3 stupid questions about "who would stop Superman if he became bad"
-
torfarrells — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 10:57 AM)
- have you seen the movie? They say what if "the next" superman isn't on their side. They are not taking about the actual superman because
- yes of course this is after BvS. There is an entire glimpse of his funeral! Waller literally says "after superman died"
- lastly, don't apply too much logic. I enjoyed the film because I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. I didn't question it. It's not a movie to question. It's just fun.
-
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 02:33 PM)
torfarrells
I didn't question it. It's not a movie to question. It's just fun.
That's a lame excuse everybody makes to support every movie that doesn't make sense. I don't demand to make sense of how Superman flies, or even how his glasses hide his identity (!!), but within the boundaries of fiction, some things must make some sort of sense. Every movie should have a good screenplay, whether it's a serious drama, or a fun comedy. And these DC movies, apparently they don't have good screenplays, because WB and/or DC don't care about that. They care about how many action figures they're gonna sell. -
AJforTrey — 9 years ago(November 10, 2016 05:48 PM)
Dreamcatcher9000
torfarrells
I didn't question it. It's not a movie to question. It's just fun.
That's a lame excuse
everybody makes to support every movie that doesn't make sense. I don't demand to make sense of how Superman flies, or even how his glasses hide his identity (!!), but within the boundaries of fiction, some things must make some sort of sense. Every movie should have a good screenplay, whether it's a serious drama, or a fun comedy. And these DC movies, apparently they don't have good screenplays, because WB and/or DC don't care about that. They care about how many action figures they're gonna sell.
Thank you! -
Dblshotz — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 06:02 PM)
- lastly, don't apply too much logic. I enjoyed the film because I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. I didn't question it. It's not a movie to question. It's just fun.
Refreshing to see someone on here who gets it.
Anyone who uses the term "Mary Sue" is a dirty neck beard having homosexual hipster.
- lastly, don't apply too much logic. I enjoyed the film because I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. I didn't question it. It's not a movie to question. It's just fun.
-
clickbait — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 01:39 PM)
Dont listen to stupid people who says "Its Just mindless fun"only really young kids without a functional brain and grown up retards use that excuse to try and defend a movie that is so bad that not even Ailen would like to take over this planet cause of retarded made crap like this turd flick
~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~ -
everythingangels — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 12:01 PM)
They are not taking about the actual superman because
Well, they WERE in fact talking about the actual Superman though.
It begins with talking about (and showing video of actual Superman) what if Superman (the actual one, if only in a hypothetical situation) had decided to fly down and rip off the roof of the White House and grab the President of the United States. And the question is: who would have stopped him?
Now, maybe the line you're referring to suggests they're not actually talking about "the real Superman" - but the audience is literally supposed to be sold on the idea of Suicide Squad being formed in order to stop Superman.
And at best your argument is that the closing statement of "the next Superman" is the only thing that matters and lead up should be disregarded but the lead up is important because it's not just suggesting a large threat it's suggesting an actual SUPERMAN-LEVEL THREAT.
So whether or not we want to talk about actual Superman we're most certainly talking about the Squad being formed to stop "Superman!" And that's absurdly dumb.
And, actually, it's one of the problems with these DC movies they're so busy trying to make everything "epic" that anything that might make sense is quickly discarded in favor of something "bigger and cooler."
The Suicide Squad being formed because they could be useful and do dirty work? Seems fine but why not go bigger, right? How about the Squad is formed to combat Superman!!?!??! Gimme a break -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 12:13 PM)
Well, they WERE in fact talking about the actual Superman though.
It begins with talking about (and showing video of actual Superman) what if Superman (the actual one, if only in a hypothetical situation) had decided to fly down and rip off the roof of the White House and grab the President of the United States. And the question is: who would have stopped him?
Which is used merely as a point of reference to acknowledge how dangerous Metahumans could potentially be.
Now, maybe the line you're referring to suggests they're not actually talking about "the real Superman" - but the audience is literally supposed to be sold on the idea of Suicide Squad being formed in order to stop Superman.
No we're actually not.
Cause its not him whose selling the idea of the Suicide Squad, that's Waller.
He's just opening the discussion on the subject of Metahumans and how they could be very dangerous.
