Can someone explain why Birds of Prey movie was well received?

[Jim Kelly]

To answer OP:

1.) Comic book adaptations are not literal translations of comics. So reviewers are going to judge the movie by its own merits and demerits, not on how faithful Cassandra Cain's characterisation is.

2.) The movie is fun, poppy, has a catchy soundtrack and Robbie, Smollet-Bell, Winstead, McGregor and Messina's performances are great.

3.) Opinions are subjective.

Agree.

Actually it seems to me that these critiques are about the merits and demerits of the movie, not about the personal opinions of OBbrianTallent or about the literal translation of the comics:

[…]
That's not even taking into the very badly choreographed fight scenes. I've seen better on HGTV.
[…]
I just started watching Picard last night, the fight choreography on that show is a thousand light years above and beyond this movie.
[…]
Black Canary is the only one who had a semi competent actress and look, however her story was woefully pitiful especially knight if the revelation in story that her mother was a hero with the same powers. So that gets her mom killed and lil Canary goes to work for the people who did it?
[…]

.

The stunt choreography--that's subjective. Personally I thought it was all great. Chad Stahelski worked on the stunt choreography and he's exceptional.

Black Canary was underused, but maybe they wanted to hold back so they had more material for her own movie (were that to happen). I can extrapolate from what was shown to how she ended up going in the opposite direction from her mother. Her mom got herself killed and she probably resents her mother for that. Lots of people end up falling into the same criminal gangs that victimized their families.

I knew that the movie wasn't going to be like the comics--you could already see that in the trailers. I always watch movies as different creatures from the comics and don't go in expecting any fan service. So when there is stuff from the comics, I'm always pleasantly surprised. I didn't expect all the call-outs to the cartoons and the comics--and when they happened that put a big smile on my face.

The opening of the movie was something I had been thinking should happen, not expecting them to do it. It was how I wanted the movie to open, so I was giddy seeing they had the same idea as me.
spoilers:

talking about the animation sequence

end of spoilers.

[Gotham citizen]

At this point I would know what is objective: if the choreography is subjective, if the professionalism of the actress is subjective, if the credibility of the characters' background is subjective, what is objective?

[Osiris-Rex]

At this point I would know what is objective: if the choreography is subjective, if the professionalism of the actress is subjective, if the credibility of the characters' background is subjective, what is objective?

I don't think there is an objective measure. It's not like there is a measuring cup you can pour the character into and say this one is half right, this one is only a quarter right, this one fills the cup. Everyone brings their own baggage when
they see a character. If someone grew up on Kung-Fu movies maybe they don't like the fight scenes. If someone is an absolute purist they might not like the interpretation. If someone is on an anti-SJW kick they may hate the actor
which colors their opinion of the character. If someone is rah-rah girl power they may love the characters.

[Stanlos]

I realize this isnt in the exact appropriate thread, but as a fan of the comics, I found absolutely nothing remotely similar to the comic or the characters. Black Canary working for a mob boss? Helena Bertinelli a homicidal rager...Renee Montoya an 80s bad cop show retread. Cassandra Cain a smart mouthed (seriously? ) pick pocket.
That's not even taking into the very badly choreographed fight scenes. I've seen better on HGTV. For Harley, it was decent and would have made a pretty good solo for her. Just to toe it The Emancipation of One Harley Quinn. As a birds of prey movie...no.
Helena Bertinelli is a layered, intelligent character no matter which one you go with..either a school teacher or the headmistress of a spy organization. Not someone who stands in front of a mirror growling at herself trying to decide between crossbow killer and Huntress.
I just started watching Picard last night, the fight choreography on that show is a thousand light years above and beyond this movie. Likewise cringe worthy are the outfits. What the hell did they have on Huntress? Especially at the end when shes supposed to be in something that resembles her comics costume...it looks like a purple trash bag with white tape on it. And Montoyas t-shirt....I cant even.
Black Canary is the only one who had a semi competent actress and look, however her story was woefully pitiful especially knight if the revelation in story that her mother was a hero with the same powers. So that gets her mom killed and lil Canary goes to work for the people who did it?
I really wanted this movie to be good, I really wanted a great Birds of Prey movie, but the characters look and act nothing like their comic book counterparts. This was just bad.

