Warner Bros. executive says 'Suicide Squad' was a global success thanks to its diversity

With over $745 million made world wide, no one can deny that Suicide Squad was a huge success! It faced an uphill battle after getting slammed by critics, but still managed to connect with audiences all over the world. I mean, how many Harley Quinns did you see running around this past Halloween weekend?

At Variety's Inclusion Summit earlier today, Greg Silverman (President, Creative Development and Worldwide Production, Warner Bros. Pictures) said that he thinks Suicide Squad's diverse cast helped make it a box office success all over the world.

Check out Silverman's comments in the video below.

WB executive Greg Silverman says #SuicideSquad was a global success thanks to the film's diversity pic.twitter.com/ZWy5ofQTAJ
— Variety (@Variety) November 1, 2016

209 comments

Patrolfyr

November 1, 2016

Thats pretty cool! Congrats... Im first?

Patrolfyr
November 1, 2016
Who else like the movie?
1. Hey boo
  November 1, 2016
  Me
2. Shallbecomeabat
  November 2, 2016
  me too. Its flawed, yeah, but definitely a super fun film for fans of the characters. Didn't get the hate for it at all.
3. emily_10
  November 4, 2016
  Me

Seb

November 1, 2016

"Diversity" had absolutely nothing to do with it.

ArkhamFreak
November 2, 2016
Star Lord: Diversity helped it by maybe 12%
Groot: I am groot
Rocket: I know 12% is better then 11%.

That Guy

November 1, 2016

Something tells me the Marvel's going to give the same excuse for Spider-Man. Yeah, it had nothing to do with the new Joker or Will Smith and Margot Robbie, or to make the studio look more PC, right?? https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

Abkinxoc
November 2, 2016
umm every marvel movie since ironman 1 has had a minority or a woman as a costar.
and they actually cast them as. . .get this. . . GOOD GUYS.
lol

Knight Radiant

November 1, 2016

I teach first grade and we had two mini Harleys in the class. I did not think SS would connect with young people like it did. Glad someone enjoyed it.

Cat
November 1, 2016
A lot of people enjoyed. Those who didn't come to different comment sections day after day to whine about how it didn't live up to their "expectations."
1. Knight Radiant
  November 2, 2016
  No SS was a terrible movie, I was surprised to see a six year old dressed up as one of the characters.
2. Sharito7
  November 2, 2016
  I agree with ur statement. I love the movie but I barely says so. But I visit comment sections from multiple sites and is practically the same people over and over again.
Kerk Lastnameless
November 1, 2016
That does not mean they saw the movie. My 8 year old sister went as Harley, and she did not see it. Thank Youtube for that.
Nahuel Benvenuto
November 1, 2016
comic books, and their movie adaptations, except from the mcu, are not for young people
1. Zoom
  November 1, 2016
  thats the biggest load of crap I have ever read on this site and thats saying something. of course comic books are not for young people LMAO. Because comics like Flash, Superman, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, X-Men, Justice League, Avengers etc. are totally adult only comic books.
  And Batman 66 was totally R-rated as well hahahaha
  1. Abkinxoc
    November 2, 2016
    you really think harley's outfit is appropriate for a little girl? thats sick man.
2. Knight Radiant
  November 2, 2016
  I do not think that is true at all I know they love Man of Steel, Sony's Spider Man and X Men.
3. El Maybe
  November 2, 2016
  Hahahahahahaha... what?

jason todd

November 1, 2016

lmao still a shit movie

Person
November 2, 2016
In your opinion.
residentgrigo
November 2, 2016
That´s literally not the point. Noone can say to you what to like but this is about the outside factor of success. And that it had, zero debate here.
1. Swaggersaurus
  November 2, 2016
  It was a mild success financially but left 100's of millions on the table by not being good.

Memorian

November 1, 2016

Sure, I won't deny that. It's been proven time and time again that films that have a racially diverse cast perform well at the box-office. I'd definitely say it's a contributing factor to the films box office success. But also Harley Quinn + Joker + Will Smith.

Daniel

November 1, 2016

I agree. BvS was a legitimately great movie (I just watched MOS and BvS back-to-back and they work beautifully as one continuous story). SS was a terrible, terrible movie by every measure with no redeeming qualities.

Nahuel Benvenuto
November 1, 2016
the problem was they mutilated the movie in the last minute to make it bad, but more mass appealing, as the box office success shows
1. alec
  November 2, 2016
  The real problem was that the script was written by a director not a screenwriter and in only 6 weeks, mutilated or not the movie had a bad plot with a villain out of nowhere and a "rescue" mission without purpose
  1. alec
    November 2, 2016
    I don't know if Ayer wrote his other movies but first of all the time, 6 weeks for one guy to write a story is kind of rushed imo. And also what I'm saying is that Ayer is a director, that's his specialty, he's not Chris Terrio or Jonathan Nolan or David Goyer who were screenwriters for the Batman movies while these were directed by Chris Nolan and Snyder

Bruce Wayne

November 1, 2016

Proof that these muthafuckas only care about "diversity" as long as it lines their pockets.

Abkinxoc
November 2, 2016
*marthafuckas

GaboPSN

November 1, 2016

Imo, SS was a box office success because of: 1) Its great marketing. 2) Likable and funny characters. 3) Straightforward plot, it was just mindless fun.