So whether or not we want to talk about actual Superman we're most certainly talking about the Squad being formed to stop "Superman!" And that's absurdly dumb.
See above. Waller's argument is entirely upon how they can use the Metahumans, and how they can be used to stop other Metahumans.
Superman exists as nothing more than a point of reference, cause he's the very first metahuman to be wildly known.
The Suicide Squad being formed because they could be useful and do dirty work?
As in, is actually stated an what their used for in this movie?
Why does everyone cling to that line so tightly? -
everythingangels — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 08:42 PM)
Dude, it's still being sold to the military as an idea for a team of people that could stop a powerful metahuman that THE MILITARY ITSELF CAN'T STOP! They aren't being asked to release these dangerous lunatics to save kittens out of trees. They're being asked to release these dangerous lunatics into a program to avert a huge disaster that has our military hopeless against a dangerous metahuman they can't stop (like Superman).
Sorry, that premise is still completely absurd when we're looking at a little girl with a baseball bat as "the answer" to this potentially dangerous metahuman problem.
There are plenty of other reasons they could have devised as to why this team was allowed to exist but the one the movie chose was that the military okay'd the program because of a Superman-level threat that was possibly out of their hands. And then the movie expects the audience to not raise an eyebrow when these same military people that heard this pitch didn't seem bothered in the least by schmucks like Harley Quinn being recruited into this program to stop "Superman." -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 04:47 AM)
Dude, it's still being sold to the military as an idea for a team of people that could stop a powerful metahuman that THE MILITARY ITSELF CAN'T STOP!
But it wasn't. That was just the opening of the discussion on Metahumans.
They aren't being asked to release these dangerous lunatics to save kittens out of trees. They're being asked to release these dangerous lunatics into a program to avert a huge disaster that has our military hopeless against a dangerous metahuman they can't stop (like Superman).
No their being asked to release the dangerous lunatics do covert missions for the government, and interfere in metahuaman matters.
Sorry, that premise is still completely absurd when we're looking at a little girl with a baseball bat as "the answer" to this potentially dangerous metahuman problem.
Well it looks less absurd when you remember they weren't.
There are plenty of other reasons they could have devised as to why this team was allowed to exist but the one the movie chose was that the military okay'd the program because of a Superman-level threat that was possibly out of their hands.
No it wasn't. That was just said to start the discussion.
Didn't you hear Waller's long speech on the subject?
And then the movie expects the audience to not raise an eyebrow when these same military people that heard this pitch didn't seem bothered in the least by schmucks like Harley Quinn being recruited into this program to stop "Superman."
Well that's all the metahumans they had. -
everythingangels — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 08:23 AM)
No their being asked to release the dangerous lunatics do covert missions for the government
That's more the comics angle. In the movie, if that was the logic and reason for assembling the team then the people making the movie would have stated this idea instead of making it "implied," as you'd like to think it's supposed to be for some team. And even if YOU'RE familiar with the comics the military people at that meeting are not and THEY'RE are being sold on the idea with the threat of a "rogue Superman" - even more, what "covert mission" are they even shown doing in the movie - do you mean the one where they are helicoptered into the center of a major US city with a US military escort assigned to them? You know, the mission where some random citizen looking out the window would have caught all this on their cell phone and posted it to YouTube do you mean THAT "covert mission?" -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 08:53 AM)
In the movie, if that was the logic and reason for assembling the team then the people making the movie would have stated this idea instead of making it "implied," as you'd like to think it's supposed to be for some team.
The movie did state that idea, and they were outright given a demonstration.
even more, what "covert mission" are they even shown doing in the movie
Well their is when Waller uses the Enchantress to steal the Iran military secrets at the beginning.- do you mean the one where they are helicoptered into the center of a major US city with a US military escort assigned to them? You know, the mission where some random citizen looking out the window would have caught all this on their cell phone and posted it to YouTube do you mean THAT "covert mission?"
Right cause hundreds of people look out the of the window of cities that have been abandoned and are being covered up as a chemical attack by terrorists?
Nothing covert about that at all.
- do you mean the one where they are helicoptered into the center of a major US city with a US military escort assigned to them? You know, the mission where some random citizen looking out the window would have caught all this on their cell phone and posted it to YouTube do you mean THAT "covert mission?"
