Birds of Prey Reactions

[Triniking1234]

Looks like we've stopped arguing over that theoretical equation.

I'll make my 4th attempt to see the movie this weekend.
1st try: sick
2nd try: Unlimited Rain Works
3rd try: folks borrowed money from me. ffs

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?

No. That's a title that's niche even in comic circles. Birds of Prey is a name/brand DC has been pushing for ages.

[ComicJunkie21]

Looks like we've stopped arguing over that theoretical equation.

I'll make my 4th attempt to see the movie this weekend.
1st try: sick
2nd try: Unlimited Rain Works
3rd try: folks borrowed money from me. ffs



No. That's a title that's niche even in comic circles. Birds of Prey is a name/brand DC has been pushing for ages.

Dang sorry to hear that you've had a string of blocks lately hopefully you can make it out this time.

It's funny that BoP is a more known name but GCS has a more well known cast of characters. Truthfully though, with Harley Quinn most likely not being in a BoP sequel WB needs to get off their ass and make a batgirl film so she can rightfully join the group.

[regnak]

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.

No, you don’t understand it. Marvel took out a big loan to make Iron Man. The way you are claiming things work it lost money as did IM2. In that case Marvel would have been bankrupt again and Avengers would never have been made.

[Slowpokeking]

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.

Again bad comparison here.

CA is 2011 movie, both the production cost and the expectation is nowhere close to BP, a 2017 movie. This actually proved that your CA First Avenger has 150m marketing cost is garbage. You are biting your own tail now.

Secondly, there is advisement in movie to break out some of the marketing cost.

Nobody said all movies fit this 2.5X, but it's the usual format, simple as that. By your logic most of the movies are flops and losing studio money, that doesn't work at all.

Nice Try.

BoP's box office is pretty much done cause, it's just laughable to continue defend it using your own formula.

[Slowpokeking]

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?

Robbie said no, she said she likes BoP more.

But even if they do that, it will mostly tone down the other two to not let them outshine Robbie, too.

[Frobisher]

Wait, this was actually kind of good. How come garbage like Aquaman can make a billion dollars (based on the good will of not being as bad as Justice Club), but no one will come out for a DC film with some decent action, sense of fun, and no stupid end battle against a rubbish CGI villain?

[Immortal Weapon]

Wait, this was actually kind of good. How come garbage like Aquaman can make a billion dollars (based on the good will of not being as bad as Justice Club), but no one will come out for a DC film with some decent action, sense of fun, and no stupid end battle against a rubbish CGI villain?

Because Aquaman is the better movie. It was marketed better.

[kjn]

Wait, this was actually kind of good. How come garbage like Aquaman can make a billion dollars (based on the good will of not being as bad as Justice Club), but no one will come out for a DC film with some decent action, sense of fun, and no stupid end battle against a rubbish CGI villain?

I'm not sure I'd call the Aquaman movie garbage. It was a silly, bombastic, and loud throwback to the action-comedies of the 80s (they even cast Dolph Lundgren!), and within those parameters it was a rather good movie in the sense of turn off your brain and enjoy the ride (and the beefcake and/or cheesecake).

I think Birds of Prey was not only poorly marketed (beginning with the title), but also that studios are still learning how to market action films to female audiences.

[j9ac9k]

I'm not sure I'd call the Aquaman movie garbage. It was a silly, bombastic, and loud throwback to the action-comedies of the 80s (they even cast Dolph Lundgren!), and within those parameters it was a rather good movie in the sense of turn off your brain and enjoy the ride (and the beefcake and/or cheesecake).

I think Birds of Prey was not only poorly marketed (beginning with the title), but also that studios are still learning how to market action films to female audiences.

Regular marketing worked for other action films that made billions of dollars, so I don't know that anyone needs to market an action film towards female audiences per se.

[Immortal Weapon]

I'm not sure I'd call the Aquaman movie garbage. It was a silly, bombastic, and loud throwback to the action-comedies of the 80s (they even cast Dolph Lundgren!), and within those parameters it was a rather good movie in the sense of turn off your brain and enjoy the ride (and the beefcake and/or cheesecake).

I think Birds of Prey was not only poorly marketed (beginning with the title), but also that studios are still learning how to market action films to female audiences.

That's mistake number 1. Market the movie to fans of the genre and not to any particular demographic.

[j9ac9k]

If anything, it's "the more traditional audience" that you have to make sure you don't alienate because they're so touchy, closed-minded and prone to dismiss, if not outright attack something that seems like it's not marketed towards them.

[kjn]

If anything, it's "the more traditional audience" that you have to make sure you don't alienate because they're so touchy, closed-minded and prone to dismiss, if not outright attack something that seems like it's not marketed towards them.

Which is why I contend that the perfect title for Birds of Prey would have been "Harley Quinn: #MeToo".

[Aahz]

If anything, it's "the more traditional audience" that you have to make sure you don't alienate because they're so touchy, closed-minded and prone to dismiss, if not outright attack something that seems like it's not marketed towards them.

Why should you spent the money to go into a movie that "wasn't made for you".

When it comes to the comparison with Aquaman, Aquaman had the benefit of being the big Christmas Block Buster for that year.
On top of this Aquaman with it's underwater 3D CGI scenes is a movie you have to see on the big screen for the full experience (and I think the visuals of the trailer was what made most people interested in the movie), the BoP trailer looks more like something you can watch on the small screen without much loss.

[Immortal Weapon]

If anything, it's "the more traditional audience" that you have to make sure you don't alienate because they're so touchy, closed-minded and prone to dismiss, if not outright attack something that seems like it's not marketed towards them.

This is full of crap. The creatives behind movies like this and the media that supports it like to gaslight audiences and want to act like they know what we need in our entertainment. They are out of touch. If they weren't busy smelling their own farts to could be having successful movies.

[The Cool Thatguy]

If anything, it's "the more traditional audience" that you have to make sure you don't alienate because they're so touchy, closed-minded and prone to dismiss, if not outright attack something that seems like it's not marketed towards them.

I think the 'traditional audiences' have actually been pretty damn open minded when it comes to superhero movies, when you think about it.

Superhero movies offer a diverse type of protagonist, when you get down to it. An African Prince, an armored CEO trying to redeem himself, a God learning humility, an Amazon princess learning about an entirely new world, etc.

Most action movie protagonists are ex cops, or ex military, burned out, etc etc. We know their resume and backstory by heart most of the time.