Movies James Gunn's "The Suicide Squad" OT - update: new poster released, new trailer 26 March 2021

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

That’s a shallow metric to measure whether it was a mistake or not. By that logic Disney could hire Michael Bay to direct Guardians 3 and it wouldn’t be a mistake because general audiences will see it anyways.

It wouldn’t be a mistake for Disney if audiences still like and see the movie. They don’t care about artistic integrity, they care about making money.

 

6 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

I did sir. Your point about most people not caring is invalid.

It’s certainly valid in determining whether Disney made a mistake as a business. You can dislike the decision and it still be neutral or even positive for Disney.

 

 

James Gunn matters not to Disney, just as Joss Whedon mattered not to Disney. They do what they find best for the company. The arm chair movie executives are hilarious in light of the current Disney executive team being on a historic run this decade.

[Mercury33]

7 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

I did sir. Your point about most people not caring is invalid.

 

Incorrect, it’s extremely valid. 

[Brick]

14 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

 

Massive? It was barely a mistake, if even a mistake at all. Guardians 3 will still be a hit regardless of who the director is. The only people that care are the 5%(generous) of the population who posts on message boards. And a large chunk of those, while mad he got fired, will still go see it. They distanced themselves from any potential scandal and won’t suffer any real losses in the process. But yeah, MASSIVE MISTAKE. 

 

Yes a massive mistake since Guardians 3 just won't feel the game without Gunn, will likely lose Bautista as he's said he doesn't know if he even wants to work with Disney anymore after what they did, Gunn brought a lot to the cosmic side of the MCU (which we will continue to see in Captain Marvel as two characters from the first GotG will be in the movie), and was going to be heavily involved in further shaping the cosmic side of the MCU with future movies as a producer, Disney capitulated to white supremacists rapists like Mike Cernovich, letting them know their tactics will work, and generally getting more bad press from this than they would had they ignored Cernovich and his filth, rather than making a knee jerk reaction. 

 

But yeah so cares because Disney is a business and they only care about money and not artistic integrity, because that's something we should just continue to tolerate, rather than a good man losing his job over bullshit. 

 

Frankly it disappoints me that some of you, who are otherwise good people that I respect and enjoy posting on here with I stress, don't seem to care more about this. 

[Mercury33]

I think you’re letting this get to you on a personnel level and confusing a critique of a business move by Disney with personnel opinion. 

 

From a business perspective Disney in all likelyhood did not make a mistake. From an artistic perspective you could think they made a huge one. However given that art is subjective and we have yet to see how they/his replacement fares it’s impossible to really make that call yet. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

I think you’re letting this get to you on a personnel level and confusing a critique of a business move by Disney with personnel opinion. 

 

From a business perspective Disney in all likelyhood did not make a mistake. From an artistic perspective you could think they made a huge one. However given that art is subjective and we have yet to see how they/his replacement fares it’s impossible to really make that call yet. 

 

As my first post indicated, what you just pointed out is why people are concerned. No one is assuming Guardians 3 will be terrible, but there is certainly concern it will be on the artistic side, which is all anyone cares about here.

 

I think everyone knows Disney is a business and they primarily care about making money. No one disagrees that on a business level, there's a good argument for firing Gunn, despite it looking both hypocritical and caving in to the wrong forces in this country. Equally, there is a good argument for keeping Gunn, for the opposite reasons.

 

The only perspective that matters here is the artistic one and there should be real concern there. On the business level? I think Disney made the wrong move (I think they could have kept Gunn and still made a fuck ton of money, let's not kid ourselves) but to justify Disney's business move so enthusiastically whilst not considering the artistic concerns at the same time feels flippant to me. 

[cusideabelincoln]

On 10/10/2018 at 9:59 AM, Spork3245 said:

Pretty sure that Bautista is looking for a way to get out of his Disney/Marvel contract so he can go back to wrestling for a bit. Gunn may simply be the excuse. No, really.

 

Why though?  That profession is stressful; so many wrestlers die younger than they should and quite a few tragically.  Despite how I wanted The Rock to return full time, he was smart not too.  Money aside, his health is probably way better than it would have been had stayed in the ring.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

No one is assuming Guardians 3 will be terrible...

After the bloated, barely amusing mess that was Guardians 2, I don't see why anyone would not assume that!

[Spork3245]

1 hour ago, cusideabelincoln said:

 

Why though?  That profession is stressful; so many wrestlers die younger than they should and quite a few tragically.  Despite how I wanted The Rock to return full time, he was smart not too.  Money aside, his health is probably way better than it would have been had stayed in the ring.

