3 stupid questions about "who would stop Superman if he became bad"
-
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(September 14, 2016 11:56 AM)
Their first mission was not to deal with the Enchantress, it was to get Waller out of the city.
Before the first firefight its outright stated their orders specifically state not to engage the Enchantress or her goons.
And how the hell would they get Waller out of there if they wouldn't engage with Enchantress and/or her goons?
The Government could have blown the entire city to kingdom come. But they didn't cause Waller was in it.
Yeah, right. Who is she, the First Lady? So the government could have bombed the Enchantress and stop this chaos, but they didn't do it because of Waller? What's so important about her anyway?? Is she irreplaceable?
He in turn confiscates all the information she has so she can't interfere with his team.
Confiscates? What, she didn't have any copies?
To be fair, they have only done it twice so far.
You mean in DC? I was speaking in general about super hero movies. Well, I can't define now which of these movies really had an "end of the world" scenario, but what I mean is that in EVERY of these movies (Marvel and DC), a HUGE catastrophe happens at the end, in a big city, at least. And if you wanna talk about DC only, yes, "Man of Steel", "Batman v. Superman", and "Suicide Squad", all these movies had cities destroyed at the end (I don't remember how big was the damage in "Batman v. Superman" with Doomsday, but I think it was pretty big). And it gets boring. Only "Captain America 3" didn't have a catastrophe like that, because they were just fighting each other in an airport.
Do you remember the OLD super hero movies? Tim Burton's two "Batman" movies, the old "Superman", etc.? They were great, and they didn't have all these huge devastations happening. Do you remember "Batman" (1989)? Wasn't it a good comic book movie? Why do movies have to be so beep LOUD today to impress people? And have all these "complicated" plots and unnecessary subplots? -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 04:44 AM)
And how the hell would they get Waller out of there if they wouldn't engage with Enchantress and/or her goons?
Wouldn't? What are you talking about?
That's like saying why do soldiers shoot terrorists when they perform rescue missions.
Their is a difference between being ordered to take on a target, and being ordered to get someone out from the target after all.
Yeah, right. Who is she, the First Lady? So they government could have bombed the Enchantress and stop this chaos, but they didn't do it because of Waller? What's so important about her anyway?? Is she irreplaceable?
Yes, weren't you paying attention. She's a very high up government official, who if we're to believe has blackmail information on just about everyone.
Confiscates? What, she didn't have any copies?
No doubt part of the agreement is she destroys them. Its not exactly that hard. If someone tells you you only get their protection if you give them the information, that means you give them all of it. Or you don't get their protection.
You mean in DC? I was speaking in general about super hero movies.
Oh sorry.
Well, I can't define now which of these movies really had an "end of the world" scenario, but what I mean is that in EVERY of these movies (Marvel and DC), a HUGE catastrophe happens at the end, in a big city, at least.
Yeah its true.
(I don't remember how big was the damage in "Batman v. Superman" with Doomsday, but I think it was pretty big).
Well it had the potential to get very very big, but they stopped it with only a few death and a some property damage.
Only "Captain America 3" didn't have a catastrophe like that, because they were just fighting each other in an airport.
Well there was that explosion at the beginning. And the UN being bombed.
Really the only Superhero films I can think of without a big catastrophe are "Ironman", "Iroman 2", and "Antman"
Do you remember the OLD super hero movies? Tim Burton's two "Batman" movies, the old "Superman", etc.? They were great, and they didn't have all these huge devastations happening. Do you remember "Batman" (1989)?
What are you talking about?
In the Original Superman movie they had Luthor setting off massive earthquakes which would have destroyed an enormous amount of the coastline and killed thousands.
In Superman II General Zod invaded and conquered America.
In Batman 1989, the Joker tried to gas the entire population of Gotham City killing thousands.
In Batman Returns the Penguin tried to blow up all the children in Gotham.
All of them had big disasters. Big disasters sort of come with the genre. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(September 15, 2016 06:04 PM)
Dude, you said:
Before the first firefight its outright stated their orders specifically state not to engage the Enchantress or her goons.
And I ask, how could they save Waller if they didn't fight the Enchantress, or at least her goons? And you say "well, of course they would fight them, how can you go to a battle and not kill some bad guys?". Which is the logical thing to do. Then why were their orders NOT to engage the Enchantress or her goons (as you say, I don't remember hearing this in the movie, but I'll take your word)?
Read my words and your words very carefully. English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure I understand what you said and what I'm saying.
