Birds of Prey Reactions

[Vakanai]

Yeah let's get back to discussing the actual film, this thread keeps getting derailed.

I have no clue how such a fun yet disappointing at the BO movie can garner this much talk over stupid woke vs incel crap or whatever.

[ComicJunkie21]

Yeah let's get back to discussing the actual film, this thread keeps getting derailed.

Wrong reply

[ComicJunkie21]

I have no clue how such a fun yet disappointing at the BO movie can garner this much talk over stupid woke vs incel crap or whatever.

Let's ignore Slowpokeing as he is continously starting debates that don't actually pertain to the topic and keeps derailing the thread. Let's discuss the film's quality as we were before.

[regnak]

I asked a simple question either do the math and provide the answer or don't respond.

Actually no he doesn’t. You are the only one coming up with having to make 2.5 x the budget but only count half the box office bs. As others have told you the 50% of the box office is baked into the 2.5x the budget number.

[ComicJunkie21]

Actually no he doesn’t. You are the only one coming up with having to make 2.5 x the budget but only count half the box office bs. As others have told you the 50% of the box office is baked into the 2.5x the budget number.

Great someone else who can't do basic math. I'm spent going over this. Until people understand the amount that the studio needs to RECEIVE (which is the production budget plus marketing and distribution that they spent
) not how much the BO gets. The 2.5x is how much the studio needs to get back to recover total costs not how much the box office needs to make.

I'll break it down even further for those not understanding it, I'll just use the production budget no marketing or distribution estimate assumptions.
If a studio spends $150 million to make a film, the BO will need to make at least $300 million for them to get their $150 million back because they only get 50 percent of the revenue. Make sense so far? So without marketing and distribution costs films like Thor had to make at least 300 million at the BO just to recover production costs. Thor made $449 million which means its production budget was recovered at $300 million but the marketing and distribution costs were not recovered yet and I'm pretty sure Marvel spent more than $75 million on international marketing and distribution for the film.

[regnak]

CA nor Thor made 2.5x based on their BO numbers and budgets because studios do not keep 100% profits. CA made 370 worldwide when the studio needed to RECEIVE 350. Studio only got half of the 370 as their cut which means the film was in the red during its BO run. By how you're calculating you're assuming the 370 went entirely to the studio, which doesn't occur. Just dividing 370 in half only gives the studio 45 million over the production budget which doesn't include marketing or distribution costs. The 2.5x is what the studio spent and therefore needs to RECEIVE to break even. Since they only receive half revenue then a 150 million film needs to make 750 million to break even assuming marketing and distribution costs equaled production costs. I'm done debating simple math with you.

Here is what you said earlier. You are claiming movies need to make 5x their budget to break even. Almost no movies do that especially not big budget ones. You are trying to be too smart here and looking dumb because your calculations mean that at least 90% of all movies and probably 99% of big budget ones lose money. If that were the case Hollywood would be out of business. That is simple logic.

[Midvillian1322]

Lol well this is all getting funny. Sounds like according to one person CATFA lost Marvel studios about 380 million bucks. But somehow they played it off as a modest sucess.

[Marvelgirl]

The movie is beginning to leave theatres. My local cinema is now screening the movie 2 times a day only. Next week, it will be just once a day.

Should DC have done Gotham City Sirens instead of Birds Of Prey?

[Midvillian1322]

The movie is beginning to leave theatres. My local cinema is now screening the movie 2 times a day only. Next week, it will be just once a day.

Should DC have done Gotham City Sirens instead of Birds Of Prey?

I think so, and marketed the movie better. But I enjoyed the movie I think it was just horribly marketed. If SS 2 is a huge hit Harley will be back. Sirens would be smart. Catwoman and Posion ivy are more of a draw imo. Would they use Kravitz Catwomen and all the complications of that or make another version?

[kjn]

The movie is beginning to leave theatres. My local cinema is now screening the movie 2 times a day only. Next week, it will be just once a day.

Should DC have done Gotham City Sirens instead of Birds Of Prey?

