Suicide Squad is a movie that has been met with mixed reviews. Critics are praising the film for its dark humor, while fans have found themselves laughing at the wrong moments and cringing in embarrassment.
The is the suicide squad a sequel to suicide squad is a question that has been asked many times. In my opinion, I would say no.
***This article contains spoilers for The Suicide Squad and Game of Thrones’ first season***
After seeing James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad, I realized that there’s a particular action-adventure cliché that I like, and that this film did both well and could have done better in. I’m sure there’s a term for this someplace on TV Tropes, but I couldn’t think of it right now.
I adore it when two characters have an adversarial relationship that starts with verbal sparring and ends with a physical clash. The verbal fighting may be about anything thematically related to the narrative, or it could simply be for fun. Preferably, some aspect of their prior conversation finds its way into their conflict.
If you’ve watched The Suicide Squad, you’ll recognize Bloodsport (Idris Elba) and Peacemaker as the characters I’m referring to (played by John Cena). They’re both members of the Suicide Squad and are mercenaries and vigilantes, respectively. Bloodsport is completely jaded, and he only joins the Suicide Squad mission to protect his daughter from Amanda Waller. Peacemaker, on the other hand, believes wholeheartedly in the Suicide Squad’s concept since he is philosophically motivated by a desire to force the globe into global peace. Every exchange between and about these two has made it obvious that they don’t like one other and are destined to fight at some point.
One of the most amusing aspects of Bloodsport is Amanda Waller’s description of Robert DuBois: “Robert DuBois. A top marksman in the world. Anything becomes a lethal weapon in his hands. From the time he was born, his father, a mercenary, taught his kid to kill.” “This is Christopher Smith, also known as Peacemaker,” she says in the next scene, with Bloodsport present. Anything becomes a lethal weapon in his hands. His father was a soldier, and from the time he was born, he taught his kid how to kill.”
Bloodsport points out that he does precisely that, and Peacemaker claims he does it better since his targets are struck “more in the middle” than Bloodsport’s “dead center.” It’s more amazing when Peacemaker describes how he utilizes smaller rounds. As a result, a male-ego pissing contest ensues, which adds a great deal of comedy as well as tension between these two characters. There’s a friendly competition amongst them to see who can murder in the most inventive manner. Nonetheless, the language in the film more clearly sets them against one other.
Another example of hostile dialogue may be found in one of my favorite classic adventure films, the 1940s’ The Great Escape. Diego – Zorro – is at a dinner party with the corrupt local dictators he’s actively attempting to Robin-Hood when he notices Captain Esteban – the villain’s primary soldier – slashing a piece of fruit pointlessly. “You seem to consider that unfortunate fruit as an adversary, Captain,” Zorro observes. Esteban responds, “A rival.” This initiates a conversation between the two characters in which we learn more about Esteban and how he assassinated a “man of importance” in his home country of Spain. The atmosphere darkens and gets tense when Diego inquires about the gentleman’s wife. It’s obvious that a battle is developing between these two characters as the scene shifts from Esteban slicing a piece of fruit for no apparent reason to Esteban looking at Diego with rage in his eyes. The fact that this discussion takes place over dinner somehow adds to the tension. It’s predictable that this leads to one of the greatest swordfights in cinematic history.
For a more contemporary example, consider Ned Stark and Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones’ first season. In the first few episodes, they joke about with each other, but by Episode 5, aptly named “The Wolf and the Lion,” they fight, leaving Ned paralyzed for the rest of his life. It’s obvious from the start that the most honorable man in the North will clash with the disgraced member of the Kingsguard.
But there are a few moments early on in the show, when Ned is selected to be the King’s Hand and Jaime is one of the Kingsguard’s most senior members despite having murdered the last king, when these two characters are squabbling and it’s obvious that they’re planning a battle. This may be traced back to the first episode of the series, when Ned and Jaime had a discussion at Winterfell during the feast:
Jaime: I’ve heard we’ll be neighbors soon, and I’m hoping that’s true.
Ned: With his offer, the king has honored me.
