The Suicide Squad *SPOILERS*

[Scott Taylor]

Starro dying to a swarm of rats is IMO one of the many, many instances of this movie making playful fun of the sillier aspects of superhero comics. It's also what made the best entries of the MCU so great. There are all these big winks at the superhero genre without them getting condescending. That's what had me hooked throughout the movie.

Yah thats a good point, it was a pretty good parody of comics. Not sure that was the intent behind the movie, and it wasn't what I wanted out of the movie, but I hadn't looked at it that way. The big stupid titles, the way Starro got killed, all of the over-the-top meaningless violence, the fat jokes, the pointless characters who seem to just be there for effect. Yah.

Except for the Harley Quinn part, that was an odd little mini-movie within the movie.

[Jim Kelly]

Rincewind has already listed enough examples. In case the mentioned names don't mean anything to you one could add that she is going to star in the next installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, so I don't think there is anything substantial to back up your flavor of the month assertion.

I was voicing a concern that we won't get more Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I want more, but based on the way the studios work, I am worried that won't happen. I'd like to pretend it won't happen, but there are many examples of Warner Bros. losing faith in a franchise or an actor and giving up. That's not my desire or a "hot take"--that's just the reality.

Rincewind's examples prove the point I was making. But since Rincewind didn't seem to get the point, nor did you, I guess I have to make it clearer. She's been successful enough as a movie actress, but not yet proven as a blockbuster star. Maybe a PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN reboot will do the trick. But watching THE SUICIDE SQUAD, I started to worry that given how Hollywood works, they might not give Robbie many more chances as the star in a big budget blockbuster. And that would be a shame. There's less time on the clock for women than for men in that industry. Of course, she's a good actress and will probably have a long career in movies--but I was talking about the prospects of her becoming a big star in blockbuster movies.

The "flavour of the month" syndrome is well known, so I didn't think I had to explain it. It's been remarked on for decades. It happens that a young woman will attract the attention of the media and the public and she becomes the "flavour of the month." That woman and her management team try to parlay that attention into more projects for her, in the hopes of increasing her pay grade. And they have to work quick, because Hollywood's attention soon turns to the next "flavour of the month."

There are three ways this can go. In a few cases, the "flavour of the month"--such as a Julia Roberts or a Sandra Bullock--is able to score more big movies and approach the kind of pay grade and box office success of her male co-stars. More often, while the "flavour of the month" is able to carve out a career--and may get award winning roles and become a household name--she never gets the same pay and box office numbers that the big name male blockbuster stars get and the studios don't consider her bankable for big budget movies. Her name is not enough to get the movie funding or to bring in audiences on opening weekend. In smaller budget movies or as part of an ensemble, she can do well--but she can't establish herself on the same level as a Dwayne Johnson or a Tom Cruise. The third option is that the "flavour of the month," after some attempts at getting more roles, is declared box office poison and isn't able to continue as a movie star.

I'm not advocating this syndrome. I'm just identifying that it exists. Hollywood is sexist. Women don't get the same pay as men. They aren't given the lead in as many big budget movies. Men have a longer runway--they can proceed on a longer path toward stardom, which may take them twenty years. Women have a shorter runway--they need to get to the next level in less than ten years or else they are considered past it. It would be nice if it wasn't that way--but I'm looking at it realistically.

So I'm worried that Warner Bros. will follow their familiar pattern and lose faith in Margot Robbie. It's not something I want to happen, but it is something I worry will happen. And watching THE SUICIDE SQUAD and seeing how excellent she was, that made me sad if this the last we see of her in that role.

[chicago_bastard]

I was voicing a concern that we won't get more Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I want more, but based on the way the studios work, I am worried that won't happen. I'd like to pretend it won't happen, but there are many examples of Warner Bros. losing faith in a franchise or an actor and giving up. That's not my desire or a "hot take"--that's just the reality.

Rincewind's examples prove the point I was making. But since Rincewind didn't seem to get the point, nor did you, I guess I have to make it clearer. She's been successful enough as a movie actress, but not yet proven as a blockbuster star. Maybe a PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN reboot will do the trick. But watching THE SUICIDE SQUAD, I started to worry that given how Hollywood works, they might not give Robbie many more chances as the star in a big budget blockbuster. And that would be a shame. There's less time on the clock for women than for men in that industry. Of course, she's a good actress and will probably have a long career in movies--but I was talking about the prospects of her becoming a big star in blockbuster movies.

