DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Charlus]

Ghostbusters (2016), Charlies Angels, Birds of Prey... there’s a pattern there to anyone who cares to see it...

[Robotman]

I think giving it the title “Birds of Prey” was a huge mistake. Harley is your draw and her name was buried in the subtitle. It should have been “HARLEY QUINN & The Birds of Prey!”

[Johnny]

Ghostbusters (2016), Charlies Angels, Birds of Prey... there’s a pattern there to anyone who cares to see it...

I guess I can understand the sentiment of "You can't hate half your audience and expect them to show up at the same time", but BoP seems to have been impacted by the R-rating more than anything else. Like I mentioned, this isn't The Joker and it's not an established R-rated franchise like Deadpool. Considering that Suicide Squad was PG-13, it always felt like a strange choice to do a Harley Quinn-led movie and load it with F bombs. The Harley Quinn cartoon can get away with that, but the moviegoing audience is a different story.

[Vordan]

Birds of Prey looks to have struggled for three reasons imo:

1. DC’s brand power. It’s nowhere close to matching Marvel’s. You think anyone would’ve gone to see an Ant-Man movie if it wasn’t part of a cinematic universe? A rising tide lifts all ships. Harley is popular but not so popular that she can be a big seller on her own. If DC wants the big $$$ they gotta get all their A-Listers fixed. Then they can start considering B-List spinoffs.
2. The R rating. It’s mostly younger women who love Harley and the R rating only reduces that audience.
3. Marketing. The trailers looked terrible but apparently the reshoots only finished relatively recently, so there wasn’t much for marketing to do.

My advice to WB/DC: Get that Flash movie into production. Either hard reboot Superman like Batman or a soft reboot with Cavill. Get another JL movie going. Once the cinematic universe is up and running then start branching out. WB was absolutely right to hold off on Batgirl and Nightwing movies until after Reeves reboots Batman. That Supergirl movie is probably going to flop too unless they get Superman fixed.

[Agent Z]

Can we wait a little bit longer before declaring Birds of Prey a flop and blaming it on previous movies?

[The Darknight Detective]

Can we wait a little bit longer before declaring Birds of Prey a flop and blaming it on previous movies

I still think it can make a profit, FWIW, but it won't be a big one.

[The_Lurk]

Are any CB movies truly faithful (that's going all the way back to the first Superman films)?

I don't think so. But there is a loooot of wiggle room between all or nothing.

[Holt]

That's what I recall, too. We all know female-led movies can succeed, but is there something about a team of women that can hurt a movie's chances? While I find this nonsensical on a personal level, it doesn't mean it's not a real thing out there.

Nah, it's because many of the aforementioned movies (specifically Ghostbusters 2016 and Charlie's Angels) weren't very good and were based on IP nobody really cares all that much about anymore. Charlie's Angels only worked in the early 2000s because of the starpower of its three leads at the time, not because there were legions of Charlie's Angels fans salivating for a reboot. And that was over a decade ago now.

As for Birds of Prey, it's unfortunately kind of obvious now that DC doesn't have the brand trust that Marvel does right now where audiences will go all in on an unfamiliar property. We saw the same thing happen with Shazam, which did just okay numbers despite rave reviews. I guess they thought Harley Quinn's presence would be enough to garner interest, but that seems to have backfired a bit.

Birds of Prey looks to have struggled for three reasons imo:

1. DC’s brand power. It’s nowhere close to matching Marvel’s. You think anyone would’ve gone to see an Ant-Man movie if it wasn’t part of a cinematic universe? A rising tide lifts all ships. Harley is popular but not so popular that she can be a big seller on her own. If DC wants the big $$$ they gotta get all their A-Listers fixed. Then they can start considering B-List spinoffs.
2. The R rating. It’s mostly younger women who love Harley and the R rating only reduces that audience.
3. Marketing. The trailers looked terrible but apparently the reshoots only finished relatively recently, so there wasn’t much for marketing to do.

My advice to WB/DC: Get that Flash movie into production. Either hard reboot Superman like Batman or a soft reboot with Cavill. Get another JL movie going. Once the cinematic universe is up and running then start branching out. WB was absolutely right to hold off on Batgirl and Nightwing movies until after Reeves reboots Batman. That Supergirl movie is probably going to flop too unless they get Superman fixed.