Jaime: If you accept, I’m sure we’ll have a tournament to honor your new title. It’ll be great to have you on the field; the competition has become a little boring lately.
Ned: I’m not a tournament fighter.
Jaime: No? Are you becoming a bit tired of it?
Ned: I don’t fight in tournaments because I don’t want a guy to know what I’m capable of when I face him in a genuine fight.
Jaime: Excellent point!
“Winter Is Coming” is the first episode of Season 1 of Game of Thrones.
We have another excellent example of this conversation when the characters arrive in King’s Landing:
Jaime: Stark, thank the Gods you’re here. It’s past time for some tough northern leadership.
Ned: I’m glad you’re guarding the throne.
Jaime: It’s a sturdy old thing; I wonder how many kings’ asses have polished it. What is the dividing line? The king spits, and the king’s Hand wipes.
Ned: That’s some nice armor. There isn’t a scratch on it.
Jaime: I know; people have been swinging at me for years and manage to miss every time.
Ned: Then you’ve picked your opponents well.
Jaime: I’m very good at it.
“Lord Snow” from Season 1 Episode 3 of Game of Thrones
And Jaime’s reputation is reinforced by the way he is constructed; we hear about him being one of Westeros’ finest swordsmen, and how he killed the king he was pledged to defend. This contrasts well with Ned Stark’s honor, which is emphasized so often that it might be turned into a drinking game. Ned and Jaime quickly fall into their roles as hero and villain in the first season, which allows Ned’s humility and Jaime’s cockiness (which he uses to hide his shame and insecurity) to bounce off each other in a fun manner.
Jaime’s ego makes him brag, and Ned’s honor stops him from boasting, but when another soldier intervenes, Jaime refuses to murder Ned because it “wouldn’t be clean,” despite the fact that it might be strategically beneficial. As a result, the conversation building up to the battle between these two characters ends up making a larger point about Jaime: many perceive of him as a guy without honor, yet his choice in this instance defies that stereotype.
This brings me back to the Battle of Peacemaker and Bloodsport. Despite the fact that they nominally fight for the same side, the conversation between them and about them plainly sets them against one other early on.
The contrast between the magnitude of their driving reasons, Bloodsport battles for his daughter, and Peacemaker, as the name suggests, tries to bring peace to the globe, illustrates the larger argument this film makes about international relations. The hypocrisy of Peacemaker is evident throughout the movie, but it is most apparent when he proudly proclaims, “I adore peace with all of my heart.” I don’t care how many men, women, or children I have to murder in order to get it.” We then watch as Bloodsport takes the more personal decision while Peacemaker makes the more ideological one; most viewers would consider Bloodsport to be the hero in this scenario.
When Bloodsport stops Peacemaker’s attempt to murder Ratcatcher II, their feud comes to a head, and the two finally have a cause to fight. I almost wish the film had found a way to have the battle between these two characters last longer, but because they’re both gun owners, it’s only natural that it should be a fast draw shootout. They both draw and fire their weapons at the same moment, with the rounds traveling in the same direction — as Peacemaker predicted earlier in the film, the tiny bullet slices through the bigger bullet, and Peacemaker is killed. This recalls a previous discussion in which Peacemaker stated that his smaller bullets were more spectacular, and it is now being used against him. It’s a wonderful approach to bring back the adversarial banter at the opening of the film while also satisfying previous expectations.
Anyway, this article has veered from example to example, but the fact that the conversation foreshadows the conflict is something that all three instances have in common. If you have two characters who are philosophically opposed but not in direct confrontation, humorous or not-so-lighthearted banter between them may help the audience prepare for the fight to come. Sure, a lot of movies do it, but maybe not nearly enough.
The suicide squad and the suicide squad is a difference between two things. One is the Suicide Squad, which is a team of villains who are sent on missions for the government to complete. The other is an antagonistic term that people use when they want to insult someone. Reference: difference between ‘suicide squad and the suicide squad.
Related Tags
- is the suicide squad a sequel to birds of prey
- why are they remaking suicide squad
- suicide squad 2
- is the suicide squad a sequel or reboot
- when is the new suicide squad coming out
