I thought the film was not bad. Not good, but not bad. Though the more I think about it the more dislike I have for it.
I should honestly stop thinking and try to enjoy it as it is, I think I'm over focusing on looking for flaws.
At least it's some variety for usual DC works, but currently the trend in both the comics and films seem to be more pointlessly gritty things. I would like more of different types of works catered more to my tastes. As it also feels a majority, at least half, of DC, and western comic in general, have more grit nowadays.
Or if it is a gritty work, at least something gritty that would be better executed and written. At least in my opinion, this wasn't well written.
It was like a Call of Duty game plot. Travel to a set piece. Watch an action scene. Leave for another action scene. Little to tie it all together. Thin characterization. Thin actual plot or themes.
At least I still have the CW live action shows.
Man, I fucking wish the more anti-heroic/anti-villainous depictions of Croc where he would at times act as a defender of the downtrodden set the standard. But there's too much damn baggage in favour of "ARGGGALBLARGAL GIANT MONSTER MAN EATS PEOPLE" portrayal.
People complain about superheroes getting bungled portrayals all the time, but it's supervillains that get fucked over the most by writers not caring about consistency. You need your villain to be this specific level of evil? Feel free to just chuck out prior characterization to make that happen!
I agree. Comic books Croc is tied to Gotham Academy now, and is portrayed, if not in one of his heroic phases, the author is showing him in a sympathetic light. Lots of good character moments, dialogue, interaction, and tied to sympathetic reasons in the plot and themes.
If Gotham Academy does well, the characterization might stick, at least for some time. Of course if Gotham Academy does poorly, all those characters will likely be forgotten about for years, and brought back a decade later by either a fan, or to name drop one of them an kill them off in a single panel for drama.
It's not just less popular characters that is inconsistent. Look at Joker for example. Everything about Joker, from his looks to his personality to his ability can change.
I did not like Joker in this film.
The characterization seemed inconsistent. Someone tried to explain it as a take on the "LOL Chaos" interpretation of Joker, but even so, if that's what the objective was, the interpretation as portrayed seem badly written to me. And this Joker also seemed to be written more like the mob boss interpretation. If he was an attempt to be both, it wasn't done well.
And the plot powers and ass pulls.
Why? Because the Joker is popular. He apparently gets an excuse for this.
He's got perfect intel on everything, more then Amanda Waller and Batman and everyone else. Somehow, despite having nowhere near the same depicted resources as either. Just happens to be in the right place at the right times. Perfect timing.
How does Joker hijack a military helicopter off screen and get all his other resources? Because he's the Joker!
How does Joker manage to attack a maximum security prison, research building, military base, and another maximum security prison, successfully attacking all these places with about 10 people in bulky hard to move and hard to see in costumes? Because he is the Joker! (And also being able to stop and waste time in the middle of his attack to taunt for a long, long time.)
How does Joker inspire such loyalty in random people and get such reliable double agents, while never getting compromised in return? Because he's the Joker!
I also disliked Waller being randomly edgy. Amanda Waller in most continuity put herself on the same level as a normal civilian and her own people, in that she is willing to risk her life for what she views as good people. Here she executes her own loyal staff for no reason, and then tries to blackmail Batman to save her own career.
Waller always seemed in comics and the DCAU and other interpretations to value in order
"The Greater Good"
'Normal' people
Herself (she does sometimes see herself as less 'worthy' due to the shady things she does)
Those she views as criminals that are too far gone and unable to rehabilitate, which are the most disposable units to her
I don't think she'd shoot her subordinates, especially if only to save her own career. Maybe this version of Waller has a high opinion of herself, and sees herself as vital to maintaining the 'greater good' and her own ideals for herself, her world, and her nation.
About Suicide Squad, they are somewhat similar to Guardians of the Galaxy. However the Suicide Squad crew are much worse criminals. Though maybe I only think that because I have read the comics, while the Guardians are almost always heroic. Judging solely on screen maybe they seem about the same, as I can't tell because of the information from the comics making me make some assumptions and bias.
The plot of an ensemble or group cast isn't that strange. As is the 'boxed crook' plot. Guardians of the Galaxy isn't really a boxed crook story, but there are similar types of stories along with Guardians of the Galaxy. The Expendables, the Dirty Dozen, Inglorious Bastards.