Yeah in hindsight, I think the R-rating was misguided. Having seen the movie twice now, I don't think removing the gore or most of the F-bombs would've hurt it.

Can we wait a little bit longer before declaring Birds of Prey a flop and blaming it on previous movies?

It's not unreasonable to suggest the reputation of Suicide Squad might've put some people off seeing it. In fact, I'm really curious to see how the new Gunn Suicide Squad movie will do next year in light of all this.

[stargazer01]

Birds of Prey looks to have struggled for three reasons imo:

1. DC’s brand power. It’s nowhere close to matching Marvel’s. You think anyone would’ve gone to see an Ant-Man movie if it wasn’t part of a cinematic universe? A rising tide lifts all ships. Harley is popular but not so popular that she can be a big seller on her own. If DC wants the big $$$ they gotta get all their A-Listers fixed. Then they can start considering B-List spinoffs.
2. The R rating. It’s mostly younger women who love Harley and the R rating only reduces that audience.
3. Marketing. The trailers looked terrible but apparently the reshoots only finished relatively recently, so there wasn’t much for marketing to do.

My advice to WB/DC: Get that Flash movie into production. Either hard reboot Superman like Batman or a soft reboot with Cavill. Get another JL movie going. Once the cinematic universe is up and running then start branching out. WB was absolutely right to hold off on Batgirl and Nightwing movies until after Reeves reboots Batman. That Supergirl movie is probably going to flop too unless they get Superman fixed.

Completely agree on every point.

[The_Lurk]

The very first successful Marvel film adaptation to a large amount of liberties with the source material to the point most people didn't originally know it was a comic adaptation. Comic book movies do not live and die by faithfulness to the source material. The MCU wouldn't be as big as it is if that were the case.



No one is under any impression that Deadpool is the first character to break the fourth wall. And as for the similarities to Deathstroke, people have always been aware of that. Not that anyone really cares.


So that's a no then.

Its a it doesn't matter if they explicitly did. Its not me that you need to convince (if that was what you where trying); its the rest of the world.

And about the DP thing: lighten up; that was meant for the Harley hater above anyway. :P

Birds of Prey looks to have struggled for three reasons imo:

1. DC’s brand power. It’s nowhere close to matching Marvel’s. You think anyone would’ve gone to see an Ant-Man movie if it wasn’t part of a cinematic universe? A rising tide lifts all ships. Harley is popular but not so popular that she can be a big seller on her own. If DC wants the big $$$ they gotta get all their A-Listers fixed. Then they can start considering B-List spinoffs.
2. The R rating. It’s mostly younger women who love Harley and the R rating only reduces that audience.
3. Marketing. The trailers looked terrible but apparently the reshoots only finished relatively recently, so there wasn’t much for marketing to do.

My advice to WB/DC: Get that Flash movie into production. Either hard reboot Superman like Batman or a soft reboot with Cavill. Get another JL movie going. Once the cinematic universe is up and running then start branching out. WB was absolutely right to hold off on Batgirl and Nightwing movies until after Reeves reboots Batman. That Supergirl movie is probably going to flop too unless they get Superman fixed.

Mostly this. Nobody in their right mind trusts them now to get it right by now; so all the fancy movie dates are nothing but a fantasy unless the movie actually lands. They do not have MCUs reliable track record. I mean how many times did Flash got delayed (... rhetorical question).

[Agent Z]

Nah, it's because many of the aforementioned movies (specifically Ghostbusters 2016 and Charlie's Angels) weren't very good and were based on IP nobody really cares all that much about anymore. Charlie's Angels only worked in the early 2000s because of the starpower of its three leads at the time, not because there were legions of Charlie's Angels fans salivating for a reboot. And that was over a decade ago now.

As for Birds of Prey, it's unfortunately kind of obvious now that DC doesn't have the brand trust that Marvel does right now where audiences will go all in on an unfamiliar property. We saw the same thing happen with Shazam, which did just okay numbers despite rave reviews. I guess they thought Harley Quinn's presence would be enough to garner interest, but that seems to have backfired a bit.




Yeah in hindsight, I think the R-rating was misguided. Having seen the movie twice now, I don't think removing the gore or most of the F-bombs would've hurt it.