From what I heard, the people making the movie judged the Birds of Prey script to be stronger than the Gotham City Sirens script, so from that perspective the answer should be no.

I do agre with Midvillian1322 that the main failure of the movie was in its marketing, and here I do think the main issue was the title. If it had been named Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey or Harley Quinn: #MeToo that would have helped the marketing and expectation management a lot.

[ComicJunkie21]

I think so, and marketed the movie better. But I enjoyed the movie I think it was just horribly marketed. If SS 2 is a huge hit Harley will be back. Sirens would be smart. Catwoman and Posion ivy are more of a draw imo. Would they use Kravitz Catwomen and all the complications of that or make another version?

I definitely see them using Kravitz, especially if she is well received. The biggest question is who would play Poison Ivy.

[ComicJunkie21]

From what I heard, the people making the movie judged the Birds of Prey script to be stronger than the Gotham City Sirens script, so from that perspective the answer should be no.

I do agre with Midvillian1322 that the main failure of the movie was in its marketing, and here I do think the main issue was the title. If it had been named Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey or Harley Quinn: #MeToo that would have helped the marketing and expectation management a lot.

Yeah I agree, while I personally like Gotham City Sirens more, I feel like Catwoman and Poison Ivy need to be established in other films first before bringing them together for a stronger story. All 3 characters have really good back stories and establishing their past before putting them together allows for better character development and storytelling.

[ComicJunkie21]

Here is what you said earlier. You are claiming movies need to make 5x their budget to break even. Almost no movies do that especially not big budget ones. You are trying to be too smart here and looking dumb because your calculations mean that at least 90% of all movies and probably 99% of big budget ones lose money. If that were the case Hollywood would be out of business. That is simple logic.

You don't understand it.

Disney as well as other studios are spending huge amounts on marketing and international distribution that is doubling total costs. So a film that costs 150 million to produce also cost almost an equal amount to market and distribute which brings total cost to 300 million. Just do a simple google search and you can see how much big blockbuster films cost to market these days. Do all films double their marketing budgets, no they don't and the ones that don't typically are lower budget and expected to have a niche demographic(think John Wick 1). The biggest reason why some of these films are seen as successful within the company is because merchandising and licensing sales tend to go up in the year a film is released and that gives the studio way more money than most films BO grosses ever could. Additionally, we don't know the studios tax breaks, tv syndication deals, or projected home video sales that will also add to it's success. Also, want to be clear I'm not picking on Marvel either, there are films from other franchises that were successful that were in the red. Just using cbm for an apple's to apple's comparison.

Take a look at Black Panther (who did make a profit) where we do know the production budget and marketing budget so just add together no 2.5x calculation needed.
Production: 200 million
Marketing: 150 million
Total Cost: 350 million
BO Needed for Break Even: 700 million (because of 50 percent take, the BO needs to be double the total costs so the studio can recoup its investment)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...lack-cast/amp/

Even with an eye watering $200 million production budget and an estimated $150 million more spent on publicity, the tentpole it set to recoup its costs.

Without knowing the marketing the 2.5x by how your using it would have required the BO to make 500 million where the studio received 250 million due to 50 percent take, therefore they would have been short 100 million to break even.

[ComicJunkie21]

It kind of sucks that Joker and Harley joint movie got shelved because with the introduction of Punchline in the comics, something like that would have made for a very interesting and entertaining storyline for Harley. Maybe the animated series will introduce punchline and we can see how it works there.

[kjn]

Yeah I agree, while I personally like Gotham City Sirens more, I feel like Catwoman and Poison Ivy need to be established in other films first before bringing them together for a stronger story. All 3 characters have really good back stories and establishing their past before putting them together allows for better character development and storytelling.

The same is true for the members of the Birds of Prey, especially Black Canary.

What I think is fundamentally counterproductive, is to compare the film we got with an entirely different film that only exists in the head of the person doing the comparison. It's unfair to the movie we got (no matter its quality) and it doesn't say anything about the film we got—not its quality, not its story, and not its characterisation.