Birds of Prey Reactions

[Agent Z]

The movie made 80 plus million worldwide, I am not DC fanboy nor I am big conspiracy theories guy but media is doing a hatchet job on Birds of Prey right now selling it as failure is sexy story that get views. Yeah it didn't make the projected 40 to 60 million opening but it made back its budget worldwide market and it is pretty much going make a profit at some point. Comic book movies have so been so over productive that people look at average or slightly above average production as failure. Next Week when it is more focused on overall gross the failure talks will generally go away because the numbers it has solid.

Silver lining is that this kills the some of the DC fanboy narrative of everything must be R and mature. You can always release a unrated cut on home video and that will please the people looking for that but you can't make up the money you miss in theater by being a R movie business wise the widest base of people buying your movie makes the most sense.

This narrative does not exist.

[beatboks]

Curious for people who have seen it already are you happy or satisfied with all of the non Harley Characters being portrayed the same in their own movie. Or would you prefer they greatly expand or even drop these portrayals and go another route?

Huntress, Black Canary specifically I guess.

Those two specifically absoffreakinlutely. The only thing I would change is to give them actual costumes.

I didn't care for Montoya but then again. I don't care for The Comic character either because I'm a huge Vic sage question fanboy.

Really wish they hadn't even made Cassandra a DC named character because she was nothing like Cassandra Cain but then again she's supposed to be a kid.

But while BC and Huntress we're not exactly the comic versions I loved both iterations as well as Black Mask

[Midvillian1322]

This narrative does not exist.

Yea that's not a DC fan thing, that's the I hate everything Disney people.

Anyway finally saw the movie. I really enjoyed it for what it was. The action and chatacters were fun. I love that they didnt try to make Harley a hero. The reviewers who said Huntress and Canary got a fair amount of screen time are crazy. I feel like Huntress was in like 15mins of the movie. Canary i really liked though. She wasnt very faithful but who care it worked for me. I woulda been happy af if Charlie Hunnam showed up in a stinger with a Goatee and a Bow. I'd watch more of this version of Canary. I've had a crush on the actress since highschool. Anyway I enjoyed the movie. But it honestly could worked without the birds.

Hope it makes enough money to maybe lead to a sequel movie on HBO max. Wonder if the lack of intrest spells trouble for Black Widow or if it wasnt about the female lead but simply people werent interested in this film. I don't see Black widow inherently being more interesting then Harley. But Black Widow is getting a good marketing push, Birds supposedly didnt get a ton of marketing.

[titanfan]

Curious for people who have seen it already are you happy or satisfied with all of the non Harley Characters being portrayed the same in their own movie. Or would you prefer they greatly expand or even drop these portrayals and go another route?

Huntress, Black Canary specifically I guess.

Personality wise, Black Canary is perfect.

Huntress was different, but the core of the character was there. More importantly, her character was lightened up while at the same time still showing that she's a badass.

Montoya was fine. They actually made fun of that in a lot of the comic book stories, she's the stereotypical cop cliche. (But references to her failed romances and drinking problem too)

As many have said, just pretend Cassandra's name is really Cindy or something and you'll be fine.

[phonogram12]

How so?

Joker is the most popular Batman villain, that's free PR right there. They didn't invest heavily in CGI, or anything else. They made an Oscar bait movie with the barest trappings of comics and then get to crow about their nominations.

Exactly. The director as much as said so himself, which was another reason I was so put off by this movie.

Its called story telling, and acting.

Believe it or not, some movie goers can appreciate that.

So Nicole Kidman swallowing a live fish counts as storytelling and acting?

Curious for people who have seen it already are you happy or satisfied with all of the non Harley Characters being portrayed the same in their own movie. Or would you prefer they greatly expand or even drop these portrayals and go another route?

Huntress, Black Canary specifically I guess.

Honestly, once I let go of whatever preconceived notions I had of BC, she really became my favorite character in the movie. As for Huntress, she was pretty comic accurate personality and background-wise, but they really didn't give the actress much to work with there. A severely underdeveloped character.

Silver lining is that this kills the some of the DC fanboy narrative of everything must be R and mature..

Not sure is this is necessarily DC, but yes, I agree. Ever since Deadpool, Logan, and now Joker, a certain segment of of the edge lordy audience does seem to believe that this is the case, which is about as far from the truth as possible.

[phonogram12]

I saw this Saturday with my wife and a few friends of mine. Everyone pretty much enjoyed it. One of them even loved it. Robbie is still the animated/comic book Harley to a T and Ewan McGregor was absolutely brilliant as Black Mask. And as stated earlier, I absolutely loved BC.