 

The ones that died young were ones with abuse problems (with the exception of extreme accidents or car crashes). Also, The Rock did return full-time just a few years ago, even doing house shows in his lead up “once in a lifetime #2” with Cena at WM. The reason he hasn’t returned since beyond a squash match is not due to him not wanting to, but due to movie studios not allowing him to. In his last full-time run he suffered a slight injury in his WM match which delayed shoots for one of his movies. The insurance premiums for active wrestlers is insanely high, thus studios generally do not allow them to wrestle anytime near a movie/show shoot. John Cena in recent interviews talked and his difficulties with trying to do both WWE and movies. With a studio as large as Disney, Bautista was completely forbidden from entering the ring at all after the success of GotG1.

[skillzdadirecta]

16 hours ago, sblfilms said:

The arm chair movie executives are hilarious in light of the current Disney executive team being on a historic run this decade.

 

and this is why it's so hard for me to be overly concerned with Gunn leaving. Disney, ESPECIALLY the Marvel side of it, has generally made the right decisions when they've replaced directors. Anyone remember when Peyton Reed replaced Edgar Wright on Ant Man? No? Because it ultimately didn't matter. Wright may have made a different film but Disney didn't screw the pooch with the replacement. I think after 10 years and 20+ movies, Kevin Feige has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making these decisions for what's best for the films and the properties. I for one am not being "flippant" when it comes to the artistic concerns of a third Guardians Movie, I just have faith that Feige will make the right decision for the director of the third installment and Gunn and even Bautista's potential losses in the films ultimately won't matter. 

[Greatoneshere]

41 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

and this is why it's so hard for me to be overly concerned with Gunn leaving. Disney, ESPECIALLY the Marvel side of it, has generally made the right decisions when they've replaced directors. Anyone remember when Peyton Reed replaced Edgar Wright on Ant Man? No? Because it ultimately didn't matter. Wright may have made a different film but Disney didn't screw the pooch with the replacement. I think after 10 years and 20+ movies, Kevin Feige has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making these decisions for what's best for the films and the properties. I for one am not being "flippant" when it comes to the artistic concerns of a third Guardians Movie, I just have faith that Feige will make the right decision for the director of the third installment and Gunn and even Bautista's potential losses in the films ultimately won't matter. 

 

Given that my post was directed specifically at @Mercury33, I would not say you are being flippant, no, which is why I never said you were. Why you'd think I'd be referring to you in a post that quotes only @Mercury33 and is in direct response to only him even involves or includes you is beyond me. But I didn't mean you, I don't think you're being flippant.  

 

I do think people are being optimistic that Guardians 3 will be as good as James Gunn's trilogy-capper would have been. Unless they use his script, then maybe. And I don't like the circumstances under which Gunn was fired. But it's happened and we have to move on now. I hope its good. 

[number305]

To address the people worried about the artistic integrity of the Guardians movies (really) :

 

Marvel made James Gunn.  Not the other way around.  I know there are people that are going to post "but Slither was awesome!"... whatever.  He was not an A list director before the Guardians movies.  Marvel has done a great job finding directors with talent and putting them in a position to succeed.  At this point there is not a lot of reason to doubt they can do it again.  They have done it for a solid decade now.

 

Same goes for Batista.  He has been good in his role as drax.  Other movies that i have seen him in have been cringe-worthy.  I wish him the best but I don't see him ever as a headline actor and the Marvel universe certainly will be just fine if he leaves or even switches to DC.

[ALIEN-gunner]

On the topic of the politcal reasons Gunn was fired well there really wasn't any that mattered. Gunn had made a lot of disgusting comments on Twitter in the span of eight years(the last of which was only two years ago) about his homophobia, racism and how much pedophillia and rape made him happy. Just because an "alt-right" dude brought those tweets to light(who initially did so to show Gunn was a hypocrite in an argument the two were having) doesn't mean Disney caved to racist political agendas. Disney only responded to the message not the messenger. A message they could not afford to ignore given their family friendly public image. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Marvel already has Gunn's replacement right in their face... Thor Ragnarok was basically Thor in a Guardians movie. Just get Taika Watiti to do it. Also the Gunn/ Suicide Squad thing looks like a done deal.

