Movies

Let's say "Suicide Squad" hits just shy of that sweet worldwide number they're spitballing now--let's say $750M ww, instead of $775M-800M. Just enough to be leaving DC corporate suits a little sweatsoaked, ruining the silk material with the moisture, leaving them wet with questions in their minds of how to not repeat this insanity.

"But we had 'Batman Vs. Superman!' We had 'Man of Steel!' We had Batman! We had Wonder Woman! We had the Justice League before the 'Justice League!' Then we had arguably the world's most famous villain the Joker and his girlfriend (who I didn't even know he had, but the teenage girl demographic loves her) for something called 'Suicide Squad' that cost more than it should've, and it STILL wasn't enough! What are we doing wrong??"

That could go on for another decade, but here's what's important:

1. The outcome

2. The outlook

"Suicide Squad" comes out tomorrow night! Celebrate everyone! I guess because of my work schedule I didn't have enough time to bleach-then-dye my hair green, but the Joker is back onscreen! I honestly can't wait to see the speculation of his appearance (or cameo) in "The Batman!"

So after this weekend, we'll get a projection for the 4 weeks before delist (your immediate interest), and then the remaining domestic run. And then depending on worldwide distribution, which could take longer, the public will get finally get the big picture on all the questions they are now asking, like "How will Rotten Tomatoes affect the film this time? I wonder what the CinemaScore will be? I wonder what the public opinion will be? Was this film made for the fans or the studio? How's the cast in each respective role, so whom thusly whilst we be anticipating returning in subsequent DC Movie Universe installments...? Etc. etc. etc."

But as I am chosenone2oo5, I'm analyzing the negative outcome tonight. I'm still hoping the characters sing despite a poor film vehicle, but if the DC Movie Universe at least got ONE thing right in the whole film, they'll have set up all the villains so that we'll look forward to seeing them in "The Flash," "The Batman," etc., and not dreading their return (I'm still on the fence about giving a crap about Diablo and Slipknot). But the film itself--what if we all end up coming to the consensus it could've at least been blatantly improved in lengthier post-production or script revisions prior to reshoots, enough to merely justify a one-off sequel?

Well, film's in the can, so all that doesn't matter (NO director's cut announced--at this time).

Like I stated before--what's the outcome?

It seems the DC Movie Universe is making the same flaws and mistakes Marvel did in their budding years. It was clear to see the trajectory of their overall plan (all films led to "The Avengers"), whereas "Suicide Squad" is only introducing conflicts into their heroes' universe--nevertheless, the films following "Iron Man" were "Iron Man 2" (basically critically identical to "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"), "Thor" (our now "Suicide Squad," with mixed reactions), and then back-in-time to remind the heroes of the morality they're fighting for with the Old (Wo)Man, "Captain America: The First Avenger," just like our soon-to-be-loved "Wonder Woman."

So much for the benefit of hindsight.

But even if "Wonder Woman" succeeds and reminds us "oh yeah, we actually like some of these heroes," whom have not been highlighted in the time between "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" and "Wonder Woman" (cameos don't count, Batsy)--will we still want to see "Justice League" if it's a part of a mixed-reactions universe, whereas Marvel has been able to maintain a crowdpleasing tone for 8 years in spite of its wideranging subgenres and tones? [Sidenote: that is not a criticism to be taken as "let's cut 'Wonder Woman's' budget since..." No, DON'T CUT "Wonder Woman" OR HER BUDGET DOWN BECAUSE "Suicide Squad" SUCKS! She's a very nice lady, and she should not be treated in such a manner! And it would only serve to deplete all remaining goodwill from the DC Movie Universe for fanboys&girls to hear that Warner Bros. is giving Patty Jenkins (a woman director) the same crap David Ayer and Josh Trank got on their first universe-buildling outtings. For shame!]

And therein is the outlook. Clearly "Suicide Squad's" negative reaction affects the entire DC Movie Universe's entire profitable and franchise outlook, and quite possibly stalls all creative momentum on the way to "Justice League" in a way "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" had not quite been able to accomplish on its maligned own. That's why those trolls are trying to rip into Rotten Tomatoes at this moment--because way too many chips have been played on "Suicide Squad," but it also "promised" a tone with the marketing that clearly wasn't in line with the product they were attempting to deliver--nor, consequentially, is it in line with the heroic side of the DC Movie Universe, which is still at this time struggling to get established. We like Superman (enough--who else could/should/would play him?), we like Batman (in spite of ourselves), we like Wonder Woman (more than any of the other heroes, probably because she actually represents black-and-white good-vs-evil), we like...uh...the Flash, kinda? And what are they all standing for? And why do we care? Marvel solved all that relatively quick.

[Not to mention, DC leaves themselves with a creative question Marvel hasn't had to solve yet--and therefore cannot ever hope to solve: How do you introduce a villain first, and then write the solo superhero film in such a way that the already-introduced villain does not overshadow the origin-story-mode superhero, so as to not deliver a disappointing final film? This has already occurred in non-similar circumstances, "Batman (1989)," "Die Hard," "Silence of the Lambs," "The Dark Knight," any of "The Nightmare on Elm Street" films, "Saw," "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3," "The Matrix," to varying degree, of course. But Marvel has specifically yet to do it (Loki doesn't count, though scene-stealer he may be, as he was introduced alongside Thor in, well, "Thor"), but will if Ulysses Klaw (played by Andy Serkis) does appear in full-villain mode in "The Black Panther." But that's 2 years away, and it seems Chadwick Boseman has enough gravitas to not go overshadowed (and has once already himself been introduced now). If the DC Movie Universe attempts it--it will only add to the sluggish pace of introducing the heroes properly, with enough time to develop amongst the universe-building clutter. In other words, the DC Movie Universe, with making "Suicide Squad" at this stage in universe-building, just added a whole lot of clutter to convolute introducing their heroes through.]

