "avoid like the plague" or "wait for DVD/Netflix" so there's that as well.
Planning on throwing in my money to the kitty this weekend...
Is this a bad time to mention I'm waiting to Netflix the movie?
I have heard a lot of the "first half good/second half bad" reviews from my peers. Still, they're saying it's worth seeing, not "avoid like the plague" or "wait for DVD/Netflix" so there's that as well.
Planning on throwing in my money to the kitty this weekend...
Is this a bad time to mention I'm waiting to Netflix the movie?
M
Nah. It's probably how I'll end up watching it, assuming I ever make the time to watch it. Actually, I'll probably end up watching it in a hotel room while I'm out of town working a convention. That seems to be how I watch most movies these days.
I don’t think people are any more thin-skinned than they were a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago. People’s voices simply have a farther reach and greater potential for being heard now than they ever have thanks to technology. And a larger percentage of people feel empowered to make their voices heard thanks to a greater feeling of societal equality than ever before. Unlike Clint, I see the perceived sense of increased complaining as coming from a leveling of empowerment (which I consider a positive even though it raises complications) within society rather than a deterioration of society.
People like to feel “right”—and always have—and more often than not, will fight against being made to feel we are in the wrong. That just comes down to natural egoism (not egotism) which we all have to some degree or another. And I don’t believe that natural sense of egoism is something that’s either good or bad, it’s simply part of being human.
The problem lies in the fact that when people feel empowered to make their voices heard, they expect others to listen. And when those others don’t listen, or aren’t perceived to be listening—such as when those others dismiss a person as being “thin-skinned” and thus “wrong” and, even worse,“not worth being heard from”—the person feels like their power (real or only perceived) is being taken from them, which can lead to resentment, entrenchment in their beliefs, anger, etc.
Not sure I can agree with that hypothesis. The modern culture has definitely nurtured better informed newer generations and maybe part of that is technology, but saying that they aren't any more offended than previous generations is a bit of a stretch.
Pew Research has done extensive polling on a related issue. Between Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers, the generation most in favor of the government banning offensive speech against minorities is Millenials who favor it by a whopping 40%. Only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) agree and only about one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
Technology? PC Culture saturation? Abundant media exposure? Whatever the 'cause' of this disparity may be debatable, but ignorance of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect offensive and unpopular speech is one of the many results. If summing up this trend as 'easily offended,' 'thin-skinned' or as Clint said 'pussy generation' I still think it's pretty clear that it has been increasing over time.
You say better informed. I say better silo'd based on selection bias. You even did it above with my comment. You've near incessantly whinged about DC and lately Marvel just not getting it, and yet they're selling books while you're calling plays from your computer and yet you deflected to use the one case of "righteous indignation" which is also selection bias based, as an example of how you're right and different from the other fanboys.
I'd agree with @nweathington above - what you're seeing is that technology has more effectively allowed those that are offended to have a way to voice their discontent.
That said, there have been plenty of generations before the the current Millennials etc. that have spent more than enough time being offended - I'd point to your own darling conservative movement challenging books in libraries, burning books, protesting music and applying plenty of other kinds of censorship in the name of common decency.
Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. I think that trigger warnings are utterly ridiculous, but I also think that there can be too much free speech (see the drivel truthiness blogs, and faux news channels and websites regularly push out that gets devoured as TRUTH by diehards of either political persuasion.
Is this a bad time to mention I'm waiting to Netflix the movie?
M
However you see fit. I like my 'splosion movies on the biggest screen I can find. I'll save the Merchant/Ivory stuff for tv. :)
Maybe in several years down the line, but now I'm restricted to the small screen for movies because I won't go to movies my wife isn't interested & feel guilty going alone as she watch our toddlers.
Without listening, I'm going to assume you’re talking about the hyper-sexualization of the Harley Quinn character, which is the main reason my wife—who has cosplayed as Harley Quinn (original costume only)—is refusing to watch the movie.
Without listening, I'm going to assume you’re talking about the hyper-sexualization of the Harley Quinn character, which is the main reason my wife—who has cosplayed as Harley Quinn (original costume only)—is refusing to watch the movie.
