By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies Discussion - Can you redeem "Birds of Prey"

pikashoe said:
DonFerrari said:

Just finished the movie and for me it was a boring shit show with no story, reason or anything. Outside of the back and forth timeline for no good reason.

The fights are poorly done, the effects have glaring defects.

Can you give a redeeming point for the movie except Harley and Black Canary are beautiful actress?

I didn't like the film but it had a story (just not a very interesting one) and the fights are generally really good, the action scenes are the main positive I have for the film. It helps that some of the people behind john wick did the action scenes. I'd go as far to say that the action is some of the best I've seen in a super hero film.

"had a story", well in a way that we can say almost anything have a story, you got it =p

I found the fighting not that good, but perhaps that is because I have watched to many fighting movies so it looked boring. And there was no "super" in the movie, it was at most a street fighting stuff.

d21lewis said:
I kinda feel like a fool to some degree. I'm in a Facebook group that discusses all things nerd but we're definitely not politically correct. I'm also a DC Fanboy and after a handful of their recent films doing well critically, commercially, or both, I thought DC was on track to do well from here on out.

Even after seeing the trailers and being underwhelmed, I still held out hope. I thought "Wait for the reviews.." and when the reviews came out, I was happy. I thought, even if it doesn't dominate the box office, the movie will still be good.

Then, they started attacking.
"Cassandra Cain looks like this in the movie but she looks like THIS in comics."
"Victor Zsasz looks like this!? What the hell?"

Meanwhile, I was digging out pics of different artists showing that the representation on screen actually matched examples on print. But In the end, almost all of the characters were the comic characters in name only. Luckily no one went back and called me out on it.

I don't bother much with the char looking different from comics, but besides Harley basically all chars seemed just tossed there for no reason.

S.Peelman said:

Haven't seen it, aren't planning to either. Never saw Suicide Squad. I don't want to, because all DC movies nowadays are so off-putting because the DC "Universe" is such an utter mess. It's totally random as to what belongs to what other movies and what is its own separate thing, so it just feels like it would be a complete waste of time to watch any of them. Like, apparently The Batman that's soon to come out, with the guy from Twilight, is unrelated to this series, then you'd think it's a sequel to Joker (which I reluctantly saw though that ended up actually being great due to Joaquin Phoenix) from last year but it isn't, that's its own thing as well. Then there's the series Gotham, which again is its own thing, and then there's also the Arrowverse which contains some other series but not all of them or whatever. Is Batman v Superman even in the same continuity? I know that one's at least a sequel to Man of Steel. Now I'm reading there's even going to be a reboot of Suicide Squad. Like, what's even the point?

It's a shame really because the DC Universe could be much cooler than the Marvel Universe, but its just handled absolutely terribly, which hurts the quality of these movies and their box-office performance in return.

Well there is a good point about each being their own stuff, you can just watch the ones you want and that won't worse your experience.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
S.Peelman said:

Haven't seen it, aren't planning to either. Never saw Suicide Squad. I don't want to, because all DC movies nowadays are so off-putting because the DC "Universe" is such an utter mess. It's totally random as to what belongs to what other movies and what is its own separate thing, so it just feels like it would be a complete waste of time to watch any of them. Like, apparently The Batman that's soon to come out, with the guy from Twilight, is unrelated to this series, then you'd think it's a sequel to Joker (which I reluctantly saw though that ended up actually being great due to Joaquin Phoenix) from last year but it isn't, that's its own thing as well. Then there's the series Gotham, which again is its own thing, and then there's also the Arrowverse which contains some other series but not all of them or whatever. Is Batman v Superman even in the same continuity? I know that one's at least a sequel to Man of Steel. Now I'm reading there's even going to be a reboot of Suicide Squad. Like, what's even the point?

It's a shame really because the DC Universe could be much cooler than the Marvel Universe, but its just handled absolutely terribly, which hurts the quality of these movies and their box-office performance in return.

I actually think that the DC universe could *not* be cooler than the Marvel universe, and that's part of their problem.

Batman is cool, I'll give them that, but the other ones.. Not so much. I mean there's always some cheesiness when it comes to superheroes, but Marvel gets around that by making it so that the superpowers tend to be also a curse or a downside for the characters and they have real life issues that kind of ground them in a way, making them more like one of us. Relatable.

DC on the other hand has Super-Duper Man, an invincible being from another world and a beacon of righteousness for us all! Wonder Woman, with her magic bracelets that can stop bullets! Green lantern, with his magic ring and the beautiful power of imagination! Aquaman, the prince of the depths, who talks to fish! Now with cooler looks because of casting the manliest man there is to offset the silliness!

