Talk:The Suicide Squad (film)

Will Smith, Joel Kinnaman and Jai Courtney Deadshot, Rick Flag and Captain Boomerang's article

I think Jai Courtney and Joel Kinnaman should have their own article as Captain Boomerang and Rick Flag, because they appeared in two films! In my opinion they are important characters... LRP19PT (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You can create a draft, see Category:DC Extended Universe drafts for a list of drafts that currently exist

WP:MCUCHARACTERS is for the Marvel Cinematic Universe but seems relevant, they would need two more appearances or one solo film Indagate (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, article like that shouldn't be created based on who's important, should be when there's enough content to split from the existing articles otherwise there's unnecessary undeveloped stub and repeated content Indagate (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Indagate Ok but mostly Rick Flag because, Peacemaker in the series talks about the sadness of killing him and the two films he apeared, he had a big role in those two films, and is/was a member of Suicide Squad himself, those were not is own movies but it's like he was because is membership in Suicide Squad team! LRP19PT (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to create a draft but please can you create it for Will Smith's Deadshot, Rick Flag and Captain Boomerang, and a Gotham City Sirens (upcoming film) ---> (it was confirmed, with Margot Robbie also returning for her role as Harley Quinn) LRP19PT (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Standalone?

Some editors really like to highlight if a film is a "standalone sequel" a subjective interpretation of how much a film does or does not directly follow from its predecessor. This interpretation is frequently original research although editors are claiming that it is supported by sources in this case. (Please show those sources specifically.) This film is a sequel, it seems unnecessary, unhelpful, and WP:UNDUE to make claims or emphasize what type of sequel it might be. Also the WP:FILMLEAD should summarize what is in the article body: The production section does not use the wording "standalone sequel" instead it has comments from Gunn noting that the film does not explicitly address or contradict the other film (at least not intentionally).[1] He wasn't calling it a "standalone sequel" he was merely calling it "its own thing", which you could choose to interpret in several ways or you could just leave it out. I don't think it is helpful when encyclopedia film articles get stuck on points like this about how much of a direct sequel or standalone sequel, or how "canon" a film is, or how loosely it adapts source material. Fans may care deeply about this but I don't think it is good for an encyclopedia to highlight these sorts of subjective descriptions unless the filmmakers do so first-- 109.77.192.135 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree.. that doesn't even make sense... it is a sequel in that it is the continuation of characters from the first film... doesn't matter how directly it addresses anything. That phrasing should be removed. Spanneraol (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

We have sources in the production section supporting this as a standalone sequel, so there are no WP:OR concerns here. It is essentially a separate film with a different writer/director's vision and no explicit connections to the first film. The only way that it can be identified as a sequel at all is that they brought back some of the actors, and we have sources discussing how they treated this as a separate thing from the first film. This has nothing to do with canon or fan concerns, we are merely describing the film in an accurate way to how it was produced. Calling this a straight sequel would be misleading when we know that the production team did not treat it like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess I have issues with the definition of standalone sequel... as the examples at that page include films that were definitely continuations.. Superman IV, some of the Pirates films.. those are all regular sequels.. just cause the storyline doesn't continue into the next film doesnt make it not a normal sequel....If it follows the other film with continuing characters it is a sequel... a standalone sequel is more like Halloween 3 that has no connection to the previous films. I guess this is a discussion for a different place though. Spanneraol (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just took a look at that list and it includes some that I would also not call a "standalone sequel". This film is much more standalone than many of those. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We have sources which ones specifically? I already linked to the reference that I thought was the source of this claim,[2] where Gunn was quoted as saying "its own thing" and the article authors wrote "not necessarily a continuation of Ayer’s film, but not exactly a reboot either" but they did not use the wording standalone sequel either, and it is a subjective interpretation to do so. You also have the producer in a quote box twisting his words to say it is "not a sequel" and not a reboot either.[3] Again people can interpret that in certain ways (WP:OR) and maybe some sources did use the specific wording "standalone sequel" but I disagree with that interpretation to begin with, more importantly I disagree that the editorial decision to highlight it in the lead (WP:UNDUE). I would say the same thing if it was "straight" sequel, it does not matter how "straight" or "standalone" it was. The fact that anyone is even saying which films are "more standalone" or not is exactly why this vague subjective label should be avoided. My point is that this is is not important at all (which is why I'm so surprised editors insisted on keeping it) it doesn't need to be highlighted in the lead, the production section can let the filmmakers dissemble and equivocate over it in their own words, and explain in the context of the writing or adaptation how very little it matters. -- 109.76.194.173 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If we called it a sequel then we would not be reflecting the sources that we have or the film itself. If we called it a reboot then we would not be reflecting the source that we have or the film itself. We need to call it something that does reflect the sources and the film, and that is standalone sequel per the definition at that link. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sources that call it a "standalone sequel":

• 'Suicide Squad' vs 'The Suicide Squad': Is The 2021 Movie A Sequel? – Decider
• Suicide Squad 2: Every Character Who Didn't Return For The Sequel (& Why) – Screen Rant
• The Suicide Squad Has Another Secret Survivor Reveals Director James Gunn – MovieWeb

Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60 has verified that some sources do in fact call it a standalone sequel. That is the bare minimum that should have been done, it still does not mean this article needs to give it so much WP:WEIGHT. The production section of this article barely mentions it and as I already said above Gunn tries to avoid such labels. It is definitely a sequel, it might also subjectively be "standalone" subtype of sequel, but I do not agree that is an important detail that needs to be highlighted in the lead. -- 109.79.173.43 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said before, we know the film is not just a sequel and putting that in the lead would be a lot of WP:WEIGHT to give to something that we know isn't true. If we agreed not to put standalone sequel in the lead then we would probably have to not mention the film's relationship to Suicide Squad at all, and I don't think we should be doing that. So if we have to call it something, it should be the most accurate thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you both have a point. The problem is that from the time production starts up until the month or so before release, the production section gets fleshed out with little tidbits of details scooped up from the media. Rarely is there a need to go back and add some specific detail about the film in this section, as is the case here. To help bridge the gap, someone could add more details regarding the "standalone" label down in the article body, which would add more justification for it in the lead.

109, I know that doesn't satisfy all your concerns, but at least it'd get us to a better place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)