I think it is because for the vast majority of viewers this 8s their first exposure to the brand and so are only influenced by the viewing experience (fun or no). As they explore the books--should they even go that far--their opinion might change.

Personally I will never view it again and am pretty disgusted with it.

[kjn]

Actually it doesn't seems to me "Birds of Prey and the fantabulous emancipation of Harley Quinn" (why not a longer title?) was well received, in fact it seems it has grossed less than 200 millions of Dollars, while its break heaven point was about 250 millions of Dollars.

"Well received" isn't about box office numbers. It's about how people who actually went to see the film thought about it. Both critics and regular viewers.

Seen from that perspective, I'd say that Birds of Prey was well received. Most of the Internet complaints brigade who sharpen their knives against it were predisposed against the film in the first place, and I doubt many even saw it.

[Gotham citizen]

Usually if the people likes a movie the movie has good box office numbers, but for Birds of Prey those numbers were so bad that it was suggested to change the title of the movie in "Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey" (or something like that) and the promotional campaign after the first week of projection in the theaters.

[kjn]

Usually if the people likes a movie the movie has good box office numbers, but for Birds of Prey those numbers were so bad that it was suggested to change the title of the movie in "Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey" (or something like that) and the promotional campaign after the first week of projection in the theaters.

There are plenty of good movies that fails at theatres, and compared to something like Dolittle or Call of the Wild, BoP was clearly disappointing but hardly a disaster.

So I stand by what I have said earlier: the movie we got was a good movie, but its marketing failed it badly. Will have to see how the office politics inside WB plays out after this, but I really hope Cathy Yan and the rest of the team gets more opportunities—they really deserve it.

[Gotham citizen]

Like you rightly said it was due to a marketing failure (like it happened for Fight Club), but it doesn't seems to me Birds of Prey has suffered of a similar issue, because the marketing explained very it was a superhero movie about Harley Quinn. The time will say to us if this movie will be reevaluated, but I don't think so: I have heard too many people outside the comic fandom disliked it.

[skyvolt2000]

Usually if the people likes a movie the movie has good box office numbers, but for Birds of Prey those numbers were so bad that it was suggested to change the title of the movie in "Harley Quinn and the Birds of Prey" (or something like that) and the promotional campaign after the first week of projection in the theaters.

That is not set in stone.


Can't see a movie again if it does not show in the theater where you first saw it. To have extra showing something else has to be bumped off.

Bottom line is folks who understood what an adaptation of something means were not throwing fits over Cassandra Cain or 12 different versions of BOP in comics.

Warner Brothers is not going to care about some entitlement comic book fans who continue to make the fandom look toxic. Nor the anti SJW crowd.

Who have tried everything in their power to kill this industry.

Yet have constantly failed.

So if BOP can be well received by non comic book folks-who can leave agendas at the house versus comic book fans. So be it.

[Noodle]

The sooner people start looking at movie/tv adaptations like Elseworlds or multiverse stories and stop expecting them to be direct adaptations, the sooner they will enjoy them.

Not saying every comic book movie/show is good, just saying if you start viewing each on their own merit and not what you want it to be, you won't hate it as much before you even watch it.

[Cyberstrike]

Because it's a damn great movie.
Probably the best DCEU movie since Wonder Woman and easily the most pure fun Batman related movie made in decades.

[Tzigone]

The sooner people start looking at movie/tv adaptations like Elseworlds or multiverse stories and stop expecting them to be direct adaptations, the sooner they will enjoy them.

Not saying every comic book movie/show is good, just saying if you start viewing each on their own merit and not what you want it to be, you won't hate it as much before you even watch it.