Do you see what I mean? DC characters tend to be like these prototype heroes from an age that doesn't really click with the contemporary world. Give Warner Brothers a break, this is what they're trying to work with.



Dante9 said:
S.Peelman said:

Haven't seen it, aren't planning to either. Never saw Suicide Squad. I don't want to, because all DC movies nowadays are so off-putting because the DC "Universe" is such an utter mess. It's totally random as to what belongs to what other movies and what is its own separate thing, so it just feels like it would be a complete waste of time to watch any of them. Like, apparently The Batman that's soon to come out, with the guy from Twilight, is unrelated to this series, then you'd think it's a sequel to Joker (which I reluctantly saw though that ended up actually being great due to Joaquin Phoenix) from last year but it isn't, that's its own thing as well. Then there's the series Gotham, which again is its own thing, and then there's also the Arrowverse which contains some other series but not all of them or whatever. Is Batman v Superman even in the same continuity? I know that one's at least a sequel to Man of Steel. Now I'm reading there's even going to be a reboot of Suicide Squad. Like, what's even the point?

It's a shame really because the DC Universe could be much cooler than the Marvel Universe, but its just handled absolutely terribly, which hurts the quality of these movies and their box-office performance in return.

I actually think that the DC universe could *not* be cooler than the Marvel universe, and that's part of their problem.

Batman is cool, I'll give them that, but the other ones.. Not so much. I mean there's always some cheesiness when it comes to superheroes, but Marvel gets around that by making it so that the superpowers tend to be also a curse or a downside for the characters and they have real life issues that kind of ground them in a way, making them more like one of us. Relatable.

DC on the other hand has Super-Duper Man, an invincible being from another world and a beacon of righteousness for us all! Wonder Woman, with her magic bracelets that can stop bullets! Green lantern, with his magic ring and the beautiful power of imagination! Aquaman, the prince of the depths, who talks to fish! Now with cooler looks because of casting the manliest man there is to offset the silliness!

Do you see what I mean? DC characters tend to be like these prototype heroes from an age that doesn't really click with the contemporary world. Give Warner Brothers a break, this is what they're trying to work with.

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.



Twitter: @d21lewis

d21lewis said:
Dante9 said:

I actually think that the DC universe could *not* be cooler than the Marvel universe, and that's part of their problem.

Batman is cool, I'll give them that, but the other ones.. Not so much. I mean there's always some cheesiness when it comes to superheroes, but Marvel gets around that by making it so that the superpowers tend to be also a curse or a downside for the characters and they have real life issues that kind of ground them in a way, making them more like one of us. Relatable.

DC on the other hand has Super-Duper Man, an invincible being from another world and a beacon of righteousness for us all! Wonder Woman, with her magic bracelets that can stop bullets! Green lantern, with his magic ring and the beautiful power of imagination! Aquaman, the prince of the depths, who talks to fish! Now with cooler looks because of casting the manliest man there is to offset the silliness!

Do you see what I mean? DC characters tend to be like these prototype heroes from an age that doesn't really click with the contemporary world. Give Warner Brothers a break, this is what they're trying to work with.

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.

Many of the DC core characters came about in the 30s or 40s, it was a different time where superheroes were about ideals and they were presented as virtuous and wondrous and something to look up to and admire. Like you say, perhaps they were given more relatable problems in the 70s but maybe it just doesn't work so well because their original starting points are so far removed from the human experience. (Compare to, say, a student dweeb who gets bitten by a radioactive spider, but still has to be a student dweeb as well as a hero in secret.) Let's take your examples. Tony Stark doesn't have superpowers, he's just a genius with technology. He builds his suit out of necessity to keep himself from dying. He has an ego and troubles in his relationships, plus he goes through bouts of alcoholism and whatnot. Not exactly an example of a shining paragon among men, but a lovable jerk. Thor is a god, yes, but he's hardly a living statue to be adored like Superman. He has to go through ordeals to redeem himself and grow as a person, because he starts off as an arrogant ass. He needs to be worthy at all times in order to wield his weapon. There's a major arc of developing his character. He also struggles with complicated family tensions and his position among the powerful in his world. Silver Surfer? Now here we go into trouble territory. Very galactic and powerful, no real human characteristics or problems and due to these things, he is already much more difficult to relate to. That's why I don't think Marvel is going to bank on him too much, unless they somehow manage to pull off a successful reboot of the Fantastic Four, which haven't been too hot either in previous attempts. Actually, this seems to be an argument in your favor, because it's baffling to me how bad the FF movies have been. I could easily see Marvel doing a much better job with them. So maybe it's more to do with execution after all? I'm not trying to discredit anything. I just think that there might be something inherent in many DC characters that explains why - with the exception of Batman - they haven't really taken off on the big screen in the contemporary world. Could be I'm just biased and totally off the mark, or maybe there's something to this. Sorry about the layout, the quoting is broken again.