I mentioned that point in a tweet a couple months ago & was told by a (possible) female tweeter that's always been apart of her characterization.
I mentioned missing those episodes of B:TAS where she first debuted. Then the person blocked my account. Weird.
Without listening, I'm going to assume you’re talking about the hyper-sexualization of the Harley Quinn character, which is the main reason my wife—who has cosplayed as Harley Quinn (original costume only)—is refusing to watch the movie.
Minor spoiler: She does briefly show up in the original outfit, they even pay tribute to Alex Ross Joker/Harley image.
Without listening, I'm going to assume you’re talking about the hyper-sexualization of the Harley Quinn character, which is the main reason my wife—who has cosplayed as Harley Quinn (original costume only)—is refusing to watch the movie.
Minor spoiler: She does briefly show up in the original outfit, they even pay tribute to Alex Ross Joker/Harley image.
I doubt that's going to sway her, but thanks for the head's up.
I saw the movie. The good parts are Will Smith's screen charisma and Margot Robbie's absurd attractiveness. The bad parts are that the story is weird, poorly paced, poorly constructed, and there are zero likable characters. I particularly despised Amanda Waller. Is she supposed to be impressive or edgy? She's a repulsive character, and a waste of an excellent actress.
There's a scene in the beginning where Waller explains why they are assembling this squad of outcasts. Nice, efficient set-up, right? Well, the next 30 or so minutes gives us . . . the assembly of that squad, just like Waller said. So we get the same thing two times. And it was basically everyone snarling and spouting bad-ass cliches, which I guess is impressive if you're in 8th grade. I read somewhere that the film was re-edited by some company that normally does movie trailers, and it sure seemed like I was watching a long trailer. It was all attitude and image with no heart and not much story.
Saw it yesterday. An interesting watch, with some great elements, but ultimately... I was disappointed. This film was not nearly as good as I'd thought/hoped it would be (after *two years* of social media walking us thru almost every aspect of pre-production - which is ruining American event movies). I loved the director's previous film, "Fury," and I am a DC fanboy. I just really wanted this movie to be better.
That being said?
There is still something wrong with Rotten Tomatoes when Iron Man 2 - which was not only awful but also nearly forgettable - is currently sitting at 72% Fresh (?!), while Suicide Squad is at 26%. The former deserves a much lower rating, and the latter deserves a higher one, at least in the 60s. I wouldn't advocate signing a silly petition to kill the site, but I'm sorry... there is something rotten in Tomatoland.
Back to the movie itself: I don't like being negative about someone else's creative endeavors so I'll end my post mentioning a few of the things which I did like about Suicide Squad.
(**SPOILERS**)
- While the script didn't help them out much, Jared Leto's and Margot Robbie's performances still shine. I would love to see him again, especially, going up against Batfleck. It was a Herculean challenge to reinvent The Joker right after Heath Ledger fucking pwned it, but Leto did just that, giving us a different yet relevant take on this iconic villain. Also, there is much more Joker in SSquad than I'd been led to believe. I feared we'd only get a couple scenes, so yay! And that Alex Ross flashback... muah :P
- While the middle 1/3 of the film (i.e. Escape from New York, lol) was kind of muddled and dragged, I did have fun with the first 1/3 of it (i.e. The Dirty Dozen) and the last 1/3 of it (i.e. Ghostbusters).
- Will Smith delivers a much-needed humanity to a story like this one. His character's backstory, his interaction with other members of the Squad, his sense of humor... this guy is just really talented. Great casting choice here.
- Jay Hernandez's take on El Diablo was pretty interesting and unique. I appreciated what they were trying to do with him, and his big role at the end was crazy and genuinely funny.
- The look of / mood of Enchantress in the first half of the film was awesome. I could not take my eyes off her, I wish they hadn't changed her up. Just a great effect and characterization. And I dug what they did with Rick Flag being in love with her.