Nahuel Benvenuto
November 1, 2016
the marketing sucked, they sold a movie that they made it that way at last minute, the characters are not supposed to be likable or funny, that is the problem to giving humanity to monsters, like the Deadshot character shows, and yeah that last reason was the reason of the sucess, because it was a mindless movie, so mindless audiences look for that
1. GaboPSN
  November 2, 2016
  I know these characters are not suppose to be likable or funny, but they made them that way for the GA, I was expecting the Joker/Harley relationship to be shown as it really is, but instead they cut all the "toxic" parts and made it look like they're a lovable couple. What did I expect from this movie? To be smaller and more violent, showing their true nature, but we didn't get that. They made the characters more generic and cliched.

The Doctor

November 1, 2016

Considering how much it did make, the people online who complain and tear it down must be a small minority compared to those who liked it. Stats don't lie. It's not without it's problems, but I still really enjoyed the film.

ArtimusGG
November 1, 2016
I thought it was okay, but I don't feel the need to crap all over it. Those who do are likely trying to fill a big hole in themselves.
"That's how it starts, the fever, the rage, the sense of powerlessness that turns good men cruel."
YGtrece
November 2, 2016
Man it doesn't even deserve to be referred to as a film for real
Abkinxoc
November 2, 2016
wouldn't it be embarrassing if an obscure character like dr. strange by himself makes more money then will smith, batman, affleck, the flash, joker, harley quinn, killer croc and a half dozen dc characters put together?
1. jrvc
  November 2, 2016
  You forget that the main actor of Dr Strange is a huge star right now. I say this because you put Will Smith in front of that list, so the same can be said of this one
  1. Abkinxoc
    November 2, 2016
    ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    bendict is a huge movie star. remind me again what was the last successful movie he starred in?
    1. jrvc
      November 3, 2016
      sigh... trying to change my words to suit you eh? I didn't say huge MOVIE star, only huge star. Anyway I'm sure you know his movies and series, and he is HUGE right now
    2. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      ohhhhhhhhhh
      he's "huge right NOW"
      how long has ben affleck, jared leto, and will smith been huge movie stars?
    3. jrvc
      November 4, 2016
      And? He has a lot steam nowadays, I would even say that he is more of a trend now that those you mentioned, so it doesn't matter how well known those actors are, he is too
    4. Abkinxoc
      November 8, 2016
      whose only headlined an independent film that was released in 4 u.s. theaters? agree to disagree. he was not the box office draw that an affleck or a will smith was before dr. strange, but agree to disagree.
    5. jrvc
      November 8, 2016
      Whaa? Only an independent film?? Again I have to uncover you as a troll like the other day. It seems until I don't rub the proof on your face you don't give up and try and try and try to prove someone else to be wrong.
      Have you forgotten about that movie worthy of oscars? Or that he lent his voice to a famous dragon? Or that he played an iconic bad guy in a popular franchise? And on top of that his Sherlock miniseries who has a big fandom.
      But I have an even bigger proof to you: I haven't seen Sherlock, I haven't seen Enigma, I haven't seen Dr Strange, I only saw the Hobbit trilogy and I didn't even see his face. Can you tell me then how I know so much about him without seeing his work if not for being a damn star right now??
      Again, go away mediocre attempt to be a troll
    6. Abkinxoc
      November 9, 2016
      are you stupid?
      i said:
      "bendict is a huge movie star? remind me again what was the last successful movie he starred in?"
      1. benedict didnt star in the hobbit. fail#1
      2. the imitation game WAS an independent movie. it even says so in the wiki page. lol. fail#2
      3. sherlock wasn't a movie. it was a foreign TELEVISION series. fail #3
      now compare that resume to will smith ALONE who newsweek calls "the most powerful actor in hollywood." who was in over a dozen action blockbusters.
      cry all you want but if the star of a foreign television series star ends up making bank over all the stars of ss, we'll talk then.
      ;)
    7. jrvc
      November 9, 2016
      sigh... again, you twist my words so that you are the one with the last words...
      Let's see if now you read everything, troll:
      1- He was Smaug voice on the hobit trilogy, and they announced him as one of the stars and protagonists.
      2- The Imitation Game is an independent film, I didn't deny this, I said "only an independent film?" as in, "only ONE?". He has more movies under his belt, and how fortunately of you you didn't even mention Star Trek as I pointed it out to you.
      3- Sherlock is not a movie, what a shock. I don't know why then I wrote "miniseries"... another proof that you only take from my posts what you want, pathetic troll
      Oh! Now my fails are yours! What a strange turn-around of things!
      And speaking of Strange, isn't he making a bank now with that movie? Well I think that would be fail 4 for you. 5 if we count your example of Will Smith, when I'm sure you are one of those idiots who are always saying how a fading star he is.
      As I said, go back under your bridge, troll. If the other trolls let you stay with them, as you are a rather pathetic troll
    8. Abkinxoc
      November 14, 2016
      i don't know if you are slow or what,
      but do you know what the phrase:
      "what was the last successful movie he STARRED in?" means
      smaug was not the star dummy. bilbo was.
      khan wasn't the star dummy. chris pine was.
      it really isn't that confusing. geez
    9. jrvc
      November 14, 2016
      You are accusing me of slow when you are replying to a 5 days old post? Oh, I see, your friends the trolls didn't want you under their bridge
      Let's see if you get it now, gilipollas. He is famous. Period.
      Go away troll
    10. Abkinxoc
      November 14, 2016
      some of us go out on weekends.
      get a life.
      btw dr strange edging up on 500 million already. about to make you look stupid.
    11. jrvc
      November 14, 2016
      hahahahahaha! I knew you would reply smth like "get a life". Yeah like I'm the one who is trolling everything out there. I know you aren't going to believe me, but you wish you had a life as productive as mine.
      Any way, with that little sentence you put at the end you just proved that a) you just troll by the sake of trolling and never take into consideration what I put in comments; b) you are an idiot and you don't even remember what we were talking about; c) and this one we already know, you are pathetic while trolling.
      You see, one of my points countering you was that Strange was doing good profit and that would make Cumberbatch or whatever it is written to be a bankable star, and now that you are proving my point, you say that I'm going to look stupid? Well I prefer to look stupid rather than prove I'm one just like you did, stupid-idiot. (in case you don't remember, it was your fail number 4 as I posted the other day, trooollll)
      For the whatever time now: go away troll
    12. Abkinxoc
      November 14, 2016
      are you getting less intelligent as we talk?
      look move on man.
      no one knew he was a bankable movie star because this is his first blockbuster.
      move on with all that nonsense. the cold hard fact is that dr. strange will be commercially and critically more successful then suicide squad and that is embarrassing.
      cry harder about it but i don't feel like having a three week conversation about it.
      move along!
    13. jrvc
      November 15, 2016
      hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
      But what the hell are you talking now idiot? Don't you see that you are the one who won't let go? It's like you hate to leave without the last words being yours.
      Look now, you state about Dr Strange being more bankable now than SS and that I should cry about it, but, when the hell did I say sth related to that? I only pointed to you how famous Cumberbatch actually is, which you still try to negate because you are hell-bent in denying that I'm right and you don't even now where are you going next trying to make me wrong.
