Giant starfish? - The Suicide Squad (2021) Discussion

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 3 years ago

Actually the reception has been very positive so far.

reply

[–] AckbartheHutt (1370) 3 years ago

Only time will tell. It was definitely worse than the first one, but thats just me.

reply

[–] MarkDaniels (310) 3 years ago

I'm sorry but this film was MILES better than the first one.

reply

[–] EfosaSO (10) 3 years ago

I agree, this was way better than the original.

It breaks all the norms
https://www.ftvbs.com/EfosaSO/m/131

reply

[–] JoWilli2 (855) 3 years ago

this movie was terrible, first one was way better and had the Joker and Batman

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

That is more of a Disney alien monster, isn't it? You would think an R rate DC movie would have a more scary and menacing monster.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 3 years ago

No, it is from a classic superman comics. One of the greats.

https://images.app.goo.gl/hzv96djQ3MmetknLA

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

But you can't deny it doesn't look scary, almost cute. In an R-rated movie either gets something else, or at least some efforts need to be taken to make it look more menacing.

reply

[–] MisterE (733) 3 years ago

Not in a James Gunn joke fest.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 3 years ago

It is pretty accurate to the comics. Except in the comics, its power was much more threatening. Even superman succumbed. That said, I would have loved to see an alien-invasion-type movie (not superhero) based on Starro, but serious, gritty, and made giger leveled scary...

reply

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

Gentle correction: Justice League comics, not Superman. And yes; Starro is well established in the DC universe. People railing about this choice of villain are, as usual, bleating misinformed nonsense.

Typical of the loudest complainers.

reply

[–] HAL 9010 (906) 3 years ago

Correct :) I adored seeing him/it visualized in the movie - to me; it was nearly the only thing redeeming about it... I treasure the original JL where I(we?) first time met him/it. Great story.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11383) 3 years ago

It's not a villain, it's a victim. It isn't meant to be scary. It's forced into the role of antagonist.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

I think in the first encounter he was the one attacking the astronauts ... so not that much "forced"

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11383) 3 years ago

The astronauts essentially abducted and imprisoned him. Thats much more self defense than an attack. Thats like blaming a bear for attacking a poacher who was trying to trap him in a cage.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

Or tried to save him from the harshes of the space.

Obviously it's an intelligent species, NOT a bear ...

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11383) 3 years ago

Lol, are you saying a bear isn't an intelligent species? Yeah, I'm not arguing with someone who'd say something that dumb, have a good one.

reply

[–] wfujay (39) 3 years ago

They weren't trying to "save" it. They were literally running experiments on it immediately at the request of government. That was the entire storyline of Starro - an abuse victim taking revenge. His dying statement was "I was happy floating, staring at the stars."

I'm almost convinced you didn't pay attention to the movie at all or you're just low IQ.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

your low IQ is showing ;)

I will not even bother to explain why. but you should watch again the movie.
And beside that you should read the definition for "sarcasm" in some dictionary. Although I really doubt you own one.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25567) 3 years ago

Giant Starfish "got out" 3 weeks ago! Talking animals and walking sharks are not absurd?

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Personally, I would sooner believe in a giant parasitic alien that looks like a starfish than in the idea of Superman

Superman gets superpowers from the sun, ok. But any organism that is basically the exact same size and shape as a human could NEVER possible have the strength to lift mountains or skyscrapers. I'm pretty sure that that defies some laws of physics

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

It's not about believing it. It is about it is not that scary. It is borderline cute in an R rated gory movie.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Well James Gunn is not nearly as talented as he believes that he is. What else can I tell ya

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

For other things I would rather believe studio cut some of the character development scenes, but there is no excuse for the giant star fish.