- Viola Davis is perfect as Waller. And Katana - yes! Killer Croc - yes! Just wish the latter two got more to say and do. And I wish Boomerang got ANYthing to do; seriously, he is the most underfed character of this ensemble. But at least we get to see him caught by The Flash! Central City Rogues represent :smiley:
It was okay. 3 out of 5 Harley's. I wasn't wowed. I liked parts. I can't tell people to not go see it but can't say run out and see it in the theater. But it's making money and that's all Warners can ask for.
There is still something wrong with Rotten Tomatoes when Iron Man 2 - which was not only awful but also nearly forgettable - is currently sitting at 72% Fresh (?!), while Suicide Squad is at 26%. The former deserves a much lower rating, and the latter deserves a higher one, at least in the 60s. I wouldn't advocate signing a s
Here's a guy with a unique theory on the movie's 27% tomato-meter rating. Not sure what I think of it.
Comments
It's one thing to publicly disagree with what a creator does to a property, it's another to complain when everyone doesn't like what you like or everyone doesn't agree with your opinion. I personally don't need a bunch of positive reviews of my favorite comics or movies to enjoy them - even if no one agrees with my take. Furthermore, I don't need everyone on these boards to see that Nick Spencer is a political hack for me to continue to enjoy engaging in debate and discussion on these boards.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/suicide-squad-opens-fire-with-205-million-thursday-night
People like to feel “right”—and always have—and more often than not, will fight against being made to feel we are in the wrong. That just comes down to natural egoism (not egotism) which we all have to some degree or another. And I don’t believe that natural sense of egoism is something that’s either good or bad, it’s simply part of being human.
The problem lies in the fact that when people feel empowered to make their voices heard, they expect others to listen. And when those others don’t listen, or aren’t perceived to be listening—such as when those others dismiss a person as being “thin-skinned” and thus “wrong” and, even worse,“not worth being heard from”—the person feels like their power (real or only perceived) is being taken from them, which can lead to resentment, entrenchment in their beliefs, anger, etc.
Pew Research has done extensive polling on a related issue. Between Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers, the generation most in favor of the government banning offensive speech against minorities is Millenials who favor it by a whopping 40%. Only around a quarter of Gen Xers (27%) and Boomers (24%) agree and only about one-in-ten Silents (12%) say the government should be able to prevent such speech.
Technology? PC Culture saturation? Abundant media exposure? Whatever the 'cause' of this disparity may be debatable, but ignorance of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect offensive and unpopular speech is one of the many results. If summing up this trend as 'easily offended,' 'thin-skinned' or as Clint said 'pussy generation' I still think it's pretty clear that it has been increasing over time.
If you want to limit the discussion to “Are people more likely to be offended by speech offensive to minorities?” then, yes, I completely agree that more people today are offended by that than in the past, and that younger generations are more likely to be offended than older generations. But I would definitely chalk that up in large part to technology. The internet and easier access to mass transportation have made the world smaller, and today’s children are far more likely to have friends from different cultural backgrounds, or at least be far more aware of people from different cultural backgrounds, than our grandparents were. It’s only natural that as we become more aware of those different than ourselves—either culturally, racially, economically, gender-wise, etc.—that we will humanize those people, develop more empathy for them, be less likely to ignore their problems, and be more likely to speak out on their behalf.
We can discuss constitutional law and its place in our evolving society another time though, as I think that’s getting a little off track of the thread. (He says as he posts the above comments.) ;)
So how about that Suicide Squad? :smiley:
I'm hearing the only two problems with Suicide Squad is that they should have just left the Joker out of it and saved him for a Batman film and that the third act is a jumbled mess. Other than that, it's more fun that Ghostbusters (2016).
Catch it at a matinee though.
Planning on throwing in my money to the kitty this weekend...
Notice the DirectTV ads with alternate versions of person are pulled? People got offended by the likes of "petite Randy Moss" & "skinny-legs Peyton". Supposedly they discriminated against people with disabilities & shortness.
Hell, even the Bon Jovi commercial about "reconsider that 2nd child" is taking heat.
Evans & Renner joked Black Widow was a slut and were blasted for "slut-shaming" a fictitious character (who's been promiscuous in the source material. I was told to stop "mansplaning".