      Well, you see you can't. Let's see if you can let go now and don't answer to this, although I'm sure you will.
      So long troll.
    14. Abkinxoc
      November 15, 2016
      not reading all that. agree to disagree. don't comment on my posts again
    15. jrvc
      November 15, 2016
      "not reading all that" You haven't read ANYTHING of what I write, you just reply and that's it.
      And I will comment on anything I think worth commenting. It's not my fault you are so bad at losing.
      Bye!
    16. Abkinxoc
      November 16, 2016
      omg are you still here? not interested pal.
      dr. strange is beating suicide squad critically and commercially.
      deal with it and move on.
      holy moly
    17. jrvc
      November 16, 2016
      But you are retarded or what? When the hell did I say anything related to that? In any case with that YOU ARE SAYING THAT I AM RIGHT!!!!
    18. Abkinxoc
      November 16, 2016
      cool. agreed then. bye
    19. jrvc
      November 16, 2016
      About time you came into your senses. Bye-bye
    20. YGtrece
      November 3, 2016
      How about Imitation Game
    21. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      never heard of it.
      wasn't that an independent film? how many weeks was it at the top of the box office?
    22. YGtrece
      November 4, 2016
      My man take the L
    23. Abkinxoc
      November 8, 2016
      your debate skills need work
2. The Doctor
  November 2, 2016
  Nah, I really don't buy into the vs thing. I want both studios to do well. The better both Marvel and DC do the more films will get in the future. I expect Strange to do well, and I hope it does, same for Wonder Woman and Justice League.
  1. Abkinxoc
    November 2, 2016
    nothing to do with vs. simply put, if the last time batman and joker were onscreen it made twice as much money and this time even with an ensemble cast and will smith it makes less then half as much. i don't really see how that is successful.
    winter soldier made twice as much as first avenger. civil war made twice as much as winter soldier. thats what i call successful.
    1. The Doctor
      November 3, 2016
      You're free to your opinion, I just disagree. It was very profitable, and profit does equal success by business standards. Was it universally praised? no. But judging by what it did make domestically and internationally those who dislike it and think it's a failure such as yourself are clearly in the minority.
      If you want to talk numbers this is the first film in a possible series of films; Suicide Squad grossed 744$ million total, Captain America 1 grossed 370$ million, Winter Soldier gross was 714$ million, Iron Man 1 grossed 585$ million, Iron Man 2 grossed 623$ million, Thor 1 grossed 449$ million, Thor 2 grossed 644$ million. Numbers don't lie, and you don't reach those kind of numbers in the box office without multiple viewings. Multiple viewings equals product satisfaction.
    2. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      winter soldier made twice what cap 1 made. civil war made twice what winter soldier made. thats called success.
      ss had will smith, harley quinn, killer croc and a half dozen dc characters, flash, and made less then half of what was made the last time batman and joker were on screen together. with a budget far higher then any of the movies you listed what with all those expensive reshoots.
      you're talking gross but ure doing it wrong. its all about that return on investment.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    3. The Doctor
      November 4, 2016
      I know what your point is, the sequels doubled in their financial return. That's fine, but it's not a fair comparison to Suicide Squad considering it's the first of a likely series of films. You're argument doesn't make any sense when you are comparing it to any of these Marvel films, they have existing sequels, Suicide Squad does not.
      As far as budget goes SS's budget was in the same ballpark as those six Marvel films. Suicide Squad had a budget of 175 million. Each of those Marvel films was between 140 and 170 million to make. And reshoots are a widely practiced part of making films, nearly all films do them. Literally read any interview from a studio head and they will tell you reshoots are included in a films budget.
      My point remains the same. Gross does matter because it shows the film had multiple viewings by movie goers. That shows an increased interest and satisfaction in a product, that's marketing 101. Also Suicide Squad probably would of grossed more if it was released in China(the second largest box office and film market) which it wasn't.
      Now years down the road when they make and release a sequel film(Which they will), and it does not outperform the original, than and only than will you have a point.
    4. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      suicide squad is the third time we've seen batman and joker together on screen, and it made less then half of the last time.
      if its budget was only 175 then why did the people making the movie like Ike Barinholtz say:
      "“This is the biggest movie I’ve ever done by a factor of 10. I mean, I think the budget was north of 250.” ?
      and that was before those "tens of millions of dollars in reshoots"
      if it was so successful why hasn't a release date for a sequel been named yet? gotg had a sequel called out practically before it was release.
      as for multiple viewings i can't tell you how many sad fanboys I've heard say: "i went to see it 6 times." ill grant you that is dedication and counts for something, but its still a little sad. now compare all of that to gotg which ss tried hard to be. characters no one heard of, no batman and joker and still made more money. thats what i call a success. dark knight is a success. the original superman was a success. ss. not so much, commercially and critically.
    5. The Doctor
      November 4, 2016
      Well first off the Batman statement you're holding onto is wrong. This film has never been branded a Batman film, in fact actors and the director had stated Batman was only a cameo which it was. They featured him in trailers because Batman sells, WB would be complete morons not to use their best character to help sell tickets. By comparison Marvel is putting Tony Stark in the new Spiderman film, because RDJ sells tickets, same principle. The Joker portion I cannot defend, WB promoted him to be a big part of it which he wasn't. It's my biggest beef with the film to date.
      You are taking the opinion of a supporting role actor who has no say or actual legit knowledge about the financing portion of a film. The only financial knowledge actors actually know is how much they are making. All this information regarding budget and reshoots you get from opinion-piece websites like this one, unless you can actually screenshot the film's budget sheet that is all here say. For the sake or argument, let's go with the 250 budget. With the gross return that leaves them with 494 million, and promoting a film with that budget would be at least 125 to 150 million. That leaves around 344 million in profit, not even including the millions that made in merchandise. Because what studios really make superhero movies for is to sell toys, and merch.
      WB and Disney have one solid thing in common, they are capitalists. I personally can't understand why a film you clearly don't care for would drive you to go out of your way and tear it down the way you are doing. I have a stake in it, I am a fan of the property and of DC. The only logical conclusion I can come to is you are annoyed that a film that did do so terribly with critics had such a good financial return. So you insist on trolling those who did enjoy it, well done Marvel shill, well done.
    6. Abkinxoc
      November 8, 2016
      "For the sake or argument, let's go with the 250 budget. With the gross return that leaves them with 494 million, and promoting a film with that budget would be at least 125 to 150 million. That leaves around 344 million in profit,"
      you have no idea what you are talking about. the first clue is that you didnt even calculate for what the theaters have to be paid. you know the theaters have to make money, right?

Chris Lazarus

November 1, 2016

That just goes to show you be your own critic and don't trust these wannabe Hollywood critic's that are old as a Clark gable movie

Swaggersaurus
November 2, 2016
This movie is alright,
if you don't care about plot development, pacing, character development, good action, good special effects, or dialouge.

Kerk Lastnameless

November 1, 2016

Does that mean the Japanese will watch any turd so long as there's a Japanese actor in it? Diversity rings hollow.

grayghost84

November 1, 2016

Perfect chance to post this.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

residentgrigo
November 2, 2016
Croc was black too. So was Waller and the meme forgot the god people. Both were technically Latin American.
1. grayghost84
  November 2, 2016
  True! God people!!!
Swaggersaurus
November 2, 2016
When people start to understand that diversity is not defined by skin color, we can move forward with out society.
Abkinxoc
November 2, 2016
cholo gangster, black guy with guns, native killed off in two seconds, asian that did literally nothing and women with their camel toes exposed and dc be like "see? we are diverse."
they seriously don't get it.
lol.
"can i get b.e.t."
cringe

ArtimusGG

November 1, 2016

As a Mexican-American, I really enjoyed Diablo's character. Seeing him on the big screen made me happy, and his portrayal was one of my favorite parts of the film, which I thought was okay overall.

I hope we continue to see more diversity moving forward.

Nahuel Benvenuto
November 1, 2016
stop calling the United States AMERICA, Mexico is America, everybody who lives in the damn CONTINENT is AMERICAN
1. Zoom
  November 1, 2016
  Except Mexico is not on that continent.
  1. El Maybe
    November 2, 2016
    Yes, it is.
  2. Mario
    November 2, 2016
    I truly hope you are joking.....
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
2. Kerk Lastnameless
  November 2, 2016
  Back to the Geography class, asap!
  1. Mario
    November 2, 2016
    You are joking right?
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    Just because its called the United States "of America" does not make them owners of a continental name, it's like Germany calling themselves "Europe" and the rest west or east, egocentric country you boys have.
    1. Kerk Lastnameless
      November 2, 2016
      It's been a culturally accepted term all over the world for centuries. The only ones disputing it are the butthurt Mexicans. And I assume you're one of them.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
    2. Mario
      November 2, 2016
      Not mexican, im from Europe, and over here we get hilariously surprised at how dumb and big headed some "north americans" are, i bet you also believe US is the greatest country on the planet, and you are clearly one of them for the way you talk about mexicans...
    3. Kerk Lastnameless
      November 2, 2016
      And I'm Russian. We call Americans "Americans" all the time.
3. Mario
  November 2, 2016
  Sadly, they are raised like this, if you are from USA you're "american", if you are born somewhere else in the continent, you are LATIN, or SOUTH american, they fancy themselves as the pure thing, the rest are a wannabe continent to them, horrible.
  1. grayghost84
    November 2, 2016
    Canadians are Canadian, and North American. If you called us American we would think you are talking about the United States.
    1. Mario
      November 2, 2016
      Well that's your issue, that's the issue, USA people are north american and people from Brazil and Argentina are south american, Mexico is also north america in case you didnt realize, so, why not call the rest americans as well?
    2. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      You are all just American in my opinion :)
    3. Mario
      November 2, 2016
      Mexican-American = French-European = South African-African............
      WTF?
  2. Mario
    November 2, 2016
    So, by your reasoning a british would call himself european, but a spanish or italian would be called "latin europeans", or "south europeans" by the british, who says that only UK is "Europe"....
Tres Swygert
November 2, 2016
Diablo was one of the best parts of the film, which I would not have guessed from the beginning. I wished they kept him around, maybe there's a way to have him back for the sequel? If so, and it's smart, I'm all for it!
1. ArtimusGG
  November 3, 2016
  I think his death was appropriate, he sort of redeemed himself by saving the others. He also didn't seem to happy to be alive after what happened with his family...
  1. Tres Swygert
    November 3, 2016
    *nods* I can see that. It was total redemption, still wish to see more of him if there was a possibility. lol But yeah, I see your point, very valid.
    1. ArtimusGG
      November 3, 2016
      Great character! Let's see some more of Katana now :).

TheHummuss

November 1, 2016

imagine how much it would have made if it wasn't chopped up and scewed....

Nahuel Benvenuto

November 1, 2016

total bullshit, the movie sucess was because they sold it with the trailers, misleading trailers, and because it was a mindless blockbuster like the mcu movies, so of course it was gonna have more sucess when it asks less from the audience

Zoom
November 1, 2016
they are comic book movies not Citizen Kane.
1. OGmacrazy
  November 2, 2016
  There's nothing wrong with asking for a well made movie. Comic book or not, they should stand on their own as movies. By that logic, we would have never gotten The Dark Knight Trilogy or the first two Raimi Spider-Man movies.
  1. Paul2k2b1
    November 2, 2016
    Why do you think they are poor batman movies?
  2. OGmacrazy
    November 4, 2016
    Poor batman movies? What does that mean? They were great movies.
2. FUN
  November 2, 2016
  Yes, and the greatest comic book movie is still Nolan's Dark Knight.
3. OGDickGrayson
  November 2, 2016
  That's just a shitty argument. They're movies based on solid properties and characters. They should be more like Citizen Kane than fucking Norbit.
  1. residentgrigo
    November 2, 2016
    Have you actually seen Norbit? It is Catwoman cringe levels of bad.
    1. OGDickGrayson
      November 2, 2016
      Yeah its bad enough I'd say Catwoman is actually slightly better.
Swaggersaurus
November 2, 2016
Had to throw in that shot at marvel didn't ya? Marvel movies do not require critical thinking. But at least they have decent story structure and fewer gaping plot holes than DC movies at the moment.
Suicide Squad had to be one of the worst movies I have seen this year.
Trevor Douglas Allen
November 2, 2016
The audience of Suicide Squad had the highest percentage of women & minorities seeing it in theatres than any other superhero movie. It was more well received by the demographics outside of white men. Also, worked better with millennials (not that that's particularly relative, but I like to see myself type).

November 1, 2016

Man, with the way democrats speak, you'd think black people weren't in any movies at all before the year 2016. Also no two girls have ever been in a movie without pining over a guy. It's just never happened. No black person has ever been portrayed well, only in stereotypes. Yes yes. I've learned this as well.