The "flavour of the month" syndrome is well known, so I didn't think I had to explain it. It's been remarked on for decades. It happens that a young woman will attract the attention of the media and the public and she becomes the "flavour of the month." That woman and her management team try to parlay that attention into more projects for her, in the hopes of increasing her pay grade. And they have to work quick, because Hollywood's attention soon turns to the next "flavour of the month."

There are three ways this can go. In a few cases, the "flavour of the month"--such as a Julia Roberts or a Sandra Bullock--is able to score more big movies and approach the kind of pay grade and box office success of her male co-stars. More often, while the "flavour of the month" is able to carve out a career--and may get award winning roles and become a household name--she never gets the same pay and box office numbers that the big name male blockbuster stars get and the studios don't consider her bankable for big budget movies. Her name is not enough to get the movie funding or to bring in audiences on opening weekend. In smaller budget movies or as part of an ensemble, she can do well--but she can't establish herself on the same level as a Dwayne Johnson or a Tom Cruise. The third option is that the "flavour of the month," after some attempts at getting more roles, is declared box office poison and isn't able to continue as a movie star.

I'm not advocating this syndrome. I'm just identifying that it exists. Hollywood is sexist. Women don't get the same pay as men. They aren't given the lead in as many big budget movies. Men have a longer runway--they can proceed on a longer path toward stardom, which may take them twenty years. Women have a shorter runway--they need to get to the next level in less than ten years or else they are considered past it. It would be nice if it wasn't that way--but I'm looking at it realistically.

So I'm worried that Warner Bros. will follow their familiar pattern and lose faith in Margot Robbie. It's not something I want to happen, but it is something I worry will happen. And watching THE SUICIDE SQUAD and seeing how excellent she was, that made me sad if this the last we see of her in that role.

I don't think that stars who turn a blockbuster automatically into a hit exist any longer apart from maybe a handful actors, Leonardo DiCaprio being one of them. Sadly I don't think there is a single actress that belongs to this exclusive club.

Let's take the Pirates of the Caribbean example. Which current actress could get the role instead of Margot and would guarantee that the movie will become a success? There isn't one. So Margot is as big a star as one can get in today's environment, especially as a female.

Nowadays box office success mainly stems from successful IPs, not stars. Tom Cruise whom you mentioned as an example of a star is actually also heavily reliant on an IP to have success at the box office. His only movies that were successful in the last years are the M:I flicks that profit from being a well-known IP. His other attempts like The Mummy, Edge of Tomorow, or Oblivion were all disappointments at the box office, showing that the name of a supposed star alone is no draw at the box office.

Also I don't think Warner will give Margot the sack. If they scrapped all their DCEU characters that aren't successful they would only be left with Aquaman since Wonder Woman's second movie bombed and the rest was never successful in the first place. Actually when it comes to great DCEU characters she still ranks pretty high given the competition so Warner would cut themselves into their own flesh by abandoning her.

And lastly Margot doesn't strike me as an actress who is keen to be in blockbusters all the time. She got two Oscar nominations in the last four years, the directors she is set to work with in the next years are highly acclaimed so she'll be perfectly fine even if she never played in a DC movie or any other blockbuster again. Which won't happen as she'll star in Pirates anyway.

[FBarnhill]

I keep seeing how Starro's rampage was against humanity at large but it didn't seem like that to me. They seemed more about killing everyone in the city ("This is my city") for their complicity, regardless of innocence. They did leave the Squad alone after they saved them. I assumed after they killed everyone there, they would've just rest there for the rest of their lives and killed anyone else trying to kill them out of self-defense. What's your take?

Note: I'm using "they" to be gender neutral.

[Rincewind]

I was voicing a concern that we won't get more Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I want more, but based on the way the studios work, I am worried that won't happen. I'd like to pretend it won't happen, but there are many examples of Warner Bros. losing faith in a franchise or an actor and giving up. That's not my desire or a "hot take"--that's just the reality.

Rincewind's examples prove the point I was making. But since Rincewind didn't seem to get the point, nor did you, I guess I have to make it clearer. She's been successful enough as a movie actress, but not yet proven as a blockbuster star. Maybe a PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN reboot will do the trick. But watching THE SUICIDE SQUAD, I started to worry that given how Hollywood works, they might not give Robbie many more chances as the star in a big budget blockbuster. And that would be a shame. There's less time on the clock for women than for men in that industry. Of course, she's a good actress and will probably have a long career in movies--but I was talking about the prospects of her becoming a big star in blockbuster movies.

