And box offices success that are obviously trash - just look at Bay's Transformers movies, or the utterly dire Fantastic Beasts movies (the last one at least didn't do great compared to expectations).
But why? Particularly given you liked the previous Suicide Squad movie, which I think it's fair to say was worse acted, worse directed, worse edited, had worse action, had a much worse script, was visually less appealing and pretty much objectively was a worse movie. The only "upsides" I can see for the previous one are:
1) Way more lascivious/horny shots of Harley Quinn, so if you're there to perv on her, I guess it's a better movie?
2) Jared Leto Joker. I know some people just insanely loved that Joker take.
And I ask why particularly because, let's be real, we're all nerds here, and if there's one thing nerds do, it's take huge amounts of personal offence at like, stuff that's not really offensive in any sensible way, but is like, a lore change or character change, or character being killed off or w/e. I've seen nerds absolutely take against obviously-good movies based on existing IPs because some lore character they liked died too early, or was done in a way they didn't like. I've probably done it myself, I just can't think of an example off the top of my head.
It looks like depending on the source, about 5-15% of people (depending on place it's being reviewed) who claimed to have watched it absolutely hated it - i.e gave it 1 star (or less, where possible). Most people who reviewed it negatively and wrote something didn't have any coherent reasoning or just "bad movie" or the like, but the reasons I could find were:
1) It was too silly. I.e. they didn't like Weasel, King Shark, etc.
2) Characters they liked got killed off early on. There are some real salty Captain Boomerang fans out there!
3) There was too much swearing and gore.
But what's your reasoning? Just "bad movie" or the like isn't meaningful. What specifically upset you so much you'd call it "terrible"?
If we start off on why it was a Box Office bomb (predictably so) even before we get into why I disliked it...
1) It wasn't a sequel...but it was portrayed as a sequel. Thus, not including one of the biggest draws of the prior SS (Will Smith) was a mistake.
2). Making a Superhero movie (in a traditional arena which are PG-13) as an R-Rated movie. But wait! you say. What about Deadpool? That's right. Deadpool. Deadpool does everything right in a movie while this one does everything wrong. For example, Deadpool actually RESPECTS the property it is based off of...while this one...this one is an even greater abomination than the one previously.
3). Gunn made it to be the anti-Snyder movie...but sometimes making something to be the exact opposite isn't the best idea either.
So, let's get into why I didn't like the movie.
1). It's juvenile. It's like all those comic book fans that say they want a mature comic book, but what they really want is something written for 6 year olds with cussing, uneccessary violence that adds nothing, and most times nudity and sex (which admittedly, luckily SS didn't really include). I really don't like movies which are written for 6 year olds but include all the above items. Unfortunately, it seems there is a subgroup of comic book fans that seem to think that to have a mature movie you need cussing and really violent stuff as well as other adult items, but don't care that the writing matches such items. The humor of suicide squad was gutter trash, and it really just made me feel stupider for having watched it rather than anything else.
Deadpool does it far better in that, even while it has really dumb situations, the humor is normally multi-tiered and the situations somewhat more nuanced. Where everything Suicide Squad did failed in it's attempt, Deadpool for the most part suceeds because it realizes that if you are making an R-rated movie, even if you have juvenile humor, it has to have it's time and place in a story that also is actually written for adults rather than one written for sub-12 year olds.
2). It failed in it's characterization. It failed in understanding the source material in relation to general audiences. Sure, 2016's version also failed to degree, but it also respected that the general audiences actually know some of the villains (even if they are villains). This differs from GotG which were relatively unknowns to the audiences, several of these Villains were known previously either by common access or by representation in other DC works (such as the DC animated shows).
King Shark, Bloodsport, and Amanda Waller are all known characters. They are variables that are understood to be a certain way by audiences. By misrepresenting them, or trying to change expectations, Gunn did the movie no real service. If they were like me, they were particularly disappointed by his portrayal of these characters.
But...how about those who were familiar with the source material of Suicide Squad...well...he fails there too. Killing Captain Boomerang was seen as giving a middle finger to Snyder...but it also was giving a middle finger to those who read the Suicide Squad to a degree as well. Some may appreciate it, but others would see that middle finger and be pretty upset about it. You don't go an make the general group that are the main fans of the comic upset just to pick a bone with the prior general overseer of the DC movie universe. Yet...that's what he did.
So, he's willing to kill off almost one entire group, but has Harley Quinn survive this...someone who has less ability overall (Except being a smart psycho lady) than most of the others killed? Weasel can make some sense for humor reasons (as we see at the end), but Harley Quinn. All things considered...she should have died far quicker than even Boomerang did...but for "other" reasons we need to suspend our logical ideas so that she can survive. It's dumb. If you are going that out to kill the entire team...kill them. There are others that would have made far more sense to survive...but for dumb reasons (such as juvenile humor) they are killed off and the less likely Harley Quinn is left to survive. Let me just suspend all logical sense of reality at this point...
3). Peacemaker is more loyal than Flag...did Gunn ever even read SS? Is this just him shooting things out his rear end? That said, not only does this upset SS fans, this upsets general audiences because once again, in his desire to show he's not Snyder, he starts doing in a Character from the prior SS...not for any other reason except that he wants to show he's not Snyder. It makes no sense. Oh...that's right...he had to have Peacemaker alive so that they can have that Max series...not that it has to actually make any real sense with what the characters are in SS, or even in the movie. He'll have Flag simply change and Peacemaker (the criminal) change characters mid stream so that he can have Peacemaker survive for the tv show.
4). Amanda Waller didn't see it coming. Really. The schemer behind schemers...didn't see something coming and decides she has to kill the Suicide Squad but then gets taken out before she can. Come on. For those who aren't into the SS...they probably have seen Batman the Animated Series or one of the related cartoons. You are telling me that Amanda Waller was caught unawares...really?
5). This post is getting quite long...and I could continue for another 5 or 6 sections...but I think you get the idea.