So yeah, it is as good an explanation as any.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

Starro is a comic book supervillain. I personally liked seeing a giant starfish contained and then flopping around, but that's just me

But I don't think it's reasonable to object solely about that one thing considering that the movie also starred (no pun intended) a humanoid weasel, King Shark, Ratcatcher 2, that guy who removed his limbs, and Polka Dot Man

Gunn basically only has one unqualified successful hit to his name and it's Guardians of the Galaxy. and GotG Vol.2 was successful, at least financially

I'm not defending him, but I am saying that a mediocre talent like him WOULD fall back on his few successes. His past successes included lame villains, lots of childish comedy, and CUTE characters

I think he took a lazy approach by making King Shark his DC version of Groot. I think that the rats being friendly and helpful was fucking annoying. I think Gunn's Slither sucked ass

Studio interference was not a major factor in this film. I would bet my life that Gunn had a wide canvas to play with. What you saw was him at his "best"

reply

[–] Scape (527) 3 years ago

Totally agree. This was a studio in trouble, desperately needing a “hit” letting Gunn do whatever he wanted.
And the outcome was a poor story, bland visuals/cinematography in a film that’s trying so hard to be edgy, but coming off completely stale.

I never liked “slither” either. On a petty note, I remember reading that Gunn claimed he had never heard of or seen “Night of the Creeps” which slither borrowed heavily from. I still do not believe him.

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

I did not know the star fish was actually in the comic books, but choosing it here is still a bad call. It could have been placed in a more PG-13 kind of movie. In this movie something else would have been better.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

To say this, I think, misses the point of his dumbass sense of humor. It allowed him to make "chocolate starfish" jokes in the first half of the film. Asshole jokes

And it allows him to rip off Aliens. Starro is a legit character, tho. Think of The Thing, or Robert A. Heinlein's "Puppetmasters", or "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers". I'd say that Gunn failed miserably in this tradition, but if you don't know of this tradition then you might blame the character instead of the retarded writer who fails to adapt it

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

There are way too many problems in this movie, unless there is a director's cut coming out fixing all the problems, I would say yeah, he does look like a talentless hack, at least for me this is the movie exposed him.

The star fish could be scary too, but definitely not looking like the one in the movie. The color, the look are all way too PG.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

This IS the director's cut. In Gunn's own words...

"The Suicide Squad is fully finished and cut and I made every single choice and they never once even slightly interfered. They gave very few notes - they were usually good and minor and I took them if I wanted to and didn't if I didn't want to. Warners was creatively amazing."

https://gamerant.com/james-gunn-suicide-squad-done/

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

G, then he is really a below average director.

I think in some cases studio interference is better. One example could be the matrix, the first movie I think has studio interference. The 2 sequels probably with much less.

reply

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 3 years ago

You’re talking like most people dislike this movie but the truth is most people like it and most people like Guardians of the Galaxy so he can’t be that bad a director.

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

There are definitely diehard fans of DC or gory comic book movies. But I think box office spoke volumes.

I am almost 50 years old, so I might not be the target demographic, but I think this is a movie trying to capture the audience of deadpool and failed.

reply

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 3 years ago

Box office performance doesn’t speak volume. Box office performance doesn’t say anything about the quality of a movie. Many great movies had poor box office performances like off the top of my head Blade Runner 2049. Many bad movies made shit tons of money.

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

First of all Blade Runner 2049 is not great. So I guess we have very different taste in movies.

Secondly I shared my problems with this movie here:

https://moviechat.org/tt6334354/The-Suicide-Squad/610f68a4e4f6a67b1ff7ded4/These-guys-were-painted-as-heroes-but

Not just the post itself, but I elaborated my concerns further as the discussion went on in the thread. The characters and their motivations were further discussed. I would welcome your thoughts of them as well.

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 3 years ago

It's easy to say the movie was bad based on the box office return when it was also a movie released directly to streaming which definitely cut into the box office earnings. Just because a movie bombs at the box office doesn't mean it's a flop. The critical and audience reception of the film has been mostly positive. Poor box office numbers doesn't always mean a movie is bad.

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

Streaming is used as an excuse, but the problems of the movie in my previous post I think is clear.

The critical and audience reception of the film has been mostly positive.

Based on the problems I listed before I'd say critics were bought as per usual.

And you can see what people say from here and the quickly falling IMDB score, the "audience" are not really happy.

Poor box office numbers doesn't always mean a movie is bad.