-
TRinzler — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 10:22 AM)
It's not a movie to question. It's just fun.
If this was a standalone this would be fine but SS is supposed to exist within the DCCU which means that what happens needs to make sense within the broader context of MoS, BvS and JL except it doesn't. EPIC FAIL.
Perhaps WB should stick to make standalone CBH films after all -
DethstruXioN — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 11:08 AM)
All of this depends on Superman wanting to stay on Earth, he might as well decide to live on Mars, or throw some asteroids towards Earth, or push the Moon onto Earth?
He should be beyond fighting, he should be able to do a Hulk and tear Gotham off the face of the Earth, if he really went psycho, then he shouldnt be weak towards attacks from Earthbound forces.
Unless the hero/badguy tech scales up massively with Superman's actions, otherwise it is no match, Superman is only held back because of his loyalty to mankind, all they could hope for is some miracle, a lapse in his concentration and serve him some Krypto-cookies.
You would need to move up to Galactus and Apocalypse caliber opponents, but even they get beaten easily by whatever team that plays the hero.
David will always beat Goliath i guess.
I skip reading the bottom line, because it is usually some lame signature. -
bcjester — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 11:16 AM)
Where were the REAL (DC) superheroes when all of this catastrophe was happening? Where was Batman, Flash, Wonder Woman?
Likely tending to their own issues. That's kind of why they aren't always in every comic that has some sort of world ending problem coming up, and this is in fact a comic book movie. So There is that.
And what did the Enchantress want? Just to conquer the world? Becauseshe's bad?
Her and her brother were once treated as Gods, then they were tricked and sealed into those totems (which is explained in the movie by the way) humans now worship "machines." . So she created a "machine" to destroy them and put them in their place to bow beneath her. Not just because she was "evil" chick was a scorned god, and a woman scorned at that. None of that is a good thing to have against you.
And last, so a big city is getting destroyed, andwhat does the government do?? Why don't they throw a bomb to thatbeam of light, whatever it was?? You know, like the one that Croc threw!! But a bigger one, and from an F-16 or whatever. But no, the solution is: SEND HARLEY QUINN!!
No idea what the outcome of that would be. Could have made things worse, and they sent a disposable clean up crew. On top of that Waller a government official was there. So they'd have to cover up why she was there and why they were okay with bombing the crap out of her to get rid of this event. Croc didn't throw a bomb, that literally never happened.
Honestly I'd send Harley Quinn too, if the chick dies in combat or just in general on the mission she's gone. You're not held accountable for it so Joker wouldn't target you. He'd target who killed her. Your hands are clean. I'd send her on every mission to TRY to get her ass killed.
I've baited my hook with my own underwear. Is it wrong that I hope to catch a fish I can relate to?-Ragdoll. -
impaler69 — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 12:19 PM)
Where were the REAL (DC) superheroes when all of this catastrophe was happening?
This is the problem with end-of-the-world plots in shared universes. If you don't send in the A-team, then people will wonder what the hell they were doing.
And there's another problem: the world-ending threat gets overused. Three DCU movies and each one has a villain threatening to destroy the world. Man of Steel, I understand. In BvS it felt tacked-on. In Suicide Squad it's just plain unnecessary.
Just think about what kind of mission warrants sending in a team of criminals. Criminals are expendable and unreliable. So, the mission should be too dangerous (or illegal) to send in a regular team, but the stakes can't be so high that failure is catastrophic. That's why the end-of-the-world scenario doesn't work.
I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 04:15 PM)
impaler69
Criminals are expendable and unreliable. So, the mission should be too dangerous (or illegal) to send in a regular team, but the stakes can't be so high that failure is catastrophic. That's why the end-of-the-world scenario doesn't work.
Exactly. This team should be sent to a smaller kind of conflict, a dirty government job that no super hero would want to do. Not to save the world.
And yes, this saving the world thing has gotten beyond repetitive. In EVERY beep super hero movie, the heroes save the world (or at least a big city) at the end. That's why "Captain America 3" was different, because it was the only super hero movie that didn't have that crap. But, it had another kind of crap, that they were fighting each other trying towhat? Kill each other? Seriously, what did they want to do? Was Iron Man trying to KILL Captain, and vice versa? Or just kick his ass, to teach him a lesson? If you fight someone, you either fight to kill him because he's a threat to you, or to just kick his ass because he insulted you or whatever. So what was Iron Man's team trying to do with Cap's team?
