What pissed me off (because I've come to expect character derailment in mainline comics as a matter of when rather than if), was the redesign they gave her around the Arkham era, going from a lethal acrobat in a harlequin costume to Daddy's first tramp stamp. I'm not exactly excited about this new costume; because while it does bring back the harlequin motif, it just looks like someone doing a budget cosplay.

Ironically enough, Margot Robbie is supposed to be working on that :D.

Still, it is lightyears ahead of whatever the fuck they got for her in the last movie.

But yeah, they seem to keep trying to reinvent the wheel with Harley's costume all across the board, in comics, movies, games, animation etc. because the original costume was apparently not sexy and edgy enough. But it's still her iconic look and nothing else they try sticks.

The heck is that getup? Did she steal April O' Niel's jumpsuit and then gave up halfway?

Ugh. I do like Margot Robbie, but I don't know if I want the same actress to play both Harley and Tank Girl :\

Sorry, those were kind of separate thoughts that ran together. As a general thing, I do think superheroes are too serious now, most especially on the DC side, but my main issues with the Marvel movies are that I don't find them particularly memorable and they don't very much resemble the characters I know from the comics. I think they're entertaining in the moment but they fade from my mind almost immediately and I don't understand people who act like I should be weeping with joy at seeing the characters finally made perfect flesh. Much as I think the Lord of the Rings movies work best when they stick closer to Tolkien, I wish the Marvel movies had more Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in them rather than Bendis and Whedon.

I wish it was just a movie instead of a game. I enjoyed Suicide Squad Hell to Pay, so I'm sure they could have thrown together something suitable for a 3D movie.

I think animation is probably a better place for that. Most people I'd guess want some level of grounding in realism for live action films. I know I certainly do, though to be fair I never read comics really.

I went back and rewatched the trailer, because the first time around I didn't pay too close attention to it, which isn't necessarily its fault but doesn't really give it high marks either.

But as I did, I'm remembering that King Shark is dead in the Arkham game universe, so I guess this King Shark is his son or someone else using the name. Not unheard of in DC properties in general.

The complete race swap of Deadshot is going to be more interesting to see them try to explain. I guess the easy out write-off is that there just happens to be a white guy named Floyd Lawton who goes by Deadshot and... a black guy also named Floyd Lawton who also decided to go by Deadshot. Because that's not confusing or anything.

I know the latter is just going off the film but... damn, it's rare that a company expects their fans to be that stupid.

Why not, it's exactly what they did with Wally West(s) in the comics.

Stop reminding me.

The Arkham games don't have the convenient New 52 "excuse". Unless the aim is to now say any Deadshot appearances in them prior were all hallucinations or some nonsense.

Honestly I don't know why they decided this needs to be in continuity with the Arkham games. I just don't see the point, especially when Gotham Knights apparently isn't in continuity, so it's not like they decided all the games need to be.

I'm making a guess that it was potentially the insistence of Rocksteady saying it was in the same universe, much like the opposite end was Warner/DC mandating that it takes cues off the Ayer/Gunn films.

As to the point... who knows. Maybe they want to pander to fans by possibly leaving some connection or mention to the end of Arkham Knight or set up something else after this, assuming it doesn't bellyflop onto the market.