True, but in this case (and most cases) I think box office is on the mark.

reply

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 3 years ago

7.5/10 with over 100 000 ratings definitely doesn’t seem like a movie most people aren’t happy with at all to me.

As for movie critics being bought, that’s mostly a myth created by people who can’t take opinions that differ from theirs.

I know you don’t like the movie but let’s not distort reality so it matches your opinion more.

reply

[–] fc31 (5477) 3 years ago

7.5/10 with over 100 000 ratings definitely doesn’t seem like a movie most people aren’t happy with at all to me.

Actually it started from over 9 just days ago. You see how quickly it is falling.

As for movie critics being bought, that’s mostly a myth created by people who can’t take opinions that differ from theirs.

No, that is widely known in movie industry. That is why few care about critic review. That is why sites like IMDB and rotten tomato exist. But IMDB is bought too, there is something clearly going on with IMDB scores as well.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (11383) 3 years ago

Or laws of physics theoretically breakdown within our universe already. An event horizon within a black hole supposedly defies our known laws of physics, although we don't really know for certain what happens. I don't know, but I'll bet somebody has done a scientific thesis on how Superman could have some of his abilities, although I'd think flying would be the hardest to explain. I read a Superman allegory called Irredeemable that explained his powers as having the ability to manipulate the universe, and he didn't actually fly, he moved the universe around him.

reply

[–] Strazdas (2472) 3 years ago

Superman gets "superpowers" because of his genetics. The sun is the energy source and earth sun is more intense thus he has more energy than he would back home.

Laws of physics in a comics were never a thing that mattered.

reply

[–] Rorikon (17940) 3 years ago

ITS NAME IS STARRO AND YOU WILL ADDRESS IT AS STARRO THE CONQUEROR. SURE ALL IT DOES IS DRIFT IN SPACE LOOKING AT THE STARS BUT EVIL AMERICANS WANTED TO EXPERIMENT ON IT SO NOW IT TAKES ITS VENGENCE ON A CITY AND MIND CONTROLS RANDOM HUMANS, THAT'S ABOUT IT. IN THE MOVIE IT LOOKS WEAK AS HELL BUT IN SHEER NUMBERS IT CAN OVERCOME ANY HUMAN ARMY DUE TO ITS TOUGH HIDE AND NEAR INFINITE OFFSPRINGS!

reply

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

Kowalski???

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

It's absurd, sure, but totally worked for me given the tone of the movie. Starro in MoS would not have worked AT. ALL.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14484) 3 years ago

I saw pictures of that thing, and I'm now seeing why Starro doesn't really fit into this movie very well. Viewers complained that he looked too "cute and cartoony" for a Rated R film, and should have looked scarier, considering what he was doing, taking over human minds and growing big enough to be a real threat to those around him.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

...not since the Staypuft Marshmellow Man...

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14484) 3 years ago

You do recall that "Ghostbusters" wasn't a serious film, even though the characters took themselves seriously. It was basically comedy/action/horror.

reply

[–] MinaVladimir (4081) 3 years ago

Erm... You think this was a serious film? If all the jokes, and the tone, and all that happened in the movie don't give it away, on IMDB the film is listed as "Action Adventure Comedy Sci-Fi". Nolan's Dark Knight this ain't.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

Wait, do you really think this was "serious"??? HAhahaha

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14484) 3 years ago

I'm actually considering watching it, but I'm hesitant because I didn't see the first film, but this one ties into that one. But the first film I heard was crap, and its only highlight was Harley Quinn, and I'm hesitant to watch it, but it might be nice to see what they might reference in this film. I've heard high praises for this one, but I'm still kinda hesitant. Also, really gory comic book movies aren't really my thing, but I can make exceptions once in a while.

I feel the same way about Deadpool. I wanta see what all the fuss is about, but I'm not sure I wanta see a film like that either.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 3 years ago

I would recommend you to see all 3 (Deadpools and this one) and totally skip the first Suicide Squad. It was really awful ... and not too many connections to this one ...

The starfish actually fits the crazyness of the rest of the movie ...

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

ironically, he already looked absurd in the trailer.
Actually seeing him in the movie made him terrifying as all hell. So word of mouth should help.

reply