In the old super heroes movies, and well, they weren't so many, just Batman and Superman, you can say that they were not that impressive or they were naive or whatever, but you didn't have so many stupid questions about them. For example, Burton's "Batman", 1989. I don't have any questions about it. It was Joker, a crazy bad guy, who was trying to take over Gotham City (as far as I remember), and Batman was trying to stop him. Simple as that! Good guy vs. bad guy! And in "Batman Returns", kind of the same. Even in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man", it had a simple story that made sense. It wasn't a masterpiece, but you didn't have any questions about it.
And now, with every one if these new movies, everyone asks questions about every scene, because the people who make them want to put more and more stuff in them, and the movies become a beep mess. What happened to good old "Good guy vs. Bad guy" movies? With a nice romance story on the side, and a few supporting characters who had reason for existence? What happened to simplicity? Sometime it works (like the first "Avengers", the only one of these movies that I really enjoyed, mainly because it was funny and the chemistry between them worked), but most of the times it's a mess. BvS could be as simple as that, Just Batman Vs Superman. No Wonder Woman, no Doomsday, and Luthor could have a smaller part. There is a wise expression that says "less is more". -
BrotherZed — 9 years ago(August 30, 2016 09:08 PM)
Exactly. This team should be sent to a smaller kind of conflict, a dirty government job that no super hero would want to do. Not to save the world.
And yes, this saving the world thing has gotten beyond repetitive. In EVERY beep super hero movie, the heroes save the world (or at least a big city) at the end. That's why "Captain America 3" was different, because it was the only super hero movie that didn't have that crap. But, it had another kind of crap, that they were fighting each other trying towhat? Kill each other? Seriously, what did they want to do?
Was Iron Man trying to KILL Captain, and vice versa? Or just kick his ass, to teach him a lesson? If you fight someone, you either fight to kill him because he's a threat to you, or to just kick his ass because he insulted you or whatever. So what was Iron Man's team trying to do with Cap's team?
In the old super heroes movies, and well, they weren't so many, just Batman and Superman, you can say that they were not that impressive or they were naive or whatever, but you didn't have so many stupid questions about them. For example, Burton's "Batman", 1989. I don't have any questions about it. It was Joker, a crazy bad guy, who was trying to take over Gotham City (as far as I remember), and Batman was trying to stop him. Simple as that! Good guy vs. bad guy! And in "Batman Returns", kind of the same. Even in Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man", it had a simple story that made sense. It wasn't a masterpiece, but you didn't have any questions about it.
And now, with every one if these new movies, everyone asks questions about every scene, because the people who make them want to put more and more stuff in them, and the movies become a beep mess. What happened to good old "Good guy vs. Bad guy" movies? With a nice romance story on the side, and a few supporting characters who had reason for existence? What happened to simplicity? Sometime it works (like the first "Avengers", the only one of these movies that I really enjoyed, mainly because it was funny and the chemistry between them worked), but most of the times it's a mess. BvS could be as simple as that, Just Batman Vs Superman. No Wonder Woman, no Doomsday, and Luthor could have a smaller part. There is a wise expression that says "less is more".
Did you even watch the movie? It was all explained, fairly clearly. -
Kyos — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 04:30 AM)
But, it had another kind of crap, that they were fighting each other trying towhat? Kill each other? Seriously, what did they want to do? Was Iron Man trying to KILL Captain, and vice versa? Or just kick his ass, to teach him a lesson? If you fight someone, you either fight to kill him because he's a threat to you, or to just kick his ass because he insulted you or whatever. So what was Iron Man's team trying to do with Cap's team?
I've grown a little tired of explaining these obvious things, so I'll allow myself to resort to saying: watch the movie or read a summary. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(September 02, 2016 09:12 AM)
I've grown a little tired of explaining these obvious things
Who asked you?
Ok, I'm asking you now. Did Iron Man want Captain dead, or just to kick his ass to teach him a lesson? It's a simple question.