Birds of Prey Reactions

[ComicJunkie21]

Not really, all these cost money and had little to do with the movie.

If a blockbuster movie couldn't even break even in the box office. No sequel, fair and simple. There is a difference between making money and losing money.

Most movies you would be correct but not with films like cbm that utilize movies as a means of merchandise marketing. That's why Disney is happy to spend money on marketing that is equal to or exceeds production costs. Because in all reality CBM are truly big advertisements to sell merchandise and licensing.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, I am simply stating that the decision to make sequels is not completely decided by BO figures for some franchises. I can tell that you want a BoP film that is less Harley centric I'm trying to let you know that you have a good chance of getting it based off of past trends and critical reception of this film. The biggest reason why BoP doesn't get a sequel is if SS2 flops hard.

[Slowpokeking]

Most movies you would be correct but not with films like cbm that utilize movies as a means of merchandise marketing. That's why Disney is happy to spend money on marketing that is equal to or exceeds production costs. Because in all reality CBM are truly big advertisements to sell merchandise and licensing.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, I am simply stating that the decision to make sequels is not completely decided by BO figures for some franchises. I can tell that you want a BoP film that is less Harley centric I'm trying to let you know that you have a good chance of getting it based off of past trends and critical reception of this film. The biggest reason why BoP doesn't get a sequel is if SS2 flops hard.

Sorry merchandise marketing also cost money to make and usually only becomes big sale if the movie is a hit.

Disney is actually a good example, most of their animated movies only gets directly to DVD sequel, Frozen got one because it was a HUGE hit. Even Star Wars don't get sequel when its box office fails, like the Solo movie's failure caused them to put other spinoff movies on shelf.

It is that simple, you are trying to defend an obvious lost cause. Sure there will be Harley movies if SS2 did fine, but that's all.

[ComicJunkie21]

Sorry merchandise marketing also cost money to make and usually only becomes big sale if the movie is a hit.

Disney is actually a good example, most of their animated movies only gets directly to DVD sequel, Frozen got one because it was a HUGE hit. Even Star Wars don't get sequel when its box office fails, like the Solo movie's failure caused them to put other spinoff movies on shelf.

It is that simple, you are trying to defend an obvious lost cause. Sure there will be Harley movies if SS2 did fine, but that's all.

I've provided you with good equivalent examples on why BO isn't the final determining factor on if a movie gets a sequel. The future potential profitability is also taken into account as well as the true cost values and other factors. By your stance CA and Thor shouldn't have gotten sequels and possibly a few other MCU films either.

Also when it comes to Star Wars, it's a very known fact that merchandise sales have declined over the years and that did play a part in shelving and slowing down star wars as a whole.

[Slowpokeking]

I've provided you with good equivalent examples on why BO isn't the final determining factor on if a movie gets a sequel. The future potential profitability is also taken into account as well as the true cost values and other factors. By your stance CA and Thor shouldn't have gotten sequels and possibly a few other MCU films either.

Also when it comes to Star Wars, it's a very known fact that merchandise sales have declined over the years and that did play a part in shelving and slowing down star wars as a whole.

No example of box office flop getting a sequel. You are trying to state CA and Thor are flop by using the wrong formula. Both of them reached the 2.5X box office and both have quite high domestic box office which means higher % share.

Sorry Star Wars merchandise have quite high sale, especially if you want to compare it to the 2nd tier DC characters which didn't even follow the source materials.

[ComicJunkie21]

No example of box office flop getting a sequel. You are trying to state CA and Thor are flop by using the wrong formula. Both of them reached the 2.5X box office and both have quite high domestic box office which means higher % share.

Sorry Star Wars merchandise have quite high sale, especially if you want to compare it to the 2nd tier DC characters which didn't even follow the source materials.

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.

[Slowpokeking]

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.

What are you talking about. The 2.5x already considered the % share and marketing cost. That's the whole 2.5x forumla come from instead of 1:1.

You need to get your math correctly. It's also why we said BoP needs around 250m to break even based on a near 100m budget with the reshoots.

[ComicJunkie21]

Simple question: If a studio spends $150 million to make a film and an additional $150 million to market it, how much did the studio spend altogether?

[Slowpokeking]

If a studio spends $150 million to make a film and an additional $150 million to market it, how much did the studio spend altogether?

You need to give source of the actual marketing fee to support your claim. Also they usually have the in movie advisement to balance the marketing cost at the same time.

2.5X is pretty much how movie works, flop=no sequel.

[ComicJunkie21]

You need to give source of the actual marketing fee to support your claim. Also they usually have the in movie advisement to balance the marketing cost at the same time.

2.5X is pretty much how movie works, flop=no sequel.

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

[Jokerz79]

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

2011 vs 2020 film marketing is apple and oranges around 2013 Hollywood changed how much they spend on International marketing and by a lot. Many films pre 2010's that were big hits even in the 00's would be dissapointments today even if the box office was adjusted for inflation simply because of what would be spent today on marketing. BOP having such a small Marketing Budget is its saving grace and allows it to be a small dissapointment instead of flop.

[Vakanai]

Just checking in - have we moved on to discussing the movie we got yet, or is this still a dumpster fire convo over feminism and misogyny and crap?

[ComicJunkie21]

2011 vs 2020 film marketing is apple and oranges around 2013 Hollywood changed how much they spend on International marketing and by a lot. Many films pre 2010's that were big hits even in the 00's would be dissapointments today even if the box office was adjusted for inflation simply because of what would be spent today on marketing.

Understood and agree. Marketing is definitely ballooning the budgets in a big way today as compared to early 2000s to the point where it can equal or exceed the production budget. The point that I'm trying to get across is that a film that costs a studio 150 million to produce and 150 million to market requires the studio to receive 300 million dollars to just recover costs. Since studios only get half of the BO revenue then that means the BO needs 600 million so they can get their investment back. Most CBM have high marketing budgets that equal or exceed the production budget.

[Slowpokeking]

What does the debate have to do with feminism or misogyny? Especially now the box office is pretty much settled so we talk about its result.

Ppl are asking it to have the actual BoP members to be in the main stage of this movie instead of Harley, all of them are strong, independent heroines.

If we really want to talk about female role model or which character can show feminism. Babara Gordon and Black Canary are 100 times better than Harley Quinn.

[ComicJunkie21]

Just checking in - have we moved on to discussing the movie we got yet, or is this still a dumpster fire convo over feminism and misogyny and crap?

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

[Slowpokeking]

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

No, you made a void assumption of it have a pure cost 150m on marketing, you have to give proof for it.

The 2.5X formula for break even is quite reasonable, which you are keep trying to ignore it.