Yeah, but there's come a point where they might as well feature original characters (from an audience/fan perspective). What's the point of it being a BoP movie or going if you are fan of those (comic) characters? I mean, I get it from a business/IP perspective. But as a comic fan, why should I want to go or like it? If it's really successful more out-of-character movies I don't like get made and worst case those characterizations/backstories end up used in the comics. I'm no better off with comics I don't read than I am with no comics at all.

[Gotham citizen]

That is not set in stone.


Can't see a movie again if it does not show in the theater where you first saw it. To have extra showing something else has to be bumped off.

Bottom line is folks who understood what an adaptation of something means were not throwing fits over Cassandra Cain or 12 different versions of BOP in comics.

Warner Brothers is not going to care about some entitlement comic book fans who continue to make the fandom look toxic. Nor the anti SJW crowd.

Who have tried everything in their power to kill this industry.

Yet have constantly failed.

So if BOP can be well received by non comic book folks-who can leave agendas at the house versus comic book fans. So be it.

And how can you say if the non comic book folks has well received a movie?
You can't use the audience score because only the people who loved or hated the movie tends to vote on sites like Rotten Tomatoes; it is called sampling bias. You can't even use the critics reviews, because often the critics write what their employee say them to write; I know that because a friend of mine was a movie critic. The only way to determine if that movie was well received is doing a proper statistical survey (or better more than one), but for what I know no one did one of these surveys; or at least I didn't see anyone who showed the results fo any of these surveys.

Yeah, but there's come a point where they might as well feature original characters (from an audience/fan perspective). What's the point of it being a BoP movie or going if you are fan of those (comic) characters? I mean, I get it from a business/IP perspective. But as a comic fan, why should I want to go or like it? If it's really successful more out-of-character movies I don't like get made and worst case those characterizations/backstories end up used in the comics. I'm no better off with comics I don't read than I am with no comics at all.

That is a really good point: the fans of a comics are always among the audience of the movie adaptations of that comics (or better still we can say they are the natural audience of the movie) and what happens if they start to say to their friends: «Don't look that movie: it is trash»?
It is only wise write a movie faithful to the comics (above all if it is the first adaptation of a not known comics), because in this way the author of the movie will minimize the risks to have a negative response from the fans. Moreover why take that risk, changing completely the character they want use, if their personality is already perfectly adapted to the movie the authors want write?
Let's understand each others: there is nothing wrong to change something in a character of a franchise, but if the authors want do that, they must understand what are the core characteristic which make the characters or the franchise recognizable and loved by the fans (think to Heat Ledger's Joker), because for what I see the problems with the fans start when the modifies make the characters (or the entire franchise) unrecognizable and no more loved (think to the Jared Letho's Joker).

[Noodle]

Yeah, but there's come a point where they might as well feature original characters (from an audience/fan perspective). What's the point of it being a BoP movie or going if you are fan of those (comic) characters? I mean, I get it from a business/IP perspective. But as a comic fan, why should I want to go or like it? If it's really successful more out-of-character movies I don't like get made and worst case those characterizations/backstories end up used in the comics. I'm no better off with comics I don't read than I am with no comics at all.

I agree to a point. I had low expectations going into it because I'm a big fan of Cass and Montoya and expected them to butcher those characters (and in Cass' case they did), but I enjoyed the movie on it's own merit. Was it fantastic? No. But it wasn't horrible.

The idea of not seeing it because you don't want it to be a success for out-of-character movies is also inherently flawed. Movie studios don't pay that close attention to it. If it bombs they won't put in the money to make "in character" movies. They just won't make another movie because the last one bombed.

[LifeIsILL]

To answer OP:

1.) Comic book adaptations are not literal translations of comics. So reviewers are going to judge the movie by its own merits and demerits, not on how faithful Cassandra Cain's characterisation is.

Comic book accurate doesn't necessarily mean good.

I can argue that the Green Lantern movie was more comic accurate than say.....Thor....one of them was a solid movie the other was trash.