Dante9 said:
d21lewis said:

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.

Many of the DC core characters came about in the 30s or 40s, it was a different time where superheroes were about ideals and they were presented as virtuous and wondrous and something to look up to and admire. Like you say, perhaps they were given more relatable problems in the 70s but maybe it just doesn't work so well because their original starting points are so far removed from the human experience. (Compare to, say, a student dweeb who gets bitten by a radioactive spider, but still has to be a student dweeb as well as a hero in secret.) Let's take your examples. Tony Stark doesn't have superpowers, he's just a genius with technology. He builds his suit out of necessity to keep himself from dying. He has an ego and troubles in his relationships, plus he goes through bouts of alcoholism and whatnot. Not exactly an example of a shining paragon among men, but a lovable jerk. Thor is a god, yes, but he's hardly a living statue to be adored like Superman. He has to go through ordeals to redeem himself and grow as a person, because he starts off as an arrogant ass. He needs to be worthy at all times in order to wield his weapon. There's a major arc of developing his character. He also struggles with complicated family tensions and his position among the powerful in his world. Silver Surfer? Now here we go into trouble territory. Very galactic and powerful, no real human characteristics or problems and due to these things, he is already much more difficult to relate to. That's why I don't think Marvel is going to bank on him too much, unless they somehow manage to pull off a successful reboot of the Fantastic Four, which haven't been too hot either in previous attempts. Actually, this seems to be an argument in your favor, because it's baffling to me how bad the FF movies have been. I could easily see Marvel doing a much better job with them. So maybe it's more to do with execution after all? I'm not trying to discredit anything. I just think that there might be something inherent in many DC characters that explains why - with the exception of Batman - they haven't really taken off on the big screen in the contemporary world. Could be I'm just biased and totally off the mark, or maybe there's something to this. Sorry about the layout, the quoting is broken again.

And that's what it is. Execution. You can watch something like The Justice League animated series and all of the characters have heart and emotion. You can watch most of the animated Marvel series and something just feels...wrong. The actual source material has been mostly excellent for years. It's just gets screwed up a lot of the time when adapted to other media. The MCU had it figured out over a decade ago. I don't know why DC still isn't consistent with it (I prefer DC books to Marvel but I just love comics, period). I've even read books, especially Slugfest which was entirely about Marvel vs DC, where they leave out details to paint one as better than the other. But I don't want to get off on a rant. I love and hate them both at times. *Edit* Btw, I was comparing Thor to Wonder Woman more than anything.

Twitter: @d21lewis

Around the Network
Dante9 said:
d21lewis said:

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.

Many of the DC core characters came about in the 30s or 40s, it was a different time where superheroes were about ideals and they were presented as virtuous and wondrous and something to look up to and admire. Like you say, perhaps they were given more relatable problems in the 70s but maybe it just doesn't work so well because their original starting points are so far removed from the human experience. (Compare to, say, a student dweeb who gets bitten by a radioactive spider, but still has to be a student dweeb as well as a hero in secret.) Let's take your examples. Tony Stark doesn't have superpowers, he's just a genius with technology. He builds his suit out of necessity to keep himself from dying. He has an ego and troubles in his relationships, plus he goes through bouts of alcoholism and whatnot. Not exactly an example of a shining paragon among men, but a lovable jerk. Thor is a god, yes, but he's hardly a living statue to be adored like Superman. He has to go through ordeals to redeem himself and grow as a person, because he starts off as an arrogant ass. He needs to be worthy at all times in order to wield his weapon. There's a major arc of developing his character. He also struggles with complicated family tensions and his position among the powerful in his world. Silver Surfer? Now here we go into trouble territory. Very galactic and powerful, no real human characteristics or problems and due to these things, he is already much more difficult to relate to. That's why I don't think Marvel is going to bank on him too much, unless they somehow manage to pull off a successful reboot of the Fantastic Four, which haven't been too hot either in previous attempts. Actually, this seems to be an argument in your favor, because it's baffling to me how bad the FF movies have been. I could easily see Marvel doing a much better job with them. So maybe it's more to do with execution after all? I'm not trying to discredit anything. I just think that there might be something inherent in many DC characters that explains why - with the exception of Batman - they haven't really taken off on the big screen in the contemporary world. Could be I'm just biased and totally off the mark, or maybe there's something to this. Sorry about the layout, the quoting is broken again.