There was an airline who listed everything the cheap tickets did not include. They got blasted for "shaming" people who couldn't afford better seats. I'm betting those same people would complain about not knowing what wasn't included if the airline didn't post it.
If someone gets called stupid on social media, he/she goes into a tizzy about it.
I know some of it is a sense of entitlement. There's some cases where people claim to be offended for other people. For example:
You call a buddy "Rico Suave" who's smooth with the ladies, but someone else claims your racist because your buddy is Hispanic.
M
I'd agree with @nweathington above - what you're seeing is that technology has more effectively allowed those that are offended to have a way to voice their discontent.
That said, there have been plenty of generations before the the current Millennials etc. that have spent more than enough time being offended - I'd point to your own darling conservative movement challenging books in libraries, burning books, protesting music and applying plenty of other kinds of censorship in the name of common decency.
Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. I think that trigger warnings are utterly ridiculous, but I also think that there can be too much free speech (see the drivel truthiness blogs, and faux news channels and websites regularly push out that gets devoured as TRUTH by diehards of either political persuasion.
...thanks for parent-of-toddlers shaming me!
#WholeThreadIsConnected
Here's what I thought of the film.
(Spoilers).
Without listening, I'm going to assume you’re talking about the hyper-sexualization of the Harley Quinn character, which is the main reason my wife—who has cosplayed as Harley Quinn (original costume only)—is refusing to watch the movie.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/suicide-squads-robbie-ayer-reveal-harley-quinns-costume-inspiration
I mentioned missing those episodes of B:TAS where she first debuted. Then the person blocked my account. Weird.
Debbie did it first.
There's a scene in the beginning where Waller explains why they are assembling this squad of outcasts. Nice, efficient set-up, right? Well, the next 30 or so minutes gives us . . . the assembly of that squad, just like Waller said. So we get the same thing two times. And it was basically everyone snarling and spouting bad-ass cliches, which I guess is impressive if you're in 8th grade. I read somewhere that the film was re-edited by some company that normally does movie trailers, and it sure seemed like I was watching a long trailer. It was all attitude and image with no heart and not much story.
That being said?
There is still something wrong with Rotten Tomatoes when Iron Man 2 - which was not only awful but also nearly forgettable - is currently sitting at 72% Fresh (?!), while Suicide Squad is at 26%. The former deserves a much lower rating, and the latter deserves a higher one, at least in the 60s. I wouldn't advocate signing a silly petition to kill the site, but I'm sorry... there is something rotten in Tomatoland.
Back to the movie itself: I don't like being negative about someone else's creative endeavors so I'll end my post mentioning a few of the things which I did like about Suicide Squad.
(**SPOILERS**)
- While the script didn't help them out much, Jared Leto's and Margot Robbie's performances still shine. I would love to see him again, especially, going up against Batfleck. It was a Herculean challenge to reinvent The Joker right after Heath Ledger fucking pwned it, but Leto did just that, giving us a different yet relevant take on this iconic villain. Also, there is much more Joker in SSquad than I'd been led to believe. I feared we'd only get a couple scenes, so yay! And that Alex Ross flashback... muah :P
- While the middle 1/3 of the film (i.e. Escape from New York, lol) was kind of muddled and dragged, I did have fun with the first 1/3 of it (i.e. The Dirty Dozen) and the last 1/3 of it (i.e. Ghostbusters).
- Will Smith delivers a much-needed humanity to a story like this one. His character's backstory, his interaction with other members of the Squad, his sense of humor... this guy is just really talented. Great casting choice here.
- Jay Hernandez's take on El Diablo was pretty interesting and unique. I appreciated what they were trying to do with him, and his big role at the end was crazy and genuinely funny.
- The look of / mood of Enchantress in the first half of the film was awesome. I could not take my eyes off her, I wish they hadn't changed her up. Just a great effect and characterization. And I dug what they did with Rick Flag being in love with her.
- Viola Davis is perfect as Waller. And Katana - yes! Killer Croc - yes! Just wish the latter two got more to say and do. And I wish Boomerang got ANYthing to do; seriously, he is the most underfed character of this ensemble. But at least we get to see him caught by The Flash! Central City Rogues represent :smiley: