Talk:Suicide Squad (2016 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Filming already began?

In this tweet by Cara, she reports that she and co-star Margot Robbie are busy filming. Any other sources for this? Npamusic (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is a bit old, but replying anyway. This account seems to be an account dedicated to Cara but isn't run by Cara herself. This means that it's pretty much just reporting on rumors. Jared Leto has just flown in to start filming and he's one of the main characters, so filming should start incredibly soon- anywhere from maybe a day from now or a few days from now. Right now it's just a waiting game to see if there are any official sources that have announced filming, by which I mean accounts that are run by the stars themselves but preferably news media outlets that can get some sort of official confirmation. It's rare, but occasionally you'll get a tweet that was sent out by a representative that was given a time table of when to post, only they were unaware that filming was delayed and sometimes you'll get tweets (or equivalent thereof on other sites) that are set to release on a certain day/time that can be incorrect, like the now infamous Joan Rivers Facebook post. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jim Parrack part of the cast?

In this tweet by Ayer, you can see Parrack on the far right. Care to add it to the page? Npamusic (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Parrack confirms Deathstroke? Adam Beach play Slipknot?

In an instagram post, Jim Parrack seemingly confirmed he's playing Deathstroke. Also, this rumour claims Beach is portraying Slipknot. Npamusic (talk) 01:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating a page over a redirect

As reliable sources have stated that filming for this movie has begun, per WP:NFF the article should be created. However, there's already a redirect located at Suicide Squad (film) that needs to be cleared out of the way before this article can be moved to mainspace. APerson (talk!) 22:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already got this. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Should this page be requested for semi-protection?

Despite frequent warnings, people (mostly anonymous users without accounts) will not cease to stop adding unsourced and unconfirmed rumour material. This has been happening repetitively over and over and over, every single day. Myself and other registered editors have revert these edits on a regular basis, I have left a message about this on this very Talk Page, I left an unseen warning on the casting section and I even began leaving messages in the inbox several of the editors who have been adding this material. Despite all of that, this page is still a target for people to keep adding unsourced material. At this point, I am seriously considering requesting this page for Semi-protection. Do any editors object to me doing so if this keeps happening? Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The rumour edits seemed to have cooled down a LOT and I no longer think that semi-protection is necessary (at least not at the moment). Darkknight2149 (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Production Pic

I have uploaded a production pic of the film [1]. Feel free to add it to the article! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your contribution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne/Batman has not been confirmed.

Please refrain from adding him until a reliable source is provided. Npamusic (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

here are sources source1, source2 Npamusic (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBUsgkkQ07Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.211.133 (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

STOP adding rumours

I have noticed that this article has become a target for unsourced claims as people keep adding unconfirmed rumours and speculation with either an unreliable source, a citation that does not confirm the claim added or even no citation at all. To address a few of them specifically, it has NOT been confirmed in any way, shape or form that Lex Luthor, Batman and Plastique are in the film. I will also point out that Latino Review and IMDB are NOT reliable sources, so do not add anything from those sites.Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

here are sources source1, source2 Npamusic (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Daily Mail is not reliable. Secondly, the Batmobile being seen doesn't confirm Affleck is in the movie. There's no deadline, be patient. Rusted AutoParts 23:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to wait for an official confirmation that Ben Affleck has been casted in the film. When the studio or a reliable source comes out and says, "Hey, Ben Affleck is in the movie," THEN we can add him. Darkknight2149 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

here are more sources I know, I know, CBM isn't a soirce .. But the mention of batman being in the film should be noted somewhere on the page AT LEAST. Npamusic (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We can't add Affleck to the casting list until it is officially confirmed that Affleck is in the film. As for the filming, I don't really see any reason to mention that Batman was seen in leaked set photos, especially if the character himself hasn't been announced for the film. If Batman is in the film, he will probably be announced eventually or a reliable source will confirm it. We aren't in a hurry, so I don't see why it can't wait. Darkknight2149 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said Ben Affleck, I said Batman. Including him in the filming section couldn't hurt at all. A mention couldn't be out of place with a source. And Affleck himself was spotted as well from other set photos but that's besides the point. I doubt anyone is go into confirm it until the film is close to bring released but e mention of e Bat mobile and batman on set wouldn't kill anyone. Npamusic (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

here is a reliable source for its inclusion. Npamusic (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I think the source is enough to mention that Batman was spotted on the set in the "filming" section but we should still wait for confirmation before adding him to the cast list. Darkknight2149 (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, what do you say? Can we add it? Npamusic (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion surrounding production picture

• Exactly what value does this bring to the article? It is of very poor quality - it's a vertical photo from a long way away, and it shows nothing of any importance about the film. It could be literally anything at all. Not only that, but the photo is also quite grainy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Koala15: @Sportsfan 1234: @SpeedDemon520: @TriiipleThreat: Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• "It could be literally anything at all?" Are you suggesting that the person who took this photo is lying when he says it's the production of Suicide Squad? Way to assume bad faith. Also, while you're correct that the photo quality isn't perfect, it's better than nothing. Maybe, if someone takes a better photo of Suicide Squad filming at a later date and decides to post it to Wikipedia, we could use that one in place of this one. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, what the fuck is up with protecting the page to such a level that only administrators can edit it? That is completely unnecessary. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)strike out sockpuppet contribution All Rows4 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed the picture and I don't think it's necessary for the article either. There should be better pictures for the future. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Those buses, cones etc. are all part of the film shoot.... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• No, SpeedDemon, I'm not suggesting that Sportsfan is lying, and in accusing me of assuming bad faith, you have, ironically, done exactly that yourself. What I was trying to say by "anything at all" is that the photo is completely and utterly generic - as in, it shows nothing major to do with the film. This could be taken from any film set ever. When combined with the fact that the photo itself is pretty poor, it offers no value to this article. And the reason it was fully protected should be obvious - this has been edit-warred back-and-forth over by several of us, with not one person attempting to start a discussion before I did. Sportsfan, I don't doubt that, but your photo really isn't of sufficient quality. The photo itself is too grainy, it's incorrectly orientated, and, as I've already mentioned, it is totally generic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I dislike the photo as well. You can barely see the filming taking place. If you didn't know that the photo had a filming location in it before looking at it, chances are you would miss it altogether. There ought to be a better photo available soon, as the movie is filming right now. Much like the Ben Affleck situation, we are NOT in a hurry.

As for why the page was protected so that only administrators can edit, it was necessary because the page was already under protection, meaning that everybody who was participating in the edit war was an autoconfirmed user. To avoid situations like this in the future, I suggest you come to the Talk Page first, rather than keeping the edit war going. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've uploaded some alternatives, feel free to choose:

• 
  .1
• 
  .2
• 
  .3
• 
  .4
• 
  .5
• 
  .6

Also please note, I am aware of the typo in filename, they will be moved shortly. I'm personally in favor of #3, shows the set and crew working on the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the alternatives. I also prefer #3 for the same reason you mentioned. I'm sure everyone will have their own opinion on which one we should use, though. Darkknight2149 (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed, #3 is the best. #1, #4 and #5 don't add anything to the article - they're just pictures of generic cars and could be from every day life. #6 would be good for the Batmobile article, at least potentially; not so sure it fits this one when it is pictured on its own. #2 is almost as good as #3. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note: all the pictures are from the set. The cars in #1, #4 and #5 all have markings of either Midway City or Gotham City.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• As I've said previously; I don't doubt that at all. My point is that it is very easy to look at those images, and not see how they are relevant to a film set, as they could quite easily be an image from real, everyday life (perceivable, although a dusty cop car would be odd in an inner city). As such, they don't add much value to the article. But images two and three? Those definitely could do. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Koala15: @Sportsfan 1234:@Jhenderson777: Do any of you have an opinion regarding the proposed alternatives.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Image 2,3 and 6 I like. I assume 6 is the Batmobile? If so it can deserve placements somewhere else (like the Batmobile article) while 2 and/or 3 can maybe go here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

2, 3, and 6 would all be fine in the article. Koala15 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think we have enough of a concensus to add #3 to the article. Thank you all for your input.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The logo picture is fan made, the real one is on the website

suicidesquad.com

It isn't fan made. They are variations on the same logo. But if you want to switch them out, I don't think anyone is stopping you. Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rick Flagg vs. Rick Flag

A user recently changed the spelling of "Rick Flag" to "Rick Flag" on the grounds that the majority of sources spell his name as "Flagg" with a double "g." (S)he isn't the first user to do this. However, while I completely see where this user is coming from, this is likely a spelling error made by the sources. When it comes to the two most reliable sources, the Hollywood Reporter uses "Rick Flagg," [2] but Variety only uses "Rick Flag." [3] Primary sources, such as the official DC Comics website, also use "Rick Flag." [4] [5] This makes it apparent that "Flagg" is just a common spelling error. Darkknight2149 (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagging relevant editors: @Sock

I was unaware that DC Comics' official site had reported it as Flag. I assumed the spelling had been changed for aesthetic reasons, but if that's what the official site says, I have no arguments. We should include a source in the cast section that spells it that way, though. Sock (tock talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have just provided a few citations that spell "Flagg" as "Flag" in the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Superhero film?

I don't really think that this counts as a superhero movie considering that it is starring villains and as far as we know, there won't even be any superheroes in it, at least not as major roles. JDDJS (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The film may not star superheroes but it is very much a part of the superhero genre, making it a superhero film in my opinion. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In regards to this film, they're more like anti-heroes but I agree with Darkknight, superhero film is a distinct genre of film, that this fits squarely in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you guys would like to see the articles The Punisher (1989 film) and Howard the Duck (film). Do they qualify as superhero movies, despite being based on Marvel characters? I think this is in a similar situation. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

They might. There are many factors at play here: subject matter, setting, tone, tropes, etc. But it really comes down to reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what Darkknight2149 said. It is very much in the superhero film genre. It is also set in a superhero shared universe. Dash9Z (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Character names

There's a dispute over adding the civilian names of the characters in the film. These are not sourced, they're not relevant, they're not how the characters are primarily known or identified, there's no evidence that these names will carry over either consistently or at all. Despite this, Dash feels it entirely right to add these civilian names including nicknames like "digger" because hey, those sources are just using the codenames because they're all lazy. This falls under the same dispute as The Dark Knight Rises where Selina Kyle is never referred to or identified as Catwoman in the film and so is not meant to be listed as such. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Addendum : "The civilian names have been here. You can't just come here and remove them. " Yes, yes I can. The information is sourced, you don't WP:OWN the article and others are free to edit it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If the user can provide a reliable third party source or a primary source that refers to the characters by their civilian names, then I think we should keep them in the article. If not, then I think we should leave the civilian names out of the article. Sometimes it is easy to forget that just because a character has a particular name in the comic books does not mean that they have that name in the movie as well. Darkknight2149 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course I don't own the article, it's a collaborative work. But how are you going remove the civilian names just because you don't think they're relevant? I appreciate you adding character information but not removing the character's civilian names. Here's some sources: http://www.mtv.com/news/2150672/suicide-squad-rundown/ http://www.designntrend.com/articles/49288/20150430/suicide-squad-movie-cast-footage-of-will-smith-as-deadshot-leaks-onto-the-web-watch.htm http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Watch-Smith-Get-His-Deadshot-Suicide-Squad-Training-71369.html Dash9Z (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Two of them talk primarily about Smith, one is citing exclusively comic information and the other appears to have got it's information from this article. None of those sources state that those names will be used in the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Jim Parrack's role in Suicide Squad

I heard on Movieweb in an article titled "Suicide Squad Will Feature Henchman Jonny Frost" that Jim Parrack will play Jonny Frost. Jonny Frost was the Joker's henchman in the graphic novel Joker and I heard that Jonny Frost will be who Jim Parrack will play in Suicide Squad. Add that to the Suicide Squad (Film) Page, if you will please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntManLang (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We can't add it. It hasn't been confirmed, therefore it is rumour. The original source came from a ComicBook.com article saying that Parrack is SEEMINGLY (their word, not mine) playing Jonny Frost because Jonny Frost was mentioned in a tweet from one of the cast members. When WB or a reliable source like Variety makes it 100% official that Parrack is playing Frost, THEN we can add it. Darkknight2149 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ben Affleck article

In his article on the Wikipedia it states that we will be in the film which is cited. Is it false or does this page need to be updated? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Just ignore it. Anonymous users keep adding that in the Ben Affleck article and we keep having to revert it. We can't add Ben Affleck until he is officially confirmed for the film. Darkknight2149 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent article on Comicbook.com confirm Batman will appear but it does not specifically state that Affleck will be the one to play him. Would this be reasonable confirmation to add Batman to the cast without naming Affleck considering? Brocicle (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is just a recap of everything comicbook.com thinks they know about the film. That particular section was entirely speculation, too. Sorry, we can't use it. I definitely feel like we're close to getting a confirmation though. Rmaynardjr (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Empire Magazine

Would the variant covers of Empire Magazine that include four (so far) characters on the cover and article information count as marketing? Brocicle (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would think so. Darkknight2149 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ben Affleck in this movie?

Well, there were pictures of Affleck on the set of this film and plus it appears that Affleck's batman was in the comic-con trailer. I don't know, I'm an idiot, but I'm pretty sure that was Ben Affleck batamn. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ben Affleck and Batman haven't been officially announced or confirmed by Warner Brothers, nor by credible sources such as Variety or the Hollywood Reporter. Yes, Batman appeared in set photos and yes, he appears in the trailer but that isn't a confirmation. Since he appeared in the trailer, it is pretty safe to assume Ben Affleck is in the movie but we don't assume on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not what we assume to be true. Darkknight2149 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What about this recently posted article? http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/01/10/batman-v-superman-suicide-squad-2016-superhero-movies/78249180/ DCTrinity (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

As long as that exact article is used as a citation everywhere that claims Affleck is in the film, then I think that this pretty much confirms he's in it. With the citation, I don't see why we can't include it, now that we have an official confirmation and not just some leaked set photo or trailer. DarkKnight2149 20:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Talk Page consensus is needed before we can add him (due to the article's history of disruptive editing), are there any other comments or objections? Personally, I'd say that this pretty much confirms he's in it. DarkKnight2149 20:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So it's ok then to add him to the cast section? DCTrinity (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2016

Someone already did. The consensus seems to be that he's confirmed. DarkKnight2149 06:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Squad members' real names

According to User:Dash9Z, this video mentions the real names of the Suicide Squad members. I can't access the video because of my place's internet settings, but can it be used? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it mentions the real names, its not relevant per WP: COMMONNAME. This isn't a fan wikia and it isn't a directory. That said, I watched the video and I didn't see it mention half the names that Dash claims it does, it mentions Floyd Lawton and Harleen QUinzel, Harley especially will not be commonly known as that in the film, and the video also refers to Leto as "The Joker" which contradicts the given credit as "Joker", and then when giving the lineup, Geoff Johns again only uses the codenames, so it's third party material about the film, not by the people making the film. Nowhere did I see it mention George Harkness, Waylon Jones, or Chato Santana. And IF he using that video as a source, then he's conveniently ignored that she is shown as Dr Harleen F. Quinzel and just gone with what is suitable for him. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kailash29792, here's the parts of DC Films Presents: Dawn of the Justice League uploaded on YouTube which mentions the real names. (Part 2, Part 3). It mentions the names at the bottom when a cast member first appears. Hopefully you'll be able to see it. User: Darkwarriorblake, both the real names and identity names are used in articles such as "Bruce Wayne / Batman" or "Peter Parker / Spider-Man" and those two characters are mostly known by their hero names. I never said it mentions all the names. I said it "shows they use the real names" meaning the characters are not just going to be known as just Deadshot or Captain Boomerang and recognizes the characters have real names as well. Geoff Johns also mentions other characters such as Batman and Superman by their codenames but that doesn't mean they don't have real names. During the Will Smith interview, he says Floyd Lawton. This was a production by DC themselves which are also involved with the film, not by a third party. When I was typing in the real names here in Wikipedia, I used the names as it came to my head but I have no problem using "The Joker" and "Dr. Harleen F. Quinzel". Why are you against using the real names? Dash9Z (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Give Chicago some credit?

I've seen the trailer and it seems that the film was also filmed in Chicago, Illinois. I went online to search it up and found out that additional filming took place in Chicago during August. Here are the sources -> Chicago Tribune, Telegraph.UK, and DCComics Movie. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Official synopsis?

This seems to convey something. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting read. It does confirm the presence of an "enigmatic, insuperable entity". Of course, because this is the DC Universe, there are so many of these "entities" that it's impossible to know which one it is. Regardless, I don't see any harm in briefly giving that a mention in the article. We can always add the specifics after a confirmation is released. DarkKnight2149 16:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016

But as the same time it was very painful

change "as the" to "at the"

Suspect typo error 146.199.7.120 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the character descriptions should be moved to the casting info section.

I'm specifically talking here about The Joker and how Leto prepared for his role. A lot of it seems like it belongs in the casting section and not the character description section. I was going to bring the relevant info down into the section but it almost needs to be completely rewritten to fit.

Perhaps someone could help me? If you need a guide, Batman V Superman has an excellent casting section. --Deathawk (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Official Suicide Squad Runtime Revealed

Suicide Squad confirmed to run at 130 minutes (2 hours and 10 minutes) long via Collider speaking with sources at Warner Bros: http://collider.com/suicide-squad-runtime/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.141.201 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

I just want the Suicide Squad box office prediction moved up from $100-135 million to $100-140 million dollars, since Deadline is predicting a $125-140 million opening weekend.

MovieMan19 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Re-open if you have that Deadline source. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Official Suicide Squad runtime confirmed

It is revealed by the British Board of Film Classification that Suicide Squad will be exactly 123 minutes (2.05 hours long) as this link here says: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/suicide-squad-2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.228.135 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit for Sequel Category

The article states that there is a Harley Quinn movie spin off in development with other DC female characters; however, in recent interviews, Margot Robbie has stated that it is not official. Plus, Warner Brothers has never officially confirmed the film.

Sources: http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1539420/a-solo-harley-quinn-movie-margot-robbies-not-so-sure

http://comicbook.com/2016/07/28/margot-robbie-on-if-harley-quinn-spinoff-movie-is-happening/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.78.42 (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed altogether, since the announced movie may be self-contained and not a sequel to Suicide Squad. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The premiere was two days ago and even the roles kept secret this are about to be revealed. But since they can't be added here without reliable sources, I would like to ask one thing. Which sites and which types of articles on them do you consider reliable on this matter at least? CAJH (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of controversy section

I was simply passing by the article, but I removed the controversy section added by @Howiebraunstein: on the basis that it is unreferenced and it might be WP:UNDUE. I believe the petition mentioned in the removed section shouldn't be added until it is proven to be significant, i.e. it garners commentary from third-party sources that is more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no evidence which makes this petition notable. Moreover, as the petition states on change.org, its aim "is to deliver a message to the critics that there is a lot of people disagree with their reviews", which is a trivial and non-encyclopedic topic.--Earthh (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Cast Member listing needs to be fixed

Karen Fukahara should be listed like the rest of the cast in the bulleted list not at the bottom saying "also featuring". Its unfair to her and the character who plays an equal part in the squad to be stuffed into another paragraph where you cant find her easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.13.155.144 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Critical response addition

Should a few words about the petition to shut down Rotten Tomatoes be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman3095 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea, could make it a subsection under "critical response" like "response to reviews"... I'm all for it, source it up. TropicAces (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the section directly above this. Unless it is proven to be significant through significnt commentary from third-party sources that is more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, mentioning it is WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

TenTonParasol yeah that's fair. Thought it was an interesting point of note, but definitely not pressing. TropicAces (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Negative Reception

Despite Metacritic's 43/100, "mixed or average reviews" summary, the film is receiving generally negative reviews from critics (just like BvS). I sourced 3 review roundups, but if it is decided that it's mixed that's fine, but should cite more than Metacritic. TropicAces (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be just your original research and biased point of view. The two review roundups you cited do not indicate the film received generally negative reviews, they just display some positive and negative reviews, which are all aggregated by both Metacritic and RT. Despite your opinion (saying "the film is receiving generally negative reviews from critics (just like BvS)" is WP:OR), Metacritic indicates the film received mixed or average reviews, based upon 22 mixed, 13 negative, and 10 positive ones. On RT it has an average rating of 4.6/10, an indication of its mixed critical reception. So before changing again the critical reception section, discuss on the talk page and seek consensus. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This film has a 29% on RT and most of the positive reviews also think it's kind of shit. This is not a case where the reviews are split evenly as either effusively positive, derisively negative, or somewhere in-between. The vast majority of the reviews are negative, most of the positive reviews are actually kind of middling and there are very few effusively positive. This film's reception is negative. Labelling it as "mixed" is just spin. 86.28.106.109 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Enough spin people. The film has a 29% rating on RT. The averaged rating of reviews is 4.9/10, which is below average. All the reputable citations in the press is saying this film is being panned by the press and has been received negatively. It is so bad in fact that the cast and crew has taken to the press to attack the critics over their negative response. They wouldn't do this over a "mixed to average" reaction by them. MC is just glossing over this as they often do because it's a lousy aggregator on autopilot and the automated measurement it uses isn't thoughtful. It is just wrong here obviously. Yet the DC fans have wormed the "mixed" language into the article. Please, correct this.184.96.187.7 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

29% and dropping on rotten tomatoes is definitely negative not mixed Hoaivu992 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This happens with every DCEU film. Fanboys come in and call it "mixed" even after everyone slams it. It'll happen with all the next ones too. BTW it's at 27 on RT and 41 on MC. Change the reaction section please.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.237.125 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 

The film got mostly negative reviews, accept it and move on --AgentRedgrave245 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic is considered a reliable source for aggregating reviews, so whatever your objections are, they still are more qualified to summarize critical consensus about something than either you or I. It indicates the film received mixed or average reviews. Moreover, on RT the film has an average rating of 4.7/10, an indication of a mixed response. In the case of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, there are multiple reliable sources claiming the film got negative reviews, but this is not the case of Suicide Squad. So please stop changing the critical reception section and stop adding unsourced content.--Earthh (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes has far more reviews counted, and the meter is 27 %. THAT MEANS, only 27% Of the reviews were positive. That means most of the reviews were negative.Give it up already kid --AgentRedgrave245 (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This back and forth isn't going to stop, just let scores speak for themselves.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice received generally negative reviews. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 27% approval rating based on 340 reviews, with a rating average of 4.9/10. [...] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average to critic reviews, gave the film an average score of 44 out of 100, based on 51 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"." Suicide Squad has the same RT percentage but the average rating is lower (4.7/10). And Metacritic score is even lower than BvS (41). So if the BvS reception is negative how could the SS reception be considered better? Aristides86 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The spin on these things is so annoying. This movie was panned by the critics. End of story. The fans and the stars of the film are in open revolt over that. They wouldn't be doing that if this film had a "mixed" reception. The 4.7/10 is far from an average review. It is below average. Do the math. The 27% from RT is authoritative given the backlash by the movie's cast and crew and the backlash from fans against the movie. Fans and filmmakers would not be in open revolt against critics if they gave this film simply an "average review." More so, the consensus in the press is that this film was "panned" and received "generally negative reviews." This is NOT the case where we remove the summary statement because the scores can speak for themselves. It is quite clear, according to the reputable citations out there, that this film received a generally negative reception by the critics. We can safely summarize the film on those grounds. It is not our job to spin this on behalf of the DC fanboys. Refresh yourselves with WP:OR.75.166.176.216 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Word: "In" has been misspelled, instead it shows: "n"...

Hi Wikipedians... I detected a minor error in the Critical response section of this article in Line 1. After the First full stop, you'll immediately notice the error N instead of In. Tryna' keep the article in good condition for all readers :) Thanks in Advance and you're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:461C:A000:5D58:4FD:7220:D66E (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2016

Please change the reception from mixed to negative? A few mixed reviews, but overall, it's been negative. 27 on rt? That's negative--AgentRedgrave245 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

AgentRedgrave245 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Already done — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Opening day

Suicide Squad scored $65.1 million on its opening day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Summary Line in the lead

The summary line in the lead is just sh**. "The film has grossed over $267 million, despite receiving generally negative reviews from critics, who praised its action sequences, humor, and the performances of the cast, but criticized it for its choppy plot and editing." It's a grab bag of wikipedia violations. So far, I see a violation of WP:NPOV,WP:OR,WP:Synthesis. Can we clean this up? I propose the following: "The film received a generally negative reception from critics, who found the direction choppy and criticized the plot as muddled with characters suffering from being too thinly-written, though some praised the performances and humor. The film has grossed over $267 million." Better than the fanboy spin and garbage above. My take on this still requires some work, refinement, so please add to this. But please, let's not let this become yet another piece of DC fanboy wikipedia spinning.174.29.71.11 (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is something that is going to evolve over the next wee while, but I agree that we need to be giving due weight to the negative criticisms, not putting emphasis on the positive things. I think something like this would be fine: "Critical response to the film was mostly negative, with reviewers finding the direction and editing choppy, the plot muddled, and the characters thinly-written, though the performances and increased humor over the previous DCEU films received some praise." We should probably leave the money for now, since it is going to keep changing majorly for a while. As long as all of that is sourced in the critics section, that should be fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Make it happen.174.29.71.11 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Now the summary line reads bad again. Anyone cafe to revert it back to what was agreed to here?174.29.71.11 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I really liked this:"Critical response to the film was mostly negative, with reviewers finding the direction and editing choppy, the plot muddled, and the characters thinly-written, though some praised the humor and Margot Robbie's performance." Truth is, the rest of the performances, even the 'new' Joker, really didn't get much love.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Opening weekly

Suicide Squad's opening week is behind Batman vs Superman so it should be fifth. Or check and see if it's anything higher or lower than movies of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2016

The performance of Jared Leto as The Joker WAS NOT praised, only Margot Robbie's performance. 187.188.9.105 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

From EW: Leto’s scene-stealing Joker

From WTOP: he looks the part (white face paint, capped teeth, tattoos), sounds the part (creepy laugh) and acts the part (revealing a smile painted on his hand)

DonQuixote (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

collection

The film has collected 509 million but it is not updated. Maz004 (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Who Did (or did not) receive "wide acclaim": Citations vs. Original research

While I'm sure we could cherry pick reviews saying that EVERYONE in the movie received "praise", according to wikipedia policy on MOS:Film and WP:citation, the minority opinion of a handful of reviews or even the occasional outlier of an article doesn't count. What is notable counts. So far the only 'praise' across the board for this performances of this film is Margot Robbie. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that Viola Davis received praise too, even though this is stretching the truth a little. However saying that Smith, Leto, others.,received notable praise is absurd and a lie. The reviews were mostly negative for the film INCLUDING the performances (again, the sole exception being Robbie). Smith, especially, received mixed reviews at best and it's not like the press was praising his comeback or something here. However, like any DC or Marvel film page it becomes a fan page rip for edit warring. I could give two craps for a troll's love for comic book movies. I just want this article to reflect the truth, that's all.

And we are here to report, not interpret the citations:(case in point)

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/02/suicide-squad-ew-review This review acknowledges praise for Robbie, how it made her into a star, though the best it can say about Leto was that his performance was "wasted", though in his opinion it was "scene stealing." And that's the problem...it's a review, on of the few favorable ones for the film. Not an objective analysis of the film. Let's move on to those...

http://wtop.com/entertainment/2016/08/review-harley-quinns-star-born-amid-sloppy-suicide-squad/ Ah, another review...that only acknowledges the wide-praise for Robbie. Hardly mention of Leto. Certainly no report that his character was widely praised.

(quote)"Robbie is now a superstar....Unfortunately, the other members of the squad barely register....Sadly, most lost in the shuffle is Jared Leto’s Joker."

http://www.providencejournal.com/entertainmentlife/20160804/harley-quinn-could-be-2016s-most-popular-movie-character Again, praise for Robbie. The source even suggests her performance was so good, she would've been great WITHOUT the Joker. Hardly praise for Leto (as in, none).

http://www.clickondetroit.com/entertainment/harley-quinn-steps-up-to-plate-in-suicide-squad Again, praise for Robbie (saying she stole the show). Nothing about Leto.

So there you have it. Those are the sources. None of them report on some wide acclaim for Leto. And the closest we came was a subjective positive review that concedes that there are problems with Leto's performance (that it was killed with a choice to neuter the performance by cutting it out of the movie!) Even Leto was upset with how his performance came out, saying that most of it was cut, making it hardly register.

This wikipedia page originally said some nonsense about how Leto's performance received so much praise that everyone is clamoring to see more of the character in future films. This is a WP:Citation violation. To suggest that it is implied based upon our interpretation of all the sources and our feelings of this movie would be WP:OR.

Personally, I have no problem talking highly of a film is the sources (directly) back it up. And Suicide Squad is a fun movie (IMHO) and I liked Leto's Joker, what little they did show. But our job is to wikipedia first, not the fans. When it comes to reporting notability, we have to stick to the theses. The consensus report by the press IS THAT this movie was panned by the critics though Robbie's performance was a star-making turn that everyone could agree upon. Everyone else from Smith to Eastwood to Leto received (at best) mixed reviews. Again, even if I cherry picked some review that praised EVERYONE in the movie, according to WP:CITATION the minority opinion doesn't count.

Also, this nonsense from one trolling editor that there is a consensus in place about Leto's performance is simply not true. Even so, there are limits. We can't go to a page about the planet Earth and put together a consensus that forces the article to say the world is flat. Likewise, I encourage civility with this subjective matters. If the source doesn't directly and clearly say it, neither do we. Also, a review is proof of anything, and doesn't belong as a valid citation for whether or not a performance was met with praise by the culture at large.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2016

You got Zootopia twice. It should be Deadpool, Zootopia, The Jungle Book, and Finding Dory.

71.81.58.55 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Already done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

A small mistake...

The article has a small mistake at the box office chapter... It reads: It recorded the biggest opening day of all time for Warner Bros. in Russia ($3.9 million), the biggest August opening day in the United Kingdom and Ireland ($6.2 million), Brazil ($3 million), South Korea ($2.9 million, also the second biggest Warner Bros. opening day), France ($2.7 million), Sweden ($564,000) and Holland ($517,000, also the biggest opening of the year). Holland is not a country... The Netherlands is. I can't edit it myself because the article is semi-protected and I don't have at least ten edits. Can someone else fix this?

(more information on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc)

Boudewijnd09 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The cited source says "Holland".[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Grossing

Suicide Squad has passed Man of Steel domestically and worldwide so it's the second highest-grossing film in the DC Extended Universe domestic and worldwide. Also it crossed over $300 million domestic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Praise for Viola Davis' performance

Since there is a rule in place that prevents the lead section from saying any actors or actresses other than Margot Robbie received praise, I will provide evidence here of praise of Viola Davis' performance being supported by consensus in the press.

http://www.thewrap.com/suicide-squad-review-dc-extended-universe/ "Margot Robbie, Viola Davis Stand Out in Overstuffed Spectacle"

https://mic.com/articles/150571/viola-davis-is-the-best-and-only-reason-to-see-suicide-squad#.T1RLddK21 "Viola Davis is the best — and only — reason to see 'Suicide Squad'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/movies/suicide-squad-review-dc-comics.html?referrer=google_kp "What fun there is can be found elsewhere, in the costumes and the banter and the exploration of metahuman psychology. Or at least in the dead-serious, delightfully mischievous performances of Will Smith and Viola Davis."

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/suicide-squad-2016 "Davis brings her usual formidable presence and gravitas to this otherwise unstable affair, and she’s pretty much the only one on-screen who makes the film worth watching."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/08/03/suicide-squad-review-worse-than-green-lantern-worse-than-fantastic-four/#69373dc4d733 "Viola Davis almost steals the picture before she mostly disappears in the second half." "The only things worth savoring are Smith, Robbie, and Davis."

http://www.slashfilm.com/suicide-squad-spoiler-review/ "Davis’ firm, no-nonsense performance provides the foundation upon which the rest of the movie’s silliness can flourish."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/02/suicide-squad-review "Viola Davis completely owns the role of Waller."

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/2/12356304/suicide-squad-review-dc-comics "There’s real intensity as well, particularly from Davis, who plays Amanda Waller as a full-blown sociopath who’s tougher, meaner, and more purely enjoyable than many of the villains she’s corralling."

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12395474/suicide-squad-not-total-complete-failure "The best thing about Suicide Squad is Viola Davis’s portrayal of Amanda Waller."

Bluerules (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Time length

Its 130 minutes not 123 Dpat9966 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Filming in Toronto: Privacy Reasons

In the Filming section there are the two following sentences:

On May 5, a few major scenes were filmed in downtown Toronto next to Yonge and Dundas Square. Street signs were removed for privacy reasons during filming that night. [60]

The anglophone source is mentioned in footnote 60 as Brad Smith: Entertainment City: ‘Suicide Squad’. News1130. March 6, 2015. Retrieved May 17, 2015.

• Now I have some questions on these privacy reasons. My English auditory is only average (I am from Germany). But even after three times watching this News1130 video, I can't identify the position where they talk about street signs (I suppose: street name signs are meant). → Who can help me find the quotation?
• What is meant by privacy reasons? Is it privacy in the meaning of privacy protection? Or ist it privacy in the meaning of concealment, secrecy, nondisclosure? What and why did they want to keep private here?

I intend to use your answers for the improvement of the German Wikipedia article of the film (see the discussion there). Many thanks in advance. -- Großkatze (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The things I do for wikipedia. I watched the clip which forms the reference. They make no mention of street signes, their removal, privacy, anything of the sort. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The signs are never mentioned. As for why they might be removed... In a city... I don't know. If they were filming in a residential neighborhood, I could maybe see them removing signs with the resident's last names on them. For instance, many people have their last name on their mailbox large enough to read while driving past but that doesn't generally happen in a city. †Dismas†|^(talk) 01:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Or the street signs could be removed/disguised to avoid attracting tourists. —Tamfang (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The report says nothing about signs. The sentence about "privacy" should be deleted as unsourced. Having said that, "privacy" could simply mean that they want (or were contractually required) to keep the locations anonymous to the world at large. Obviously, locals would have no trouble figuring out where filming was done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved Thanks to all three of you, Tagishsimon, Dismas and Baseball Bugs. In conclusion to your statements I will delete the sentence “Street signs were removed for privacy reasons during filming that night.” as unsourced, here in the English Wikipedia, in a few minutes. I have already deleted the counterpart in the German Wikipedia. -- Großkatze (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not possible Hm, I have no permission to delete the sentence, as the page is semi-protected and it seems that my edits in other Wikis (such as the German Wikipedia) don't count for this one here. Might any one of you do the job? -- Großkatze (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit count only counts within a specific wiki. And someone has taken care of that unsourced sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The facts in question were added by an IP on May 6, 2015, the day after the filming took place.[7] He had twice been reverted for failing to source it. Once he provided a supposed source, it stayed. My guess would be that he was an onlooker during filming and asked somebody about it. Either that, or he jumped to a conclusion. I had watched the video in question, and I don't recall the reporter saying anything about filming at night on May 5, either. So I have zapped the rest of it. If I'm wrong, you can put it back. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

* The date for filming in Toronto, the night from May the 5th to May the 6th, 2015, is well sourced by the video trough running time 0:14 to 0:17 (“last night”), combined with the videos release date, mentioned on the surrounding embedding frame of the video (“May 06, 2015, 6:17 AM”). So I see no need for deleting the first sentence, “On May 5, a few major scenes were filmed in downtown Toronto next to Yonge and Dundas Square.”, and would like to suggest to restore it. My doubts were only on the street (name) signs and the privacy reasons in second sentence; thanks for deleting this second one. -- Großkatze (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that the link stated the date as March 6th. However, the thing linked to says May 6th. So if you restore it, be sure to fix the date. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Pardon, I don't fully get your point. Maybe a lack of fluency on my side. The video dates May 06, 2015, 6:17 AM, so it seems to me that it has been broadcasted on the morning of May the 6th. The anchorman announcing the video talks about “last night”. So I think, he means the night from 5th to 6th, isn't it? And therefore the filming took place on May the 5th (and trough the night till 6th), or have I got something wrong? In German we usually address the night to the previous day (“saturday night” is the night beginning on saturday, leaving out that it ends on sunday). -- Großkatze (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the details of the reference, it says March 6 rather than May 6. Whoever posted it a year ago got it wrong. May 6 is correct. So if you put the reference back, you need to change it from March to May. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the text. Note the error: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.news1130.com/2015/05/06/entertainment-city-suicide-squad/ |title=Entertainment City: 'Suicide Squad' |publisher=News1130 |date=March 6, 2015 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

 Resolved Aaah! Now I've got it. And I brought it back, a few seconds ago, with the corrected date. Seems I've got enough enWP edits now for being allowed to edit this semi-protected page now. -- Großkatze (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, it appears you hit the magic minimum number of edits when you made this edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it must have been so :-). I was noticed by enWP to have reached the minimum number of edits just after saving the edit, saying that I still lack them. Truely a funny coincidence. It semmed to me a little bit like enWP promptly and automatically “refusing” my complaint about the missing permission. Fortunately you and Tamfang edited for me, anyhow. Thanks again! -- Großkatze (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

While I have no particular knowledge of this case, I'm fairly sure removing or changing street signs isn't uncommon. I don't think it normally has much to do with privacy, although I guess if it's a fairly residential street it could be. (This doesn't seem likely downtown of a major city.) I think the more common reason would be the street signs don't fit in with what's being filmed. Perhaps they are the wrong colour or look wrong for where the action is set in the show. Perhaps the names shown are not what is mentioned in the show. Perhaps they create some other confusion or distraction or simple get in the way of the action. There's some mention here [8] [9] [10].

Not a street sign but in Entrapment (film), the station filmed had a different sign from the actual station. The movie didn't seem to be particular concerned about accuracy in Malaysia and the named station didn't make much sense for what was depicted in the show. (It was closed, but not that close.) So my guess would be that the station was chosen because it had a suitable look and worked well (since it was, even more so at the time, a far less busy station) for the demands of filming. The name was chosen for something which was somewhat pronounceable by the cast.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Plausible, beyond doubt! But the concerns here were the “privacy reasons” for the removing that were not substantiated in the denoted source, as well as the removing of the signs itself. And as we are not here for own research or theories, the unsourced sentence about “removed street signs” nedded to be deleted. -- Großkatze (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

Blanked copy+paste of entire article

Ali Aalipour (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Please do not copy the entire article into the talk page. Instead, mention your changes in brief sentences in "Please change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

Minor edit: Near the end of the article under "Potential sequel and spin-offs" - update "potential star Smith" to "potentially star Smith" 192.151.178.180 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 22:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

My edit: ''Suicide Squad'' received overwhelmingly negative<!--AS SOURCED--> reviews from critics.</nnowiki>[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/suicide-squad-cast-respond-negative-917386] was reverted to <nowiki>"...generally negative<!--DO NOT PUT MIXED--> reviews..." with the same source. Earthh's edit summary was "not universally".

No, we should not say "universally" here. In fact, there is nowhere that I can think of where we should say "universally". (999,999,999 critics hated the movie and one thought it was "okay, I guess"? That is not "universal".) That said, "overwhelmingly negative" does not imply that the reviews were universally negative, only that the overwhelming majority of reviews were negative. Further, the reliable source directly states "overwhelmingly negative". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone else already fixed this.--Earthh (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2017

I want to update the page with some minor information and correct grammatical mistakes as well as correct some false facts/information in the article. Thepantcoat (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Awards" in the lead

The disputed text[11] is between: "The film has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories, including hair and make-up, acting, and music." - and - "The film won Best Makeup and Hairstyling at the 89th Academy Awards."

My preference for the second, more specific version is based on the vagueness of the former.

Bignole suggests that my version runs afoul of WP:MOSFILM#Lead section and WP:UNDUE. On the first, I would question "Avoid using "award-winning" and similar phrases in the opening sentence to maintain a neutral point of view and summarize the awards in the proper context in a later paragraph of the lead section." Yes, the film has "been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories, including hair and make-up, acting, and music." That is accurate, but meaningless. We can accurately (but meaninglessly) state that both Citizen Kane and Battlefield Earth have "been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories, including acting, directing and screenplay."

The first version seems to be building up the film. The second seems to be stating a fact. This film was polarizing: Most critics hated it, many quite passionately. Some moviegoers ate it up. The awards seem to reflect this: Favorite Movie Actor vs. Worst Supporting Actor. The first is popularity, the second is quality.

As for the WP:WEIGHT issue, I see the exact opposite of Bignole, it would seem. To me, lumping varying awards of varying prominence together seems to be a weight issue to me. Yes, The Oscars are far more prominent than any of the other awards won here (Critics' Choice Awards, Hollywood Music in Media Awards, iHeartRadio Music Awards, Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild, MTV Video Music Award, People's Choice Awards, Teen Choice Awards and Village Voice Film Poll (worst film, btw)). "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (emphasis added) Find a major, general interest newspaper that does not cover the Oscars and I will find you 100 that don't discuss any of the others. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Critics hating a film has no bearing on the awards it may win. The things they had problems with had no connection to the awards that they won. No one criticized the make-up or the music. You are cherry picking an award to broadcast. If anything, specifically pointing out that it won an Oscar over any other award is more akin to "building up the film" than simply stating that it was nominated and won some awards.

With regard to the MOS, it specifically says to "summarize the awards later". Only pointing out that it won an Academy isn't "summarizing" in any respect since that was 1 award in a rather long list (hence the reason that they split off from the page in the first place). WIth regard to UNDUE, that's pretty obvious as that is my main point. You're placing more value on a particular award because YOU deem it more important. It doesn't matter if the profession deems it more important or you do. At Wikipedia we take a neutral stance and don't rank awards based on "importance".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your version is misleading. "Suicide Squad has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories"? Yes, that is true. "Citizen Kane has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories" is also true. "Battlefield Earth has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories."

Frankly, I think including the Oscar is better than the completely meaningless "multiple awards", but leaving the whole misleading sentance out would be better still. Yes, it won multiple minor awards. Yes, it won a major award (the Oscar) in a minor category. A film wins the Oscar for Best Picture? Yes, we mention that in the lead paragraph. A film wins Jumpin' Joe's Movie Blog's Best Exploding Buildings we don't. More to the point, this film won an Oscar for a category that the general reader does not pay attention to, along with numerous low profile awards. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The irony is that you are arguing that my statement is "misleading", when you point out that it is completely factual (can't be misleading if it's factual, it doesn't imply anything). In fact, to only mention the Oscar win would be "misleading", since you're discounting all the other awards and focusing on one. I'm dumbfounded that you don't see that, and no we don't mention "best picture" for films on the lead. I mean, we may, but not in accordance to the MOS. We're not supposed to be giving preference to any one award, as I said before. The MOS clearly states "summarize". Your argument is actually the complete opposite of summarizing, and you even go so far as to point out that it is an obscure award even for the Oscars that the reader wouldn't know about automatically. Not a rationale for putting it in the lead. The lead summarizes the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

In your estimation, then, "Battlefield Earth has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories." Right? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"In my estimation"? First off, I wouldn't know without going to the page. If it's true then it isn't an "estimation", it's just a fact. Just because the film is critically panned does not negate accolades.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Going to the page, I see the game you're trying to get at, because the film won Razzie Awards. First, there is a difference between a genuine award and an award that is mocking the film (which is what a Razzie is). Given that Razzies are the only awards are apparently include (not sure why) that are "negative" awards, if you were going to talk about them then you would clarify that it was for poor performances. More importantly, your argument doesn't work here either. With Battlefield, the ONLY awards it has are Razzies. Thus, there is no need to "summarize" awards from a single source. IN the case of SUicide Squad, it has actual awards from multiple awarding agencies, and thus why we don't single out just the Academy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

So, you have decided that "awards" are for saying it was good and if there were "negative awards" we would need to clarify? If so, you will need to clarify your text to account for the Alliance of Women Film Journalists' "Hall of Shame" and "Actress Most in Need of a New Agent", Golden Raspberry Awards' "Worst Supporting Actor" and "Worst Screenplay", and Village Voice Film Poll "Worst film" nominations. Perhaps we should also clarify that many of the others are not speaking to quality ("best") but rather popularity ("favorite", "Choice AnTEENcipated")? Saying this movie was nominated for "awards" and won some of them is A) functionally meaningless and B) quite misleading in its generality. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

First, it's supposed to be general. THat is what "summarizing" means. Second, even "popularity" is based on positivity. Whether that's quality or popularity, it's positive. Now, Razzies and the "Hall of Shame" do exist, but is the commonality of awards they are 95% based on positivity regarding something in the film, and not negativity or shame-based like those others. We still include them, but in the cast of Battlefield Earth the ONLY awards it won were Razzies. As I stated, in the case of Suicide Squad and many others, there are far more awards being won. The Oscars are not the be all end all in awards and should not be singled out above the rest simply because you think they are more important. We have talked this to death. Let's see what others have to say. I'd be happy to send this over to MOSFILM to request more opinions if you'd like.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Having restored the general, generic, unemphatic version of the lead once, I guess I should explain my reasoning: as a general matter, this film is not a big award winner. Some Academy awards can be considered more notable than others, and the less notable awards, such as Makeup and Hairstyling do not merit a mention in the lead. To give these lesser awards a lot of prominence would be WP:UNDUE. That's not to ignore the fact that the film won some awards, which we can say in the lead, but the salient details of which awards could be summarized in the proper section of this article – currently empty – based on the content of List of accolades received by Suicide Squad. And NPOV would require noting that some of the awards "won" are for being "bad". — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The film was not a big award winner. In fact, other than the Oscar in a widely ignored category, all of the awards are fairly minor. Many of those minor awards are negative. As a result, the general/generic statement is as meaningless as "Citizen Kane has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories" and the equally true "Battlefield Earth has been nominated for and won multiple awards across various categories."

IMO, it is misleading to state that it was nominated for and won "awards" in categories X, Y and Z. "Award winning" is generally regarded as a good thing. Saying this film is "award winning" or an "award winner" or "won awards" is unbalanced as it emphasizes the minor positives over the minor negatives.

There is a simple reason no one has bothered with a meaningful summary in the "Awards" section: The film was not a big award winner. The awards in this case are mixed and trivial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017

On Rotten Tomatoes, Suicide Squad Is At 25% With 310 Reviews, So Can You Edit Critical Reception? 207.172.180.75 (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Reviews part 2

We have a source that directly states the reviews were "overwhelmingly negative". We have editors who say "mixed", "mixed to negative", "negative", "mostly negative" and probably a few others that I missed.

As I see it, we have three options here:

1) Quote the source: "overwhelmingly negative".

2) Give the numbers and omit the description.

3) Gee, there's always original research. I mean, it's clearly, objectively mixed/mixed to negative/negative/mostly negative/not really positive/horrible/average/could have been better/whatever. If the RT or Metacritic score was 0.1% different, then it would obviously be the next higher/lower description, as every human being on the planet objectively knows. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This matter was already addressed a while ago. There are sources saying the film received overwhelmingly negative reviews, lukewarm reviews, mixed reviews. On RT the film has rating of 4.7/10, on MC it holds a 40/100. It's pretty clear that there isn't a real general consensus about the matter, but what is even more clear is that the film didn't receive "overwhelmingly negative" reviews. I cannot understand what's wrong with "generally negative" reviews; this indicates film received both positive and negative comments, but for the most part, they were negative.--Earthh (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the objective dividing line between "generally negative" and "negative" (or "mixed" or "mostly negative" or...)? 4.6/10? 4.5? 4.4?... 39/100? 38? 37?...

What's wrong with "generally negative" is that it is your interpretation of RT and Meta's interpretations of their subsets of "critics".

This would be similar to taking CinemaScore's B+ and using it to say: "Movie goers thought the film was significantly above average." - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I say go with the source and overwhelmingly negative. If anything, we could say "according to <source>, the film has received overwhelmingly negative reviews". We also need to discuss which actors received positive reviews. I don't think anybody is arguing against stating that Robbie received positive reviews. However, Leto didn't receive a significant number of positive reviews. In fact, even most of the reviews that enjoyed his performance complained about how underused he was in the film. JDDJS (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to cite a source, we have a lot to choose from. The first half of the sources currently cited in the article say:

• "overwhelmingly negative reviews" (Hollywood Reporter),

• "lukewarm reviews" from the headline writer, "bad reviews" in the articleTelegraph linking to "a crushingly puerile semi-pornographic slog"),

• "reviews coming in mixed" (according to, um, "UPROXX" and written before the film's wide release)

• "withering reviews" from the headline writer, "abysmal reviews" in the article (The New York Times)

• "some harsh early reviews" (Hollywoood Reporter)

• "an absolute critical mauling...'critically trashed'" (Forbes)

• "bad reviews...savaged by critics" (Hollywood Reporter)

A recent CNN article (on Wonder Woman) says this film was "critically panned".[12] IMO, the mealy-mouthed "generally negative" is not accurate and clearly original research. I personally would either leave out the statement or directly quote one of the better sources (more like the New York Times, CNN or Forbes, rather than "UPROXX". - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, there's only one source indicating "overwhelmingly negative reviews". There's not a universal consensus about this, that's the reason why "generally negative" would be more appropriate. I guess your persistence about the "overwhelmingly negative" is based upon your pov. Well, Wikipedia is based on what multiple sources say, not on the single source that suits to you.--Earthh (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I would personally leave out the statement or quote a source. You would rather pretend that the wishy-washing "general negative" covers "overwhelmingly negative reviews...bad reviews...withering reviews...abysmal reviews...an absolute critical mauling...'critically trashed'...bad reviews...savaged by critics...critically panned". Yeah, in my opinion that's overwhelming negative, abysmal, withering, a critical mauling, savaged by critics and panned by critics.

Yes, I disagree with you. I guess you would say we generally don't agree on this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Earthh you're the one who seems to have a POV problem here because none of the sources say "generally" whatsoever or anything similar. Not counting the one written before the film came out, the best assessment of reviews says "lukewarm reviews". The rest say "overwhelmingly negative reviews...bad reviews...withering reviews...abysmal reviews...an absolute critical mauling...'critically trashed'...bad reviews...savaged by critics...critically panned". They are all basically saying overwhelmingly negative reviews in different words. You haven't even found a single surce that supports "generally". JDDJS (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I just cited the first source which came up after searching on google (but there's also Digital Spy, Cinema Blend, Comic Book Resources, ABS-CBN, Huffington Post indicating lukewarm reviews, while The Northern Echo, Empire, Inquisitr, HitFix, Yahoo, Vanity Fair (I hope they're enough) all indicate mixed reviews). Most significantly, there's Metacritic which indicates "mixed or average reviews". All this does not indicate an "overwhelmingly negative reception" at all. @JDDJS I can't see any POV problem in those sources.--Earthh (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Majority of your sources are from before the film was released, and a lot more reviews were written after them. Majority of the sources are still saying things more along the lines of "overwhelmingly negative" then "generally negative". I wouldn't be opposed to saying to including multiple different analysis of the reviews like "according to <source> it received <quote from article> while <different source> says it received <quote> and according to..." JDDJS (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you selected sources, but it skews heavily toward your opinion. My selection is simply the first half of the sources currently cited in the article, skipping those pre-dating August 2016 (the release of the film).

Metacritic's text is based on their selection of critics and is spit out mechanically by an algorithm. We can (and do) say that their score represents "mixed or average reviews" as a direct quote of their site. We do not use their text as a factual claim (such as their sloppy use of the word "universal" when they don't mean all). Apologetics aside, we still do not have an indication that reviews were merely "generally negative". (Were I ranking sources by credibility, I can't imagine the top three would be other than New York Times, CNN, Forbes, which would give us "abysal reviews", "critically panned" and "an absolute critical mauling".)

Long story short: "Generally negative" is OR and/or cherry picking. I can't really see an objective way to summarize the mess and !vote to leave the description out. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It can be left out of the reception section where we can let the reviews speak for themselves; however, the lead needs to say something about the negative reviews it received. JDDJS (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Since there are only three of, us I'm going to start a RFC so we can really establish consensus on what to say. JDDJS (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

I've no idea how to do this particular template, or the differences between semi- and full- and what ever other types of "protection". Hopefully a decent editor will make the appropriate corrections.

In the section Outside North America, paragraph two, the text says: the biggest August opening day in the United Kingdom and Ireland ($6.2 million)

This is not in the source, which just says the UK.

In the last paragraph, its biggest market outside of North America are the UK and Ireland ($43.3 million) again the source doesn't mention "Ireland". 75.177.79.101 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Done 2 of the 3 instances where Ireland was mentioned in that section were removed. A 3rd instance remained, whilst the CITENEED template was appended and dated JAN 2018. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Waaay too much in the reception section

There is an entire term paper worth of boring discussion of numbers in that section. Seriously, who cares? Who actually reads that much? 00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The box office coverage is unusually detailed, it makes a nice change to have enough reliable sources to be able to write in that much detail about the business side of it. It makes a change to have things like the breakdown of audience demographics. Some people are into that sort of thing, but fair enough if it doesn't interest you. Short version: it made a whole lot of money. -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)