If "Man of Steel" (arguable) and "Wonder Woman" are, in 5 years, all the DC Movie Universe has to show for itself in fanboy goodwill (that's 2 out of 4 tries...barely...!) leading into what would seem to be the culmination of their plan (if they have a plan!), the "Justice League" team-up film, proposed in itself as the first in its own series of team-up films...where does that leave our enthusiasm/interest/necessity/desire/fiscal value/cultural value/event accreditation of "Justice League" itself?

If "Justice League" flops under those now-realistic projected conditions, the DC Movie Universe (which, by the way, they tried to one-up Marvel Studios's Marvel Cinematic Universe with entitling themselves the DC Extended Universe--I know, right?) officially has nothing to drive its overall creative direction besides, well, "Wonder Woman," "The Batman," and any "Man of Steel" sequels they might get desparate enough to make, leaving them basically where they were ten years ago, hell, even 15 years ago. That is officially no ace up the sleeve--that is the end of their attempt to build a Movie Universe.

Yes, they will still gain benefits from the remaining bankable heroes crossing over with the other haven't-been-tested-yet-to-carry-a-studio-tentpole-on-their-own heroes occasionally via cameos--but that was not the endgame. The endgame was the momentum, getting excited about what's coming next, showing a hero is around in the universe to get the audience ready for them coming back very soon (as there was a very specific plan in place), the fan-ticipation social media games, the clever marketing with an audience that actually wants to engage it on a viral level, and the much more resounding, solid, dependable, long-term promises of sweet greens it made to stockholders as Marvel could keep delivering consistently with consistent returns. Now? It's all up in the air (George Clooney). What is now the overall value of Warner Bros.'s entire DC film line-up? Their highest-grossing film, so far, topped out at $872M worldwide, arguably (given this line of thinking) at the height of their popularity.

After "Justice League" at the end of 2017, they then re-introduce (for the third overall time, minimum) both "The Flash" and "Aquaman" in their own solo outings, Ben Affleck gets "The Batman" all to himself (and hopefully Jared Leto), and "Shazam" (who cares?) before a quick turnaround on a "Justice League" sequel (an honestly impressive half the time it took to get "Avengers: Age of Ultron" out after "The Avengers"--a statistic still arguing overall creative negligence). After a second "Justice League" film? Just an untitled film (probably a "Wonder Woman" sequel), "Cyborg" (who cares?) and "Green Lantern Corps" (another reboot?). In hindsight, also uncertain are the fates of "Lobo" in-development (unlikely if "Suicide Squad" fails), and the Harley Quinn-centered female supervillainesses spin-off (which, if including staples Poison Ivy, Catwoman, etc., could strengthen the Bat-brand).

Once you demystify all "Justice League" could've been (what fans/stockholders/execs/etc. hoped it would be) and realize what it probably will come off as (a Zack Snyder superhero team-up of brooders and a supermodel), it begs the question: what's their endgame? If they wanted to one-up Marvel, then what story are they telling (and how is it any better)? What aspects of the universe should we be getting excited about (*no SPOILERS!!*)? How is the existence of the DC Extended Universe as a whole not completely arbitrary in a reality where we already have a superhero movie universe (that's a question "Suicide Squad" could've answered)? They (DC Comics, Warner Bros., etc.) have failed to intelligently comment on these questions, as asked often by the internet fan community. All they can really say is "We have female toys. See, Harley Quinn action figures!"

So, if "Suicide Squad" fails...the outcome (and subsequent outlook) for Warner Bros. and the DC Extended Universe is pretty bleak, and will require from this moment forth starting from scratch with the elements already established (i.e. "canon") or already nearly finished ("Wonder Woman"), and beginning a true trajectory for each of your films to be subtlely building towards. It's clearly not "Justice League" now.

You ever watch a single season of serialized television? Lots of little details established per episode build to a season finale that gets people interested in the next season--and the cycle of paying moviegoers continues appropriately, film sequel-to-film sequel, tie-in television series-to-film sequel, film series-to-film series--much to the sexual satisfaction of the stockholders (ruining their suits yet again, but in a much preferred method of soiling themselves). Marvel just used MacGuffins in each film--DC Extended Universe, you're convoluted and unclear as to your intentions, good sir!

So, besides "Wonder Woman" next summer, "Justice League" November 2017 (if we care), and "The Batman" assumed to be October 2018--umm, what is there to look forward to? At all? Honestly, "Justice League" could top out at less than $1B worldwide, despite being oft-compared to "The Avengers," which makes almost $1B in just foreign grosses alone ("Avengers: Age of Ultron" too!--consistent). That does justify a sequel--which would again have to consider if it itself requires creative retooling as well. "Wonder Woman" could do $800M worldwide in her first solo outing (again, only goodwill towards her going into the review embargo), and "The Batman" depends on the new creative direction Affleck takes in the solo reboot--if good, could make up to $1B worldwide, returning to Batsy's box-office/Nolan glory days--bar-holding that the DC Extended Universe's overall namebrand is not hurt worse before each respective release than it is on the eve of "Suicide Squad's" release.

So before anyone asks "Do critics and movie reviews really matter?": Yes. Because positive reactions and negative reactions, once accumulated socially (including the indicative results of aggregating from a sample group of educated critics), begin writing the outcomes and outlooks of our favorite franchises today.

As the biggest failed directors of Hollywood can all agree in hindsight: Big ideas are more valuable over-time than big budgets.