Birds of Prey Reactions

[Immortal Weapon]

1. It's hardly "failed." It's been in theaters for just over a week and has already made back its budget.
2. Given that Mr. H is a known hate-grifter and both of the people you mentioned unironically use "SJW" as a pejorative... yeah, those are hardly good sources for unbiased info.

Making back it's budget means nothing. The general rule of thumb is a movie needs to make twice the money it took to make it for it to be profitable. I'm not wave off the movie as a flop just yet but it's definitely below the expectations set for it.

[Caivu]

Making back it's budget means nothing. The general rule of thumb is a movie needs to make twice the money it took to make it for it to be profitable. I'm not wave off the movie as a flop just yet but it's definitely below the expectations set for it.

I know that. But the fact it did that in less than a week means it didn't fail.

[Jokerz79]

I know that. But the fact it did that in less than a week means it didn't fail.

When Variety, Deadline, Indiewire and all other outlets used terms like Flop and Bomb it's safe to say BOP failed.

[Caivu]

When Variety, Deadline, Indiewire and all other outlets used terms like Flop and Bomb it's safe to say BOP failed.

Sure, because who cares what it actually ends up earning, right?

[Immortal Weapon]

Sure, because who cares what it actually ends up earning, right?

If Warner Bros ain't happy with what's the movie is earning them those outlets wouldn't be wrong. Superman Returns made big money in it's day and they still deemed it a failure.

[The Cool Thatguy]

If Warner Bros ain't happy with what's the movie is earning them those outlets wouldn't be wrong. Superman Returns made big money in it's day and they still deemed it a failure.

"I wanted money not to be the end all, be all of movies, but not like this, not like this!"

Also, screw Superman Returns and Harley and Friends :P

[kjn]

When Variety, Deadline, Indiewire and all other outlets used terms like Flop and Bomb it's safe to say BOP failed.

I think there is no doubt that Birds of Prey underperforms. But it's far from a "bomb" or a "flop" yet, especially given the relatively strong reception it has had among critics and the people who have gone to see the movie.

I also checked Variety and Deadline. Variety's latest article on the movie says "Why ‘Birds of Prey’ Whiffed at the Box Office", and I couldn't find any "bomb" or "flop" except for the comments over there, and another from today calling its performance "lackluster". The same is true for Deadline, where the latest article (from today) calls it a "letdown". So I'd appreciate direct sourced quotes.

At a guess, I think there are some forces at WB who would love to blame the movie and Margot Robbie for the film's failure. At the same time, if the movie can keep chugging along at good word of mouth, the more it points to a marketing failure (which I think was the problem here, not the movie itself).

[regnak]

1. It's hardly "failed." It's been in theaters for just over a week and has already made back its budget.
2. Given that Mr. H is a known hate-grifter and both of the people you mentioned unironically use "SJW" as a pejorative... yeah, those are hardly good sources for unbiased info.

It hasn’t made back its budget, you are forgetting the theater share of the box office. That is why a movie needs to make double its budget before it starts making a profit.

[Pinsir]

The film had a budget of 75-87 million, it was likely never going to be a blockbuster (Joker is the exception). There is a reason why every MCU has a baseline budget of 150 mill. A major element to blockbusters is the spectacle, which costs money. So BoP was already handicapped and people were always going to claim that because it didn't make blockbuster money it failed.

However, because the budget is so low it shouldn't have to make more than 150 mill, the budget of most MCU films, to be considered a success. Yet, there are people claiming that it needs to make 3x its budget, and even 3.4x its budget, and this just isn't the standard applied evenly to other films.

[Caivu]

It hasn’t made back its budget, you are forgetting the theater share of the box office.

Didn't forget. I just meant it had made back at least $82 million. Nothing else.

[Valentis]

I know its a little too late. Birds of Prey should have had a pg 13 cut of the film.

[trooper_thorn]

People, I don't know how many ways I can say it:

Studios don't get 100% of the box office take


If you want to argue that the break even point is higher or lower, great!! If you want to argue that the percentage of the take is higher or lower or that there's a different domestic/international split, fantastic!! If you think they skimped on marketing due to concerns about the ultimate performance, I'll probably agree with you.

But dear Lord, please stop saying that a box office gross equivalent to the production budget means they're in the black. It doesn't.

[Xero Kaiser]

I know its a little too late. Birds of Prey should have had a pg 13 cut of the film.

I doubt it would have mattered.

[kjn]

I know its a little too late. Birds of Prey should have had a pg 13 cut of the film.

Possibly. But I think it'd have made for a worse movie.

The largest mistake was, I think, the title. I can't say much about the actual marketing campaign, but that certainly also seems to have been lackluster, from what I've heard.

Fundamentally, there are different levels of discourse here.

One: Was the marketing of the movie done wrong? Here I include title, trailers, advertising, and so on.

Two: Would a different cut (like PG-13) have helped the movie make more money, while maintaining quality (WB does not want another Suicide Squad)?

Three: Should an entirely different movie have been made (like those saying it should have had the Joker, or been a Gotham City Sirens movie)?

Given the good critical and audience reception to the film itself, I think any analysis should be focused on the marketing first, because anything else would pretty much require a different film.

[Frontier]

Possibly. But I think it'd have made for a worse movie.

The largest mistake was, I think, the title. I can't say much about the actual marketing campaign, but that certainly also seems to have been lackluster, from what I've heard.

Fundamentally, there are different levels of discourse here.

One: Was the marketing of the movie done wrong? Here I include title, trailers, advertising, and so on.

Two: Would a different cut (like PG-13) have helped the movie make more money, while maintaining quality (WB does not want another Suicide Squad)?

Three: Should an entirely different movie have been made (like those saying it should have had the Joker, or been a Gotham City Sirens movie)?

Given the good critical and audience reception to the film itself, I think any analysis should be focused on the marketing first, because anything else would pretty much require a different film.

I think I would've made this a Harley film with some other female supporting characters, and let that be R, rather then attach this to the Birds of Prey.

Granted, I wouldn't have used Cassandra Cain's name on a character that's the farthest thing from her, but that's just me.