IamTheOneWhoKnocks

November 1, 2016

Can't wait til the so called "professional" critics industry becomes obsolete. This made it one giant step closer, we'll be there soon enough. I particularly did not enjoy SS, but I can see why most people liked it. It was a fun movie, but I just prefer a bit more serious tone in my movies. The bashing it got on RT and other websites was definitely unjustifiable, so I am glad that SS killed it in the box office even without China. That's a big f***you to the critics, ;))

col42
November 2, 2016
Nah, I think it deserved the bashing by critics. Did it have fun scenes? Sure. But the plot was almost non-existent and half the movie felt like a top 10 radio show. If critics are pointing out flaws like these for films I want to watch, than I think they're doing their job just fine.
1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
  November 2, 2016
  They are doing a terrible job. They bash one movie and then praise another for the exact same thing. The problem is some people buy into their nonsense, and don't think for themselves. Not me though, and obviously not the majority of people who saw SS, so this is a step in the right direction, at least for superhero movies.
  1. Swaggersaurus
    November 2, 2016
    Critics don't want a film to fail as a cohesive film. Suicide squad did that on its own.
OGmacrazy
November 2, 2016
Because this is new?
Transformers have been slammed left and right since the beginning, and 3 out of 4 have made more than any DCEU movie. TMNT (2014) got slammed and made a shit ton.
These movies are heavily marketed so it's obvious they will make a ton of money. The critics do affect it, though. A Batman vs Superman movie that was beaten to a pulp at the box office by a live action Jungle Book movie? Or an original animated talking animals movie? Or by an R rated 50 million dollar movie at the american box office?
I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense. Critics exist so that people have an idea of what to expect... And they aren't going anywhere.
Also, you people need to inform yourselves. Rotten Tomatoes does not make any kind of review. They agreggate them. Huge difference.
1. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  I thought deep rising was an entertaining film. But If it was meant to be part something as big as the DCMU, Then I would expect it to be a lot more
  1. OGmacrazy
    November 2, 2016
    Agreed. It had fun moments, but it was just noise, and really dumb.
    1. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      Exactly, this is my point. Last Action Hero, The boy who could fly, Drag me to hell. All entertaining watches but No where near good enough for a film if it was meant to be about something in the DCMU, especially a film that should be helping to kick the franchise off

Zoom

November 1, 2016

yeah but if you take away the 3D bonus and injust it for inflation then the whole thing looks a LOT different.

Sense
November 2, 2016
So look at it through variables that don't exist anymore.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
"Looks like you're living in the past

YGtrece

November 2, 2016

Yup

Person

November 2, 2016

I think diversity definitely plays "some" part in movies success, it doesn't play a large part and certainly isn't the sole reason films do well but yes diversity does play a little part in it.

krampe1995

November 2, 2016

Well guys there you see what important is to him.
Fcking money. I wanna beat the shit out of him. He is fcking up my favorite brand, my childhood

Schmidt

November 2, 2016

Wait, aren't we all living in a sexist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy? That's what feminists told me. Surely all the disgusting racists wouldn't go to a movie with Will Smith in it!
Or maybe it's because noone gives a flying fuck about the characters' race and people just want to see a decent performance and are dead tired of your obnoxious identity politics bullshit? You faggots.

Phunny Guy
November 2, 2016
Wow, you are so enlightening and bright. I just became dumber because of your statement. Everyone on the internet just became more stupid. Thanks a lot.
1. Schmidt
  November 2, 2016
  I'm quite sure you were pretty dumb even before my statement, but either way, you're welcome.
2. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  it made me laugh

Abkinxoc

November 2, 2016

slow clap
casting a bunch of minorities as villains isn't exactly new.
wake me up when the dceu has a single solitary minority being a superhero

Kerk Lastnameless
November 2, 2016
Does Greek count?
1. Abkinxoc
  November 2, 2016
  if it does then it is news to me. aren't they like the original caucasians? sorry if thats ignorant i'm not trying to be.
  1. Kerk Lastnameless
    November 2, 2016
    Wonder Woman is Greek.
    Also, she is played by a Jew, but that's beside the point.
    1. Abkinxoc
      November 2, 2016
      greeks are minorities now?
      you are speaking greek to me.
    2. Kerk Lastnameless
      November 2, 2016
      That's why I asked, "Does Greek count?" Pay attention bro.
    3. Abkinxoc
      November 3, 2016
      uhhh what? you are speaking another language. are you trying to say greeks aren't caucasians? I'm lost bro. honestly never heard anyone try to say that greeks were minorities but good luck with what ever crazy that is.
Phunny Guy
November 2, 2016
I guess you should include marvel too cause I don't see any stand alone minority heroe movie from them either. Like it or not diversity does matter. I don't want to see another white guy pretending to be something he's not. Might as well paint some white dude's face black whose name is Will Carlson not Will Smith, as he portrays really, really, "white shot" and and make up some white actress with pointed eyes to look Asian cause diversity doesn't matter at all, right..
1. Abkinxoc
  November 2, 2016
  uh huh. wake me up when a luke cage type character is a part of the dc cinematic universe.
  1. Phunny Guy
    November 3, 2016
    In that case, wake me up when Medea is a part of the Marvel cinematic universe. I bet most African- Americans would find Medea more relatable and real than Luke Cage even though her/his movies are a comedy. In my opinion, would an African-American writer who has real experience being black man in America would portray Luke Cage so bubble gum or vanilla. Let's allow history to decide if Luke Cage is the epitome of how a black superhero should be portrayed.
    1. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      ummm . . .you do know luke cage was written by an african american, right?
2. Abkinxoc
  November 2, 2016
  ummmmmmmmm
  have you heard of black panther?
  every single marvel film since ironman 1 has had a minority or a woman as a co star. marvel has a bunch of awesome minority cinematic superheroes. does dc have a single one so far?
  1. Phunny Guy
    November 3, 2016
    Can you just read your comments about Cyborg? Don't be a hypocrite. You are basing your opinion on your biases by favoring Marvel vs DC. As far as I know, Black Panther and Cyborg isn't out yet so there is little evidence of your proof that Diversity has already been proven by Marvel. What Marvel has done for diversity cinematically so far are token black heroes and women heroes who are sex objects like Black Widow and Jessica the promiscuous Jones. These two women heroes are shining examples for women around the world, right. Regarding the two black marvel heroes, one is a yes man to Starks and the other only says "yes captain." If you want to look at the real facts, SS is a way better example of a Comic book movie showcasing the success of diversity.
    1. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      black panther is a token black character? war machine? falcon? iris elba?
      but slipknot was handled with such respect right?
      katana served a huge purpose huh?
      a black guy criminal whose good with guns isn't token at all, huh?
      black widow, and jessica jones are token sex objects but harley quinn literally stripping in front of everyone and licking jail bars was handled with respect right?
      bruh jessica jones and agent carter did more to support strong female characters then lois lane running around needing to be saved every few seconds and the super girl wears prada.
      yeah uh huh.
      please tell another.
    2. Abkinxoc
      November 4, 2016
      I've seen black panther in action. so far cyborg has been a glorified screaming toaster in an email.
grayghost84
November 2, 2016
Cyborg Nov 2017 in JL!! :) totally agree though.
1. Abkinxoc
  November 2, 2016
  so far cyborg hasn't been more then a glorified toaster on a wall. thats not a superhero. dollars to donuts cyborg is cancelled but if it actually gets a director some day, then all apologies.
residentgrigo
November 2, 2016
1997 just called, 16 years before the DCEU too.
https://upload.wikimedia.or...
Also Catwoman. Nice try WB but these were unwatchable.
The CW-verse is doing well in this aspect though, another WB product. So did many of the toons going back to a Superfriends sequel.
1. Abkinxoc
  November 2, 2016
  they named a black guy steal? very funny but thats not dceu.
  black MANta
  BLACK lightning.
  BLACK vulcan
  NUBIA
  BRONZE tiger
  onyx
  BLACK racer
  are they trying to be funny?