The problem I see in your comparison is that you are doing it with two scales. For the DC you consider their origin in the 30's for their super power and paragon of virtues, while for Marvel you are using rendition of the current movies. Use the same for both. Thor, Iron Man and several others from Marvel aren't relatable to most people

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Just finished seeing it. I will say I did when in with the lowest expectations. Not a good movie, but not as terrible as it was said to be. Story was crap, really the worst kind of plot.But the action scenes where truly the only redeeming quality. And not all of them. Only a couple of scenes made me chuckle. They really did try their hardest to rip off deadpool.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

d21lewis said:
Dante9 said:

I actually think that the DC universe could *not* be cooler than the Marvel universe, and that's part of their problem.

Batman is cool, I'll give them that, but the other ones.. Not so much. I mean there's always some cheesiness when it comes to superheroes, but Marvel gets around that by making it so that the superpowers tend to be also a curse or a downside for the characters and they have real life issues that kind of ground them in a way, making them more like one of us. Relatable.

DC on the other hand has Super-Duper Man, an invincible being from another world and a beacon of righteousness for us all! Wonder Woman, with her magic bracelets that can stop bullets! Green lantern, with his magic ring and the beautiful power of imagination! Aquaman, the prince of the depths, who talks to fish! Now with cooler looks because of casting the manliest man there is to offset the silliness!

Do you see what I mean? DC characters tend to be like these prototype heroes from an age that doesn't really click with the contemporary world. Give Warner Brothers a break, this is what they're trying to work with.

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.

I think thats something worth  having a conversation about. I personally share the opinion that DC's characters have a harder time being "cool". Not so much that "they cannot be cooler" (or whichever adjective you like), because they can - in theory - and as you have pointed before, its all about execution, but thats the issue IMO. Its much harder for Warner than it is to Marvel. Marvel has an edge in that several of their comics were not widely known/popular  and they took several creative freedoms to make them have an impact when they hit the cinemas. Guardians of the Galaxy for example - A huge amount of the movie adaptation does not reflect the comic counterparts, from character portrayals, to backstories, a lot of the source material went under the bus. But the movie is fantastic, fun, commercially succesful and they became very popular overnight. No one cared because these characters were very much unknown. Even the fact that the movie was announced felt weird when its was originally announced. Those creative freedoms are harder for DC properties because their characters are far much popular, and I do believe fan backlash can be a reason for their more rigid portrayals. 

The other thing is that Warner really struggles with how they adapt these characters. The entire Suicide Squad film was desperate to look "cool and edgy" and I didnt mind Aquaman that much, for a while he has been a cooler character that people give him credit for, but his portrayal as "the beach bro" really didnt hit well with me. 



Jpcc86 said:
d21lewis said:

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.

I think thats something worth  having a conversation about. I personally share the opinion that DC's characters have a harder time being "cool". Not so much that "they cannot be cooler" (or whichever adjective you like), because they can - in theory - and as you have pointed before, its all about execution, but thats the issue IMO. Its much harder for Warner than it is to Marvel. Marvel has an edge in that several of their comics were not widely known/popular  and they took several creative freedoms to make them have an impact when they hit the cinemas. Guardians of the Galaxy for example - A huge amount of the movie adaptation does not reflect the comic counterparts, from character portrayals, to backstories, a lot of the source material went under the bus. But the movie is fantastic, fun, commercially succesful and they became very popular overnight. No one cared because these characters were very much unknown. Even the fact that the movie was announced felt weird when its was originally announced. Those creative freedoms are harder for DC properties because their characters are far much popular, and I do believe fan backlash can be a reason for their more rigid portrayals. 

The other thing is that Warner really struggles with how they adapt these characters. The entire Suicide Squad film was desperate to look "cool and edgy" and I didnt mind Aquaman that much, for a while he has been a cooler character that people give him credit for, but his portrayal as "the beach bro" really didnt hit well with me. 

I agree with most if not all of what you posted. Make a thread and I'll gladly jump in... tomorrow. Home with the wife and she requires a lot of attention.



Twitter: @d21lewis

The actress playing Harley is very attractive in my eyes. That's a plus.



Hunting Season is done...