The "flavour of the month" syndrome is well known, so I didn't think I had to explain it. It's been remarked on for decades. It happens that a young woman will attract the attention of the media and the public and she becomes the "flavour of the month." That woman and her management team try to parlay that attention into more projects for her, in the hopes of increasing her pay grade. And they have to work quick, because Hollywood's attention soon turns to the next "flavour of the month."

There are three ways this can go. In a few cases, the "flavour of the month"--such as a Julia Roberts or a Sandra Bullock--is able to score more big movies and approach the kind of pay grade and box office success of her male co-stars. More often, while the "flavour of the month" is able to carve out a career--and may get award winning roles and become a household name--she never gets the same pay and box office numbers that the big name male blockbuster stars get and the studios don't consider her bankable for big budget movies. Her name is not enough to get the movie funding or to bring in audiences on opening weekend. In smaller budget movies or as part of an ensemble, she can do well--but she can't establish herself on the same level as a Dwayne Johnson or a Tom Cruise. The third option is that the "flavour of the month," after some attempts at getting more roles, is declared box office poison and isn't able to continue as a movie star.

I'm not advocating this syndrome. I'm just identifying that it exists. Hollywood is sexist. Women don't get the same pay as men. They aren't given the lead in as many big budget movies. Men have a longer runway--they can proceed on a longer path toward stardom, which may take them twenty years. Women have a shorter runway--they need to get to the next level in less than ten years or else they are considered past it. It would be nice if it wasn't that way--but I'm looking at it realistically.

So I'm worried that Warner Bros. will follow their familiar pattern and lose faith in Margot Robbie. It's not something I want to happen, but it is something I worry will happen. And watching THE SUICIDE SQUAD and seeing how excellent she was, that made me sad if this the last we see of her in that role.

So, I just fundamentally disagree with your definition of "Flavor of the month". To me, that is someone who gets a lot of media attention in a short amount of time. They may have a few movies or TV spots, but that fizzles out quickly with little or no acclaim for any work that is actually made. Someone like Paris Hilton had media attention that she parlayed into multiple TV and movie roles in the early 2000s. But none of these roles made an impression and she never had a breakout performance. That is what I consider "Flavor of the Month".

You seem to be defining it as anyone who does not open blockbuster movies based on their name alone. The bar you're setting is so high that 99.9999999% of working actresses will fail. If you apply the same standard to actors, 99.9999999% of male actors would also fail. Even before the pandemic, most blockbusters were franchise driven not star driven.

Tom Cruise couldn't make The Mummy a hit. Even his franchise work with Mission Impossible is a moderate success compared to the other franchises. Dwayne Johnson has success when he joins existing franchises, but his other movies like Rampage and Skyscraper fall short of blockbuster status. Harrison Ford couldn't open Call of the Wild, Blade Runner 2049, or Cowboys and Aliens. His most successful movies were franchise based. If you apply the same criteria to them that you are applying to MR, they fall short as well.

Margot Robbie has:

1. Worked with big name directors on critically acclaimed movies
2. Has gotten acclaim for her roles including 2 Oscar nominations
3. Has also influence on the movies she makes, including getting a producer credit
4. Has managed to do both franchise big budget movies and lower budget dramas
5. Has been in the public eye since Wolf of Wall Street in 2013. 8 years later she is still in the public eye
6. Has multiple projects with big and independent studios lined up.

The bar as you've set it is so high that no one, male or female, can clear it.

[batnbreakfast]

The biggest surprise was how much I liked Elba, Cena and Ratcatcher. I went in because of my love for the Ostrander SS run, Simone's Secret Six and the Kot SS run. Those 3 actors really were incredible charming in their roles. If we get a sequel I wish to see more Waller, espionage and politics, though. Like in Ostrander's run. King Shark is superior to Groot, Rocket and Drax. Sly did a great job with a character who is not as ridiculous as he should be. Maybe its about Gunn's writing... all the characters felt like they were more interesting than they should be.

[Robotman]

I keep seeing how Starro's rampage was against humanity at large but it didn't seem like that to me. They seemed more about killing everyone in the city ("This is my city") for their complicity, regardless of innocence. They did leave the Squad alone after they saved them. I assumed after they killed everyone there, they would've just rest there for the rest of their lives and killed anyone else trying to kill them out of self-defense. What's your take?

Note: I'm using "they" to be gender neutral.