Flidais

November 2, 2016

their success brought about the global creepy clowns, England is the first European victim, I wonder there's another barge into Cambridge
happy now?

Kouglof

November 2, 2016

No jokes, it has nothing to do with diversity, just more financial investment in marketing than BvS

BROWN_KNIGHT 4 Trump

November 2, 2016

Heres some advice cocksucker...stay out of the directors fucking way!! You idiots are running dc into the ground!!

Paul2k2b1

November 2, 2016

Sorry but It was not a success. They cant say something is a success based on how much money it makes.

The film could have been a lot better. They relied on named actors, sold the the film on a lie by making people believe Jared Letos joker was a main character and then the 2nd half of the film was one of the worst things I've ever seen. It was like a mix between power rangers and Deep Rising. And they had CARA Delevingne as a main villain? really? No sorry, just no.

Kraptonite
November 2, 2016
Actually they can, because that's their number one priority: Money.
residentgrigo
November 2, 2016
Making films is a business, not a charity, and the film got an overall positive reception from the GA and printed money though multiple revenue streams, including the box-office. Not calling the film a giant success is childish and unscientific.
It´s most importantly based on a C-list property that noone knew off but hardcore comic fans.
Just as Guardians of the Galaxy and Squad out-grossed it! Good to know that it "failed" too.
1. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  Comon are you seriously going to sit there and say its a good film? It was terrible! If it wasnt called suicide squad and didnt have harly quinn, joker (2 mins) or batman in it, then it would have been slated. Wasted opportunity. It wasnt the directors original vision either, got changed massively by the studio to make "money".
  1. residentgrigo
    November 2, 2016
    I loved the film and it´s a top 5 film of 2016 for me. Here is why:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/t...
    The Bayformers trash is successful too. I don´t have to like them but i will ever deny what they did. Their inhuman toy sales especially need to be applauded.
    1. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      I'm sorry, but I honestly cant see how you believe the plot running from the 2nd half of the film was so good? it was terrible in my opinion and looked pretty messy as well. I am a massive DC and marvel fan, i love all of them and I loved BvS even though I think they missed opportunities to market it better and pus some more detail in. But I just feel Suicide squad was weak. Take away the names and a couple of characters and the 2nd half of the plot is terrible. The plot in the original suicide squad story is epic and should have been used fully and not tweaked at all. But they wanted to not make it about Batman and thats where they seemed to lose track of what they were doing it it all. Yeah the introduction to characters were good but the plot all in all was pretty awful and seemed like it was either thought up last minute or was a last plan of action because they didnt organise the original plan well enough. That brings me back to how this was original a lot different, different actors and plot until the studio made the director change it all.
2. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  Also I could spend 2 hours filming a piece of poo sitting on a table and melting but in the trailer show the joker and batman and it would make just as much in ticket sales.
grayghost84
November 2, 2016
There are many ways you can judge success, it was a financial success, not a critical success, it was a success with the general audience, but not the core comic book DC fans.
1. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  Oh im not saying it was not a success in terms of money. Course not. Superman returns was a success in terms of money, was it any good though? Nop.
  1. grayghost84
    November 2, 2016
    Don't get me wrong I'm just as harsh if not more on the film than you are.
    1. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      I just think it's a shame everyone makes out it is a success and ignore the fact it was pretty woeful in terms of other comic films and stories etc.
  2. residentgrigo
    November 2, 2016
    Superman Returns didn´t make a profit in the cinema though... it struggled to break even overall. A "success" it was not and the (lower budget) sequel then died.
    1. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      it actually made around 190 million in profit.
    2. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      which back when it come out, was a good profit at the time
    3. residentgrigo
      November 2, 2016
      It need to make around 2,5 times the budget to make a "profit", so the film was in the red when if left the cinemas, as these keep a portion of the money. It didn´t even make twice it´s cost and the film was a borderline flop, as this year´s Ghostbusters. Movie math is a fickle mistress.
Sense
November 2, 2016
Of course it's a success. It was a hit with audiences, especially teenagers, it's still in the top 20 and made huge money. We're not even talking about the mountain of merchandise they moved for this movie, costumes, soundtrack and various singles. The only people it wasn't a hit for was the critics for the most part.
Are we really supposed to mind the feelings of the critics that much? Hell no I mind my own opinions and feelings more.
1. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  But it was a very poor effort in the 2nd half
  1. Sense
    November 2, 2016
    Oh I see, you're just trolling. Carry on
    1. Paul2k2b1
      November 2, 2016
      haha I'm honestly not a troll. I love DC and Marvel. I just think the 2nd half of suicide squad was very poor and only got the rave reviews it does because it has joker harley quinn in it. If it wasnt a DC universe film it would be slated. I think it could have been a lot better. I think Batman v superman was a brilliant take and effort on the characters but also think the final fight was a bit narrow minded and that the batman/supes fight should have been either longer or a bit more spread out through the film