It's not unreasonable to suggest the reputation of Suicide Squad might've put some people off seeing it. In fact, I'm really curious to see how the new Gunn Suicide Squad movie will do next year in light of all this.

The film has only just come out. Again, maybe wait a little while.

Its a it doesn't matter if they explicitly did. Its not me that you need to convince (if that was what you where trying); its the rest of the world.

You're the one who made the accusation without any evidence to back it up.

[Pinsir]

BoP is highly experimental in terms of the audience it was trying to attract. There are very few violent R rated movies with female leads. The good thing is WB was aware of how experimental the film was and priced it accordingly.

I swear though, the way some of you people speak, do you have any idea how powerful the DCEU brand actually is? Any company would kill to have a brand as recognizable and as a media spanning as the DC; their characters sell movies, tv shows, video games, merchandise, its a licence to print money. The only reason why you people can't recognize how fantastic the DC brand is right now is because 'muh MCU!"

[Keyotheseasons]

I can't help but feel that if the movie had catered just a bit more to the comic fans that the box office results for the opening week could have at least skewed a bit higher. I understand that when looking at the audience of a movie, as a whole, the comic reading portion pales in comparison to the overall majority. However, if you want people to be hyped about a movie and make them want to go see it and convince others to want to see it you have to provide content that people want to see. For an adaptation of a visual medium that includes showcasing and including elements that will make people go, "Oh, that's cool. Insert character name here is in this movie." Which aside from Harley Quinn they really didn't do. Even with Black Mask people were freaking out that he wouldn't wear a mask at all until the second trailer showcased that he would, which calmed down that issue.

Costumes and the overall aesthetic obviously can't do all the work, the actors need to be well cast and the script needs to be engaging and evoke whichever emotion is necessary at the time, but I do think that brand recognition and iconography play a pretty huge role in garnering at least initial interest in a film. The general audience won't care what characters or the overall aesthetic of things that are unfamiliar look like, but by making radical changes the studio immediately alienates the part of the audience that does know the source material and cherishes it. You wouldn't promote Harry Potter without his scar or Katniss Everdeen without her bow, so why promote superheroes without their signature looks and accessories?

Granted, not everything translates, but if it was possible to find a happy medium between what works on screen and still accurately represents the character then that is one less thing that people can gripe about. Some of the biggest complaints I saw about this movie from the very beginning was that Black Canary, Huntress and Cassandra were nearly unrecognizable while Harley was praised for her outfits. Dinah and Helena could have easily profited more from different costume and style choices, whereas Cassandra could have easily been named Sin and I think a lot of comic readers would have been more likely to give this movie a chance. After all, let's not forget, we are talking about a movie that is a spiritual, if not direct successor to Suicide Squad, there was no reason to pull their punches on costuming. We already established that Harley lives in a world with a guy in a bat suit and a human crocodile and a witch. I hardly doubt that a woman in a cape or a woman in fishnets would have been too hard to believe.



Sorry for the long-ish post. I am not trying to say that fixing some stylistic "issues" or "departures" would have resulted in a much better financial turnout (which we have yet to see how much it actually earns during its run), but I do think that WB and any other studio that adapts something from a source material automatically alienates a specific part of their audience and allows for skepticism if they deviate from what fans know and love. Adhering and minimally adapting things that may not work for a big movie allows for less scrutiny and simply eliminates one more thing to complain about.

Outfits could never fix any of the other problems this or any other movie may have, but if you are gambling on an R-rated, female-led action movie with a February release then I think the studio should have looked at who all was in their audience, what hurdles they may face and which ones they could have easily eliminated.

[Holt]

its a licence to print money.

Evidently not, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

The film has only just come out. Again, maybe wait a little while.

Even if it has great legs, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what I posted about why people didn't show up opening weekend.

[Agent Z]

Evidently not, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.



Even if it has great legs, I'm not sure how that has anything to do with what I posted about why people didn't show up opening weekend.

My point is that it is still too early to declare the movie a flop.

And besides is there anything to back up your argument? People also brought up other factors like marketing and the R rating. This argument of the previous DC movies affecting the new ones' box office should have been put to rest after Aquaman pulled in a billion dollars despite coming out after JL. The only reason to keep bringing up the previous movies' reception is toxic fan pettiness.