[LazyPiranha]

2 hours ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

On the topic of the politcal reasons Gunn was fired well there really wasn't any that mattered. Gunn had made a lot of disgusting comments on Twitter in the span of eight years(the last of which was only two years ago) about his homophobia, racism and how much pedophillia and rape made him happy. Just because an "alt-right" dude brought those tweets to light(who initially did so to show Gunn was a hypocrite in an argument the two were having) doesn't mean Disney caved to racist political agendas. Disney only responded to the message not the messenger. A message they could not afford to ignore given their family friendly public image. 

 

Being signal boosted by a disingenuous hate mob that doesn't actually give one flying fuck about the content of the tweets absolutely means they caved to racist political agendas.  Not a single one of that dipshit's followers actually cared a even a tiny bit about the content of those tweets at all.  Those tweets had been around for ages, and if you think a company like Disney wasn't aware of them in advance and decided to roll with Gunn anyway, you're delusional.  

[Mercury33]

I feel like people here don’t understand the concept of “getting out in front of it”. 

[ALIEN-gunner]

Some people here aren't aware of the real world. 

[Greatoneshere]

12 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

I feel like people here don’t understand the concept of “getting out in front of it”. 

 

There was nothing to get out in front of, arguably.

 

James Gunn may be hired by WB soon - and no one cares. Disney should have waited until at least all the information was out about how Gunn was targeted before making a decision. I'm not defending Gunn, I just think it's BS to suggest Disney couldn't have just weathered it for a few days at least. 

[sexy_shapiro]

On 10/11/2018 at 1:08 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

 

and this is why it's so hard for me to be overly concerned with Gunn leaving. Disney, ESPECIALLY the Marvel side of it, has generally made the right decisions when they've replaced directors. Anyone remember when Peyton Reed replaced Edgar Wright on Ant Man? No? Because it ultimately didn't matter. Wright may have made a different film but Disney didn't screw the pooch with the replacement. I think after 10 years and 20+ movies, Kevin Feige has earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making these decisions for what's best for the films and the properties. I for one am not being "flippant" when it comes to the artistic concerns of a third Guardians Movie, I just have faith that Feige will make the right decision for the director of the third installment and Gunn and even Bautista's potential losses in the films ultimately won't matter. 

 

Reportedly Kevin Feige thought firing him was a bad idea. He tried talking Alan Horn into reversing the decision but he wouldn’t budge. If you have that much faith in Feige then you should be concerned that he’s not able to keep the director he wanted to keep.

 

The decision was made by an out of touch executive who cares more about PR than what is ultimately better for the movies. It wasn’t made by the person who actually has a passion for this material.

[sexy_shapiro]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:35 PM, Brick said:

 

Yes a massive mistake since Guardians 3 just won't feel the game without Gunn, will likely lose Bautista as he's said he doesn't know if he even wants to work with Disney anymore after what they did, Gunn brought a lot to the cosmic side of the MCU (which we will continue to see in Captain Marvel as two characters from the first GotG will be in the movie), and was going to be heavily involved in further shaping the cosmic side of the MCU with future movies as a producer, Disney capitulated to white supremacists rapists like Mike Cernovich, letting them know their tactics will work, and generally getting more bad press from this than they would had they ignored Cernovich and his filth, rather than making a knee jerk reaction. 

 

But yeah so cares because Disney is a business and they only care about money and not artistic integrity, because that's something we should just continue to tolerate, rather than a good man losing his job over bullshit. 

 

Frankly it disappoints me that some of you, who are otherwise good people that I respect and enjoy posting on here with I stress, don't seem to care more about this. 

 

I realize that filmmaking is the intersection of art and commerce, but some people on this board get a little too obsessed with the business side of things for my liking. I care more about the creative aspect of filmmaking - the money and PR stuff is kind of gross to me.

[johnny]

On 10/11/2018 at 12:53 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

Marvel already has Gunn's replacement right in their face... Thor Ragnarok was basically Thor in a Guardians movie. Just get Taika Watiti to do it. Also the Gunn/ Suicide Squad thing looks like a done deal.

I’d rather Taika keep doing his own shit and then work on another Thor movie than jump into Guardians, but I mean if he had the time, I’m down. 

[skillzdadirecta]

18 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

Reportedly Kevin Feige thought firing him was a bad idea. He tried talking Alan Horn into reversing the decision but he wouldn’t budge. If you have that much faith in Feige then you should be concerned that he’s not able to keep the director he wanted to keep.

