Thanks man. I don't blame anyone for their opinion on this one, seems to be seriously dividing. I think it made all the same steps as BvS.
I know enough about the character to make that statement but this is definitely a PG watered down Harley. From the edited out abusive relationship to her being a catchphrase-spouting joke machine.
Ah, well I've been into her character for a while and ended up liking this one a lot. Different ideas I guess.
Showing domestic abuse doesn't cause problems or glamorise disrespect to women. If anything it's exposure in comics is a good thing and not only raises awareness but makes for interesting character dynamics too. The Joker being a romantic almost works for me but it IS made clear by the film that he's still abusive and a bad choice to go with...now with this final cut it's just as if they're hinting at it and not delivering or going the full way. Making an already ambiguous Joker even more ambiguous.
That's not what the majority thinks seeing how much pressure is put on the studios who show it. (Which is one of the reasons why Ayer was forced to cut it out.)
That'd be insinuating Hollywood is progressive. Which it isn't, of course the people with the money don't want to make a big ethical statement and so as a result they've neutered their characters.
You're definitely not wrong, though I did want to avoid using the Marvel comparison purposely to expose all kind of 'marvel fanboy' comments. I for one am totally okay with starting in an already established universe, it's quite interesting learning about it? But thats only in theory- the execution of 'Robins dead, metahumans exist, Batmans had a long career' is absolutely backpedalling and forced. It's forced when they introduce new characters (The Suicide Squad introductions made me cringe so hard. It was the Laptop scene all over again.)
I disagree about the character intro's in SS. These were fun little break outs of the movie and I kinda agree with Kevin Smith's assessment of them, they felt like you were looking at a splash page intro on the big screen.
I absolutely detested it, you can do loud, abrasive post-production editing (Kill Bill & Scott Pilgrim comes to mind) but this screamed of recut, 'we don't know where to put these scenes that used to be in the movie' so here's your forced character exposition. Reading about your characters is the equivalent of skimming a Wikipage. I'd much rather have just met the characters naturally by seeing the flashbacks as actual scenes...much like I bet the original cut had it be.
Also with Harley they gave an easter egg about her helping on the Robin murder.
How do you know these scenes in particular were recut or post production editing? I don't recall them ever giving a breakdown of what scenes they would be handling on the reshoots. Also maybe the film was made with the expectation the audience was familiar with the characters and thus a long character origin exposition wasn't needed especially as you say that info is available as a quick skim across a wiki. Not every movie needs to cover the origin just because it's the writer or directors first time handling the character, that's why people get so annoyed with Spiderman reboots, if the origin is known by the majority of your target audience then skip it.
I can't recall that easter egg care to refresh my memory
Just like with Fantastic Four last year, it is always obvious where recuts have been done. Not scene by scene obviously but with the behind the scenes disasters in the editing room and infamous reshoots you can definitely sense the lack of coherence between scenes. Like a huge deal being made about the Joker grabbing Harley & then instantly disappearing where a scene used to be. Moments where characters get introduced twice or three times in a row or random forced flashback moments because they have scenes they want to use but now have not place for (Joker and Harley to Deadshot on the stairs)
Terrible idea. You can't do this when comic book fans are a minority of the viewership, they know they would make no money. Regardless, you go into a movie to get a movie.
Dw, it was mine. As if you have to share the exact same opinion to have a quality review haha.
@bold, precisely. This movie is essentially a one off or even a mid-volume arc. Would it maybe have been more accommodating to the general public if each character was given an expo and flashback-story? Maybe, it also might have made the pacing feel dragged if you keep breaking up the action plot to explain who these people were in a time we'll never get to see(realistically each backstory scene would be 5-10 minutes, that's roughly an extra hour of film). If we're gonna nit pick on characters the thing I hated most wasn't the intro's or even Enchantress' dancing(that actually makes sense if you stop and think for a second "Enchantress, a woman who enchants her victims, hmm what's a good way to depict an enchanting woman? It's really that simple but now it's become a big deal because people love to harp on things) it was Croc's voice. Man, man, man, man, man. Not only did he have a goofy ass tone for his image, the actor sounded like he was reading his lines right from the paper, worse yet he sounded like he was reading a child's book but struggling. The long drawn out delivery of "I live here, y'all just tourists" was so painful to hear for some reason. Guy couldn't even put a hint of a hiss to his voice(yes I know snakes hiss not croc's but croc's still have this hiss like sound they make)