Richard Bachman

November 2, 2016

It might have helped, but just like BvS, it was likely pre-bookings that did the work.

jrvc
November 2, 2016
The movie has been making profit for months, how can it be that the PRE-bookings did the work?
1. Paul2k2b1
  November 2, 2016
  Pre bookings would have been the bulk of the money
  1. jrvc
    November 2, 2016
    No way, the prebooks were for the first weekend, and although the movie shattered some records, it didn't get the "bulk" out of just that weekend!
2. grayghost84
  November 2, 2016
  I can't believe it's STILL in the theatre, I'd be surprised if it wasn't the longest theatre run of 2016.
  1. residentgrigo
    November 2, 2016
    It´s only 1 week longer in theaters than BvS and only making peanuts now, according to boxofficemojo. Cap 3´s time in the sun has it beat by about 7 weeks too.
    The film had great legs though, no question.
    1. grayghost84
      November 2, 2016
      Wow! That is surprising. Every theatre is different, maybe the ones in my area pulled BVS quicker.

tO.omieee!

November 2, 2016

This made me laugh out loud. It is quite clear that some execs have no clue how the whole racial diversity thing works. You see, everyone can cast minorities. The thing people are actually arguing about is the stereotypes of said minorities.

So correct me if I am wrong, but Australian thief using a boomerang, Native-American rapist and Mexican gangabnger referred to as "esse" is hardly justification for such statement. Sure, it could have helped, but come on. Let's be real here.

rodo
November 2, 2016
I thought the same when I read this... it's ridiculous
Paul2k2b1
November 2, 2016
It is pretty stereotypical
grayghost84
November 2, 2016
Well put.
IamTheOneWhoKnocks
November 2, 2016
Completely agree, best comment on this topic by far!
1. tO.omieee!
  November 2, 2016
  Not gonna lie, bredren, after all the fun arguments we had over here, I am glad we can at least agree on this issue.
  1. IamTheOneWhoKnocks
    November 2, 2016
    Indeed!
residentgrigo
November 2, 2016
Noone was stated to be a rapist and do you want the convicts (!) to bake cakes for each other?
To give the low life charters appropriate backgrounds is.... appropriate + comic accurate.
Your racism allegations are utter nonsense, unless every crime show with non-white perpetrators is racist by definition too. Most comic films would also be white power fantasies by that logic. Especially Batman media! All Asians in Batman Begins were shown to be evil = Nolan is a racist... what?
And how about all the lower class black criminal on The Wire? Your "logic" in action.
PS: I am Afro Russia and Squad was the most diverse US film is saw this year, by a mile.
This needs to be seen as the Golden Standard for big budget diversity, if anything. Even RLM, who hated the film, noted this aspect positively. But no, DC = shit. Always. Actual comic racism:
http://s3.crackedcdn.com/ph...
1. tO.omieee!
  November 2, 2016
  Yea, it's not like you are... actually reading what I am saying.
  I never said or never will that SS was racist. The actual SS maybe, but not the movie. (Calm down, that was a joke.)
  I actually did defend the use of "esse" on this very page.
  But foch it. Just read again what I said.
  1. residentgrigo
    November 2, 2016
    "hardly justification for such statement" You know exactly what you did and we both know what stereotypes mean in regards to race.
    What i pictured is such a racial stereotype, what you point out are comic accurate adaptations, minus Sklipnot. He was living gimmick without narrative but his race was interchangeable. Which automatically negates ANY stereotype, unless you suggest that Native Americans connect to rape in some way...

Batman News Archive

Warner Bros. executive says 'Suicide Squad' was a global success thanks to its diversity

209 comments

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author