About the only knit pick I did have is the same one I'm having with a lot of the DC Universe app shows. Seriously, the constant use of the f-bomb does not come off as mature or edgy. It comes off as juvenile and eye-roll inducing.

Other than that, though, pretty decent flick.

[trooper_thorn]

The movie made 80 plus million worldwide, I am not DC fanboy nor I am big conspiracy theories guy but media is doing a hatchet job on Birds of Prey right now selling it as failure is sexy story that get views. Yeah it didn't make the projected 40 to 60 million opening but it made back its budget worldwide market and it is pretty much going make a profit at some point. Comic book movies have so been so over productive that people look at average or slightly above average production as failure. Next Week when it is more focused on overall gross the failure talks will generally go away because the numbers it has solid.

Except that it isn't solid at all.

When predicting whether a film will be profitable you need to look beyond just a direct comparison of the budget to the box office. You also need to take into account marketing and the percentage the studio gets from each ticket sold.

When it comes to marketing the exact amount spent can vary by film and studio but as a general rule you can probably get a fairly accurate cost by doubling the production budget. Now I've seen the budget listed as somewhere between $80M and $100M, so we're probably looking at a cost of somewhere between $160M and $200M.

And you can't forget that the percentage that the studio gets will vary by country. In the US and Canada the studios typically get about 60-70% of the box office the first two weeks with that percentage steadily decreasing as time goes on (that's why the opening weekend is so important over here). Overseas the percentage is far lower and studios will typically only get between 33-40%. The rule of thumb is that the studio will probably get about 50% of the worldwide box office when everything is said and done.

Going by these numbers the studio has probably only made between 35M and 42M so far and will likely need a worldwide box office of somewhere from $320M to $400M to break even.

[Vakanai]

When it comes to marketing the exact amount spent can vary by film and studio but as a general rule you can probably get a fairly accurate cost by doubling the production budget.

I heard that the marketing was a lot less for this movie. Certainly not enough to double the budget.

[kidfresh512]

Those two specifically absoffreakinlutely. The only thing I would change is to give them actual costumes.

I didn't care for Montoya but then again. I don't care for The Comic character either because I'm a huge Vic sage question fanboy.

Really wish they hadn't even made Cassandra a DC named character because she was nothing like Cassandra Cain but then again she's supposed to be a kid.

But while BC and Huntress we're not exactly the comic versions I loved both iterations as well as Black Mask

Personality wise, Black Canary is perfect.

Huntress was different, but the core of the character was there. More importantly, her character was lightened up while at the same time still showing that she's a badass.

Montoya was fine. They actually made fun of that in a lot of the comic book stories, she's the stereotypical cop cliche. (But references to her failed romances and drinking problem too)

As many have said, just pretend Cassandra's name is really Cindy or something and you'll be fine.

Cool I am not one that says they HAVE to be completely comic accurate. To me if you can improve them somehow to work on the big screen fine. But, at least don't make them WORSE when you have source material you coulda used.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Yea that's not a DC fan thing, that's the I hate everything Disney people.

Anyway finally saw the movie. I really enjoyed it for what it was. The action and chatacters were fun. I love that they didnt try to make Harley a hero. The reviewers who said Huntress and Canary got a fair amount of screen time are crazy. I feel like Huntress was in like 15mins of the movie. Canary i really liked though. She wasnt very faithful but who care it worked for me. I woulda been happy af if Charlie Hunnam showed up in a stinger with a Goatee and a Bow. I'd watch more of this version of Canary. I've had a crush on the actress since highschool. Anyway I enjoyed the movie. But it honestly could worked without the birds.

Hope it makes enough money to maybe lead to a sequel movie on HBO max. Wonder if the lack of intrest spells trouble for Black Widow or if it wasnt about the female lead but simply people werent interested in this film. I don't see Black widow inherently being more interesting then Harley. But Black Widow is getting a good marketing push, Birds supposedly didnt get a ton of marketing.

Interestingly enough, my theater showed about 4 previews before the movie -- all from Disney!

Anyway, one preview was Black Widow, and I was very happy that this movie seemed to be more grounded and gritty than the typical Marvel popcorny flick.

Then, the Red Guardian showed up in all his goofy, millennial-targeted splendor.

My heart sank, and I instantly decided to Blu-wait this movie.