 

The decision was made by an out of touch executive who cares more about PR than what is ultimately better for the movies. It wasn’t made by the person who actually has a passion for this material.

Fiege didn't want to fire him that is true... but HIS boss made the call and I'm sure it wasn't the first time. I have faith that Feige will find a suitable replacement and the world will keep spinning. And  at calling Alan Horn out of touch considering the run Disney has been on. Other studios WISH they had executives that are that "Out of touch" 

[GoldenTongue]

7 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

I realize that filmmaking is the intersection of art and commerce, but some people on this board get a little too obsessed with the business side of things for my liking. I care more about the creative aspect of filmmaking - the money and PR stuff is kind of gross to me.

I’d counter by positing that there are a few too many on the board who mistakenly project their personal animus into laughable business projections. 

 

There’s room for discussions of art and commerce; neither are mutually exclusive. But when some muddy those waters, I don’t see a problem with others chiming in with a wake-up call on the reality of the business. 

 

And while there are plenty of valid criticisms that could be leveled at Disney, I do find it interesting that they are at the heart of an industry that represents something of a model for what many wish the USA could be- strong union presence with a fundamentally healthy business model that supports thousands of gainfully-employed workers. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, sexy_shapiro said:

 

I realize that filmmaking is the intersection of art and commerce, but some people on this board get a little too obsessed with the business side of things for my liking. I care more about the creative aspect of filmmaking - the money and PR stuff is kind of gross to me.

 

Disney makes art by accident if at all. I simply don’t walk in to a Disney flick with the intention of seeing great art anymore than I walk into Chick-fil-a expecting an amazing culinary experience. 

 

But I also have a really different way of relating to Disney because I write them checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars every year

[SaysWho?]

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/will-smith-the-suicide-squad-sequel-exits-1203151442/

 

Quote

Even though his return had not been made official, sources tell Variety that Will Smith, who played Deadshot in the original, is not expected to return for the studio’s upcoming sequel. Sources say scheduling was the ultimate factor and that the decision was made on amicable terms between both sides with no hard feelings.

 

Though the studio has never confirmed who would be returning for “The Suicide Squad,” insiders say the studio has always wanted its biggest stars like Smith and Margot Robbie, who played Harley Quinn in the first pic, to return while figuring out other casting decisions along the way.

 

[IdeaOfEvil]

As long as Batista is cast as Lobo this doesn't bother me, lol

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

“Scheduling” 

 

I guess not making time to be in a shit movie can count as a scheduling conflict. It would get in the way of “anything else” . 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

“Scheduling” 

 

I guess not making time to be in a shit movie can count as a scheduling conflict. It would get in the way of “anything else” . 

 

Yeah but this is the guy who turned down The Matrix for Wild Wild West.

[EternallDarkness]

27 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Yeah but this is the guy who turned down The Matrix for Wild Wild West.

[Hurdyb1]

A bit disappointed in this news. Loved his portrayal of Deadshot.

[Remarkableriots]

https://screenrant.com/suicide-squad-idris-elba-replace-will-smith-cast/

Quote

For Warner Bros' The Suicide Squad sequel, Idris Elba is in talks to replace Will Smith as Floyd Lawton aka. Deadshot in James Gunn's followup. The first film hit theaters in 2016, as directed by David Ayer, and introduced a whole host of villains-turned-antiheroes to the Worlds of DC franchise as established by Zack Snyder's Man of Steel and Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. Although Suicide Squad was a box office success, it received mixed-to-poor reviews and the general sentiment around it was largely negative.

 

[Jason]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/james-gunns-suicide-squad-movie-is-a-total-reboot-/1100-6465626/

[number305]

Total reboot with some of the same actors, some of the same characters but with different actors.

 

No doubt this will be a better movie but it will certainly be confusing.  

[Slug]

That's fine.  In the end if it's entertaining that's all that really matters.  How many reboots/retellings of the Spider-Man origin have we gotten over the years?

[EternallDarkness]

6 minutes ago, number305 said:

Total reboot with some of the same actors, some of the same characters but with different actors.

 

No doubt this will be a better movie but it will certainly be confusing.  

 

yeah but it's not as if we haven't seen different actors play the same characters before. We've had 5 or 6 Batman's, 3 different Spider-men (or something like 11 if you include all the ones from Into the Spiderverse, lol) so I don't think that is that big of a deal. And I definitely think if Gunn is writing it, he'll do a heck of a better job of introducing the various characters than the original SS movie did. 

[RedSoxFan9]

Twisted!