About the comparison of the old and new super hero movies, do you compare the end of "Batman" (1989) with the end of "The Avengers"? Or the end of any of the old "Superman" movies, with the end of "Man of Steel"? In "Man of Steel", half of Metropolis is demolished. DEMOLISHED. Where did you see a huge city getting demolished in any of the old "Superman" movies?
You said the key-word though. Luthor, Joker, and the Penguin, TRIED to bring catastrophe. But they didn't manage to do it. We didn't see 50 buildings getting demolished. Because, one reason, back then there was no CGI to do that. And still, they were good movies. Today, it's very hard for the producers to make a super hero film without an entire city GETTING destroyed, not just have a maniac say "I'm gonna destroy the world". Do you understand the difference? -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 06:28 AM)
And I ask, how could they save Waller if they didn't fight the Enchantress, or at least her goons? And you say "well, of course they would fight them, how can you go to a battle and not kill some bad guys?". Which is the logical thing to do. Then why were their orders NOT to engage the Enchantress or her goons (as you say, I don't remember hearing this in the movie, but I'll take your word)?
Okay let me rephrase myself. Their orders were not to confront the Enchantress and her goons, except for when it was necessary to fulfil the mission.
Real life militaries get orders like that all the time during rescue missions. The priority is to rescue the target, not to take out their captors.
But at the same time they're obviously allowed to engage if they are either attacked or the captors are preventing them for fulfilling their mission.
To put it another way, if they could perform there mission without confronting the Enchantress and her goons, that was the path they had to take.
About the comparison of the old and new super hero movies, do you compare the end of "Batman" (1989) with the end of "The Avengers"? Or the end of any of the old "Superman" movies, with the end of "Man of Steel"? In "Man of Steel", half of Metropolis is demolished. DEMOLISHED. Where did you see a huge city getting demolished in any of the old "Superman" movies?
You said the key-word though. Luthor, Joker, and the Penguin, TRIED to bring catastrophe. But they didn't manage to do it. We didn't see 50 buildings getting demolished. Because, one reason, back then there was no CGI to do that. And still, they were good movies. Today, it's very hard for the producers to make a super hero film without an entire city GETTING destroyed, not just have a maniac say "I'm gonna destroy the world". Do you understand the difference?
Of course I understand the difference.
You said that in old films they never had heroes facing massive catastrophes. I'm saying its been a stable of the genre from the start. And that in the old films the villains often would cause a lot of damage as well.
In the original Superman, Superman does have to go back in time to undo Luthor's damage.
And in Superman Two, we get scenes of Zod and his cronies terrorising America an leaving destruction in there wake.
Now special effects are better, directors like to show more of the damage a villain can do, cause its more effective than just having them talk about it.
Besides your kind of exaggerating, from the Long shots it was clear not even 10% of he city of Metropolis was destroyed. -
Dreamcatcher9000 — 9 years ago(September 16, 2016 09:43 AM)
Their orders were not to confront the Enchantress and her goons, except for when it was necessary to fulfil the mission.
And why did they order them not to confront them (unless it was necessary)? I mean, isn't this why they grouped them in the first place? To fight, because of their special abilities? Isn't this why they're called SUICIDE Squad? To engage in very dangerous missions? -
mddwbsst — 9 years ago(September 18, 2016 08:57 AM)
And why did they order them not to confront them (unless it was necessary)?
Cause that was not their mission. Their mission was to rescue Waller.
I mean, isn't this why they grouped them in the first place? To fight, because of their special abilities?
No they were formed to do the Governments covert missions and deal with certain matters involving Metahumans. They were never the Governments private heroes on a leash.
Isn't this why they're called SUICIDE Squad? To engage in very dangerous missions?
Yes, key word their missions.
They were only allowed to do what was ordered. They were ordered to get Waller out of the city. Not to engage the Enchantress and her goons, unless they came between them and performing that mission. -
DarrylDixon — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 11:29 AM)
Suicide Squad would be more interesting, if it was an Expandables style movie. Action scenes with practical effects (Ayer prefer this over CGI), real humour (not forced), human enemies, and not forgot, an R-Rating.
-
clickbait — 9 years ago(September 01, 2016 01:37 PM)
This is pile of juvenile retarded turd trash and there is no point in trying to make some sense out of this retardnessthis is one of the worst movies ever made, everything is just pure thrash and beyond extreme stupiditytypical Ayer movieI just wish I could get a refund on the money wasted on this crap and I for one is fooled to help this crap reach 700 mill cause of lame hope that it would be decent at least which it wasntbtw, I love SS comics and the animated movie Assault on Arkham which is a perfect SS movie and who a perfect SS movie should be.
~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~