That being said, I have no doubt that in spite of BW being set in the past and likely will have no bearing on the next MCU Phase, it should still do very well because it has the "Marvel Studios" name on it, and that's the biggest thing in Hollywood. I don't know if BW will end up grossing a billion, but it should do at least Ant-Man/Wasp levels ($620 million worldwide).

In any event, BW should do far, far better than Birds of Prey.

[beatboks]

Except that it isn't solid at all.

When predicting whether a film will be profitable you need to look beyond just a direct comparison of the budget to the box office. You also need to take into account marketing and the percentage the studio gets from each ticket sold.

When it comes to marketing the exact amount spent can vary by film and studio but as a general rule you can probably get a fairly accurate cost by doubling the production budget. Now I've seen the budget listed as somewhere between $80M and $100M, so we're probably looking at a cost of somewhere between $160M and $200M.

And you can't forget that the percentage that the studio gets will vary by country. In the US and Canada the studios typically get about 60-70% of the box office the first two weeks with that percentage steadily decreasing as time goes on (that's why the opening weekend is so important over here). Overseas the percentage is far lower and studios will typically only get between 33-40%. The rule of thumb is that the studio will probably get about 50% of the worldwide box office when everything is said and done.

Going by these numbers the studio has probably only made between 35M and 42M so far and will likely need a worldwide box office of somewhere from $320M to $400M to break even.

Dude the total spend including marketing for this film was $91m. With tax credits it came down to a total cost of $76m they ONLY spent just under $20m on marketing (this far which is a rediculously low anount)

A world wide box office openning weekend of $81m means this film is already $5m into the black.

Both Aquaman and WW were still a loss after their opening weekend having not covered even the cost of production let alone marketing (which your correct nornally doubles the price, JL for example while costing OVER $300m to nake cost over $$650M after marketing)

The cost of marketing and production of this film thus far is $25m below the cost of production only on the cheapest WB hero film so far (the spent $100m to make Shazam)

Compare that to the Other DC films

Shazam open weekend $53m (domestic) finished with $363m (world wide). Spent $100m making and $75m marketing for a profit of $188m. Acclaimed as a success despite really only making a little over 100%

Aquaman opened $67m (83m below production cost of $$150m) finished $1,146m with a profit of $863m

Justice League opened $93m (less than a third of productiom cost of $300m) finished $655m with a profit of $50m afyer spending $300m on marketing.

Wonder Woman opened $103m (50 mil below production costs) finished with $821m

Suicide Squad $opened $133m (42m below production cost) finished $$746m but they spent a bucket load on marketing after its poor opening

Batman v Superman opened $116m ($109m below production costs) and finished $873m

Traditionally the second weekend takes between 85-90% of the first anf it finishes between 4 to 5 times the takings of the opening weekend. Suicide squad was an exception because of the money thrown into marketing after its poor opening

Warner have the option to repeat what they did with SS and increase the marketing budget to boost the box office but honestly if they stay as is the movie should give them a decent return on investment. They honestly can't have expected a huge box office considering they debuted it and February which is traditionally a slow month. It's opening box office is actually the 14th highest of all time in February for a film of its ratings.

So it's not making any records and it's not going to be a massive success, but it's certainly not going to be unprofitable. Unless they make some really stupid moves

[Vakanai]

Dude the total spend including marketing for this film was $91m. With tax credits it came down to a total cost of $76m they ONLY spent just under $20m on marketing (this far which is a rediculously low anount)

A world wide box office openning weekend of $81m means this film is already $5m into the black.

Both Aquaman and WW were still a loss after their opening weekend having not covered even the cost of production let alone marketing (which your correct nornally doubles the price, JL for example while costing OVER $300m to nake cost over $$650M after marketing)

The cost of marketing and production of this film thus far is $25m below the cost of production only on the cheapest WB hero film so far (the spent $100m to make Shazam)

Compare that to the Other DC films

Shazam open weekend $53m (domestic) finished with $363m (world wide). Spent $100m making and $75m marketing for a profit of $188m. Acclaimed as a success despite really only making a little over 100%

Aquaman opened $67m (83m below production cost of $$150m) finished $1,146m with a profit of $863m

Justice League opened $93m (less than a third of productiom cost of $300m) finished $655m with a profit of $50m afyer spending $300m on marketing.