I think that one of Gunn’s greatest feats was making Starro a tragic villain. The final line of “I was happy floating and staring at the stars” was pretty heartbreaking.

After being tortured for 30 years, I don’t think Starro would just stop with Corto Maltese. It gains all the knowledge of people it takes over, so it probably knows that the US was really behind the experiments. After all the horrible things that The Thinker did to it, Starro may decide that all of humanity needs to go.

[Midvillian1322]

The biggest surprise was how much I liked Elba, Cena and Ratcatcher. I went in because of my love for the Ostrander SS run, Simone's Secret Six and the Kot SS run. Those 3 actors really were incredible charming in their roles. If we get a sequel I wish to see more Waller, espionage and politics, though. Like in Ostrander's run. King Shark is superior to Groot, Rocket and Drax. Sly did a great job with a character who is not as ridiculous as he should be. Maybe its about Gunn's writing... all the characters felt like they were more interesting than they should be.

King Shark was adorable but the idea he's a superior character then Rocket is criminal. Rocket is fully fleshed out interesting character. Groot and Drax iono. Groot is a prop. I like drax but I don't love him. But King Shark is a toddler who likes to eat people. He's groot basically in that he's not a a full character.. love both Groot and Ki g Shark. But it's because they are loveable, not great characters.

[j9ac9k]

I think that one of Gunn’s greatest feats was making Starro a tragic villain. The final line of “I was happy floating and staring at the stars” was pretty heartbreaking.

After being tortured for 30 years, I don’t think Starro would just stop with Corto Maltese. It gains all the knowledge of people it takes over, so it probably knows that the US was really behind the experiments. After all the horrible things that The Thinker did to it, Starro may decide that all of humanity needs to go.

It's one of those things Gunn threw into the script (along with Waller losing her mind and almost killing the whole Squad - they wouldn't be seen as heroic if Waller just ordered them to do it) that's there because of what he needs the story to do more than what makes the most sense. He wanted Starro to be sympathetic, so he kept Starro's ambition to just one city. Killing innocent people is still enough motivation for the Squad, but Starro's not so bad that we can't feel bad for it just wanting to be left alone. (after taking the city) But that's par for the course for this movie - nobody here is "good" but we can sympathize (to varying degrees) with many of them.

[The Cool Thatguy]

It's one of those things Gunn threw into the script (along with Waller losing her mind and almost killing the whole Squad - they wouldn't be seen as heroic if Waller just ordered them to do it) that's there because of what he needs the story to do more than what makes the most sense. He wanted Starro to be sympathetic, so he kept Starro's ambition to just one city. Killing innocent people is still enough motivation for the Squad, but not Starro's not so bad that we can't feel bad for it just wanting to be left alone. (after taking the city) But that's par for the course for this movie - nobody here is "good" but we can sympathize (to varying degrees) with many of them.

I think Starro would eventually calm down, and realize that the country he's in, isn't the country that's truly responsible for what happened to him. Nations might be a foreign concept after 30 years of imprisonment and torture, but I think he'd pick it up eventually.

[batnbreakfast]

King Shark was adorable but the idea he's a superior character then Rocket is criminal. Rocket is fully fleshed out interesting character. Groot and Drax iono. Groot is a prop. I like drax but I don't love him. But King Shark is a toddler who likes to eat people. He's groot basically in that he's not a a full character.. love both Groot and Ki g Shark. But it's because they are loveable, not great characters.

Pure blasphemy, sir. I'm a fan of KS since before it was cool. No discussion! (hey, I like Rocket a lot, though. He's cute for a bunny)

[Robotman]

An adorable Suicide Squad related story.

https://mobile.twitter.com/gynoidpri...05421447094275

David Dastmalchian adopted a stray cat who approached him during the filming of The Suicide Squad in Panama, and costume designer Judiana Makovsky sewed a little Polka Dot Man outfit for the cat, named Bubblegum.

[j9ac9k]

I really hope Bubblegum and Sebastian got along well... I'd love to see that teamup.

[Derek Metaltron]

That… is… just… precious.

Starting to realise every movie is better with a little David Dastmalchian.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

Starro dying to a swarm of rats is IMO one of the many, many instances of this movie making playful fun of the sillier aspects of superhero comics. It's also what made the best entries of the MCU so great. There are all these big winks at the superhero genre without them getting condescending. That's what had me hooked throughout the movie.

I was hoping to see him get defeated by salt.