DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Holt]

People also brought up other factors like marketing and the R rating.

Uh, yeah, I was one of them lol. I never said the negative reception to the early factors was the only factor, I said it was a factor.

The only reason to keep bringing up the previous movies' reception is toxic fan pettiness.

Sorry, but nope. It's a totally legitimate factor to bring up when discussing box office performance.

[Pinsir]

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

This is not an argument you ever want to make. Do you know how many distasteful viewpoints you have implicitly supported with this comment? The fact that a discussion exists is not evidence that it is in some way valid.

No, DC and the DCEU, are money makers. The only reason why people think its not is because the MCU is more successful. A single under performing film that was cheaply produced does not disprove this.

[The_Lurk]

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



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

... it does not matter. Ok, maybe it does because it would actually make it worse. But in context it really makes no difference.

[Agent Z]

... it does not matter. Ok, maybe it does because it would actually make it worse. But in context it really makes no difference.

Then why the hell did you bring it up in the first place.

[Holt]

This is not an argument you ever want to make.

Sure it is. If the DCEU were a "license to print money," we wouldn't be having this talk, as I just said. Certain individual characters within the franchise? Certainly. But it's clear "DCEU" or "DC" is not a brand you can just slap on something and expect it to sell, or else we'd have have seen Shazam and Birds of Prey (two genuinely great movies starring lesser known IP) do better. I don't know why saying that is so upsetting.

[Johnny]

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!"

Who are these "you people" you keep referencing so often. This forum is not an echo chamber and people have expressed various different viewpoints in reference to Birds of Prey's box office performance such as marketing, R rating, brand perception, tone, level of popularity, etc. The MCU has barely been part of the conversation, though it makes sense to be given their dominance over the cbm market.

[Agent Z]

Uh, yeah, I was one of them lol. I never said the negative reception to the early factors was the only factor, I said it was a factor.



Sorry, but nope. It's a totally legitimate factor to bring up when discussing box office performance.

Not when it has already been proven to not be the case. Again, Aquaman made a billion despite coming out after Suicide Squad and Justice League.

[Holt]

Not when it has already been proven to not be the case.

Which has yet to happen. There are outliers in any given pattern. In fact, rather than "disproving" any pattern, that just says to me that people might have liked him alright in Justice League, which we already saw happen with Wonder Woman in the otherwise-panned BVS. People (including myself) were expecting a repeat of that with Harley in BOP, but alas, that didn't happen.

[The_Lurk]

Then why the hell did you bring it up in the first place.

Because this (at least IMO) is a big problem not only for this but also future movies if that kind of perception settles in.

[Frontier]

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.

I wonder if this movie would have fared better as a PG-13, more conventionally Superheroic, film.

[Agent Z]

Which has yet to happen. There are outliers in any given pattern. In fact, rather than "disproving" any pattern, that just says to me that people might have liked him alright in Justice League, which we already saw happen with Wonder Woman in the otherwise-panned BVS. People (including myself) were expecting a repeat of that with Harley in BOP, but alas, that didn't happen.

The pattern you are talking about is non-existent. Aquaman and Wonder Woman made money despite appearing in panned films. And it is still too early to claim BoP is a flop (a word I find people use very, very liberally when it comes to DC movies).

[Holt]

The pattern you are talking about is non-existent.

Sorry, but no. I've seen even box office analysts bring it up as a factor:

I don’t know to what extent general audiences liked Suicide Squad compared to critics, but the August-of-2016 release legged out to $325 million from a $133 million (despite a 67% second-weekend drop) and earned $745 million worldwide. The bitter aftertaste may have created a Tomb Raider Trap (whereby a superior sequel to a mediocre smash hit under performs because folks didn’t like the first one). Moreover, to the extent that Suicide Squad survived its miserable reviews, it thrived thanks to being the first live action appearance of Harley Quinn, featured glorified cameos from Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jared Leto’s Joker and featured Will Smith in the proverbial lead as Deadshot. Birds of Prey had almost none of those elements, but a similar grunge aesthetic and an R-rating to boot.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme.../#1a64633c2d61

Sequels or spin-offs of poorly regarded movies doing worse is a thing that happens literally all the time. Like, I'm sorry if you really like Suicide Squad or whatever, but completely dismissing its reputation as a factor here is far fetched.

Aquaman and Wonder Woman made money despite appearing in panned films.

I know. I literally just said that, lol.

[Keyotheseasons]

I wonder if this movie would have fared better as a PG-13, more conventionally Superheroic, film.

It's hard to say. I mean, it certainly would have allowed more people to go see it freely. If that would have necessarily translated into more money, who knows? It's all speculation, just like me speculating that better costumes and a different visual style could have further appeased another part of the demographic. We got the movie that we got and I enjoyed it enough for what it is, but it's far from what I wanted, personally. And I imagine a lot of other people feel the same way.

[Agent Z]

Sorry, but no. I've seen even box office analysts bring it up as a factor.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme.../#1a64633c2d61

The quote you posted even says the author doesn't know to what extent audiences liked Suicide Squad more than the critics and isn't even sure if the bad reception to SS is actually affecting BoP.

Like, I'm sorry if you really like Suicide Squad or whatever,

I don't.

I know. I literally just said that, lol.

And yet for some reason, you still keep pushing this argument that the reception to previous movies is affecting the DCEU despite more evidence to the contrary.

[Pinsir]

Sure it is. If the DCEU were a "license to print money," we wouldn't be having this talk, as I just said.

I don't think you processed thought over what I said. You cannot argue that by the mere fact a conversation exists, that it is somehow valid or rooted in truth.

Bob: "Do you think purple dragons exist?"
Me: "No."
Bob: "Well, they we're talking about them, so they must exist."

This is literally your argument.

Certain individual characters within the franchise? Certainly. But it's clear "DCEU" or "DC" is not a brand you can just slap on something and expect it to sell, or else we'd have have seen Shazam and Birds of Prey (two genuinely great movies starring lesser known IP) do better. I don't know why saying that is so upsetting.

Except this is true for anything. Marvel television failed spectacularly and Disney has under its belt the worst financial flops in modern movie history. The fact that Cloak and Dagger got cancelled doesn't mean the Marvel brand isn't a license to print money either, yet you'd gladly apply the same standard too DC.

I don't have any problem in saying Marvel films are more popular DC ones, or the Marvel brand in general. The issue is that when people start saying, "Well DC films are failures because they didn't make as much as Marvel." This is a horse race mentality, companies do not think this way. Companies are more then fine to be second place in a market because that is still billions of dollars. A film like Shazam made enough money for WB that they green lit a sequel and spin-off. It didn't have to make all the money it needed to be a success.