Wonder Woman opened $103m (50 mil below production costs) finished with $821m

Suicide Squad $opened $133m (42m below production cost) finished $$746m but they spent a bucket load on marketing after its poor opening

Batman v Superman opened $116m ($109m below production costs) and finished $873m

Traditionally the second weekend takes between 85-90% of the first anf it finishes between 4 to 5 times the takings of the opening weekend. Suicide squad was an exception because of the money thrown into marketing after its poor opening

Warner have the option to repeat what they did with SS and increase the marketing budget to boost the box office but honestly if they stay as is the movie should give them a decent return on investment. They honestly can't have expected a huge box office considering they debuted it and February which is traditionally a slow month. It's opening box office is actually the 14th highest of all time in February for a film of its ratings.

So it's not making any records and it's not going to be a massive success, but it's certainly not going to be unprofitable. Unless they make some really stupid moves

Thanks for the info, really fills me with hope we'll get those sequels after all.

[Beantownbrown]

Birds of Prey Changes Title At Movie Theaters

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is changing its name to Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey

[ComicJunkie21]

Birds of Prey Changes Title At Movie Theaters

That's how it should've been in the first place. While I love the title actually because it fits Harley to a T, her name should've been in front the whole time.

[kingaliencracker]

Dude the total spend including marketing for this film was $91m. With tax credits it came down to a total cost of $76m they ONLY spent just under $20m on marketing (this far which is a rediculously low anount)

A world wide box office openning weekend of $81m means this film is already $5m into the black.

Both Aquaman and WW were still a loss after their opening weekend having not covered even the cost of production let alone marketing (which your correct nornally doubles the price, JL for example while costing OVER $300m to nake cost over $$650M after marketing)

The cost of marketing and production of this film thus far is $25m below the cost of production only on the cheapest WB hero film so far (the spent $100m to make Shazam)

Compare that to the Other DC films

Shazam open weekend $53m (domestic) finished with $363m (world wide). Spent $100m making and $75m marketing for a profit of $188m. Acclaimed as a success despite really only making a little over 100%

Aquaman opened $67m (83m below production cost of $$150m) finished $1,146m with a profit of $863m

Justice League opened $93m (less than a third of productiom cost of $300m) finished $655m with a profit of $50m afyer spending $300m on marketing.

Wonder Woman opened $103m (50 mil below production costs) finished with $821m

Suicide Squad $opened $133m (42m below production cost) finished $$746m but they spent a bucket load on marketing after its poor opening

Batman v Superman opened $116m ($109m below production costs) and finished $873m

Traditionally the second weekend takes between 85-90% of the first anf it finishes between 4 to 5 times the takings of the opening weekend. Suicide squad was an exception because of the money thrown into marketing after its poor opening

Warner have the option to repeat what they did with SS and increase the marketing budget to boost the box office but honestly if they stay as is the movie should give them a decent return on investment. They honestly can't have expected a huge box office considering they debuted it and February which is traditionally a slow month. It's opening box office is actually the 14th highest of all time in February for a film of its ratings.

So it's not making any records and it's not going to be a massive success, but it's certainly not going to be unprofitable. Unless they make some really stupid moves

Hollywood Accounting is wonky at best, and realistically more like outright fraud. Winston Groom refuses to allow a movie adapted of his sequel to Forrest Gump because Paramount claims - and has produced "proof" - to show the first film lost millions of dollars as a way to disallow Groom from collecting royalties.

I will say this, however. The studio predicted that the BoP would bring in about $50 million domestically over its opening weekend, and studio predictions tend to be on the conservative side. The movie fell $20 million short of that prediction, so right there is a giant red flag that the movie drastically underperformed. Couple that with the news that the title of the film is being changed AFTER its release, I mean it's pretty clear this is not a successful film so far.

The general rule of thumb with regards to box office is a movie needs to bring in twice its production budget to break even. This comes from my experience working at both Blockbuster and Hollywood Video many years ago, which while I understand doesn't make me an expert by any stretch has provided me some inside knowledge I wouldn't otherwise have. So if a film cost $100 million, it needs to bring in $200 million worldwide just to cover the production and distribution costs. Don't forget too, that the theater chains get a cut of the box office. So just because BoP has brought in $5 million more than its budget apparently (I'm taking you at your word for that because I certainly haven't looked it up in such detail nor do I have any desire to), that certainly doesn't mean it's in "the black". Not by a long shot.

Now, having said all that, the box office says NOTHING to the film's entertainment value. As I said in my small review, I thought it was entertaining but Harley in large doses isn't my cup of tea and I thought the other characters were vastly underutilized. I feel deep down that WB vastly overrated Harley's popularity and that contributed to the film's underperformance. BUT...it was still worth seeing I think and it was better than my original expectations.