Like "Batman V Superman," "Suicide Squad" Experiences Steep Box-Office Plunge

[AcesX1X]

is it your argument that "reviewing films" is an altruistic service performed? and can you please cite anything credible -- beyond your own opinion -- that "the majority" didn't attempt to make suicide squad a failure?

because i count a large number of poor reviews, many many more than "positive" reviews, and many of which are urging viewers to pass on suicide squad.

and as far as i'm concerned, if a professional is going to go out of their way to give something a poor rating, they certainly aren't urging viewers to go see a film -- or giving anyone any encouragement to do so. quite the opposite actually.

[Vanguard-01]

That's not the assumption at all, at least in most cases. What a reviewer generally does is give you an opinion on the merits of the different aspects of the film and the film as a whole. A lot of times, they'll even say something like "if you like that sort of thing, you should see it", even in negative reviews. Sometimes they might caution people that they probably won't like it, but they still don't have an emotional stake in how the movie does financially.

If you hated a movie, you kinda want to see it fail. Just sayin'.

And I saw plenty of reviews on RT that pretty much amounted to "It's the worst! Don't see it!"

If you're not familiar with this stuff, why are you arguing so vehemently about it?

I'm arguing vehemently? Buddy, you really don't know me. Check out some of the debates I've had about BvS on the Superman boards if you want to see me "arguing vehemently." This isn't CLOSE to vehement by my standards.

You don't have to accept my word.

And yet, you refer to your efforts to "explain to me" why I'm wrong as if I should just accept any explanation from you because......well, it comes from you.

Here's one writer telling you a couple different times:

"As a general rule, opening weekend is about marketing and pre-release interest. Whether or not the movie is any good, and whether or not audiences respond to the picture, is best measured by the second and third weekends."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen.../#5a70876135dc

"But opening weekends are about marketing and pre-release interest, the rest of the theatrical run is generally about the movie. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen.../#bd0d4e4284be

Sooooo, how does a bad movie that's performing so badly make $500 million worldwide in two weeks? Without even the help of China?

Sorry, not buying it. The movie's successful. That's the only thing that matters.

Not really. You offered an opinion, and I explained why it was wrong.

An opinion, by definition, can't be wrong.

1) You don't have to do anything, but clearly you're not interested in learning about things that go against your opinions.

Sure I am. I just don't recognize you as any kind of authority on this particular subject so your "Hey! I just told you you're wrong! Now just accept that you're wrong! Because I said so!" arguments aren't particularly persuasive to me.

2) I read the article that started this thread and wanted to comment, much like if this was a comment thread attached to the article itself. At some point I may check out other places on this board.

163 posts already. All on one thread, and stating one argument again and again.

3) Way to exaggerate to try to form an argument. I have consistently said Suicide Squad is a success and that WB should be happy about it overall. I have also pointed out that critics do matter in box office, but I haven't come anywhere close to your strawman of "they're gods to whom we must all bow down".

You say it's a success. Then you turn right around and try to convince everyone that it's "performing badly." Successful movies don't also "perform badly." Either the movie is successful or it isn't.

If critics mattered, this movie would've been lucky to make $100 million by now. Rather like Ben-Hur is doing right now. $11 million opening week for a movie with a $100 million dollar budget. Now THAT sounds like a poor-performing movie to me. Not one that's been shattering records and making huge profits.

[Vegtam]

I think the problem here is that you are working from information that the laymen (us) doesn't have access to. Could you show us where the range was established?

Greg

Sure. There are a couple ways to go about it. First, I posted an article earlier where the writer talks about how SS will be one of the most front-loaded August releases in history. Unfortunately I can't find the article right now, and I don't have time to keep looking.

Second, here is the post from earlier where we went over the top ten August opening weekends and their final totals:

I said it was probably going to be one of the most front-loaded August releases ever. So biggest August opening weekends isn't relevant. The point is what happens after that opening weekend. To put that in perspective, let's say Suicide Squad ends up with $305 mil, which is the most reasonable guess at this point. That means its opening weekend would be 43.8% of its total. Now for the others in your list:

GotG - Opening weekend = 28.2%
Bourne Ultimatum - 30.4%
Rush Hour 2 - 29.8%
TMNT - 34.3%
Straight Outta Compton - 37.3%
Signs - 26.4%
Rise of Planet of the Apes - 31%
GI Joe: Rise of Cobra - 36.4%
Rush Hour 3 - 35%

This is what I'm talking about with front-loading. The next closest one there is Straight Outta Compton. To equal what that did in this list, SS would need to hit $355 mil, which is not going to happen. August releases tend to be leggier because they have less competition but still benefit from summer vacation for the first 2-3 weeks of their release.

Again, SS is making enough overall that this isn't a huge deal for WB, but it's still a problem.

To put those percentages into multipliers, they start at 2.7 for Straight Outta Compton and range up to 3.5 for GotG. For comparison, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had a 22% from critics and 51% from audiences, and it still hit a multiplier of 2.94. We can keep going and look at other August releases, if you want, but this gives you a good idea at least to start.

EDIT: To take a closer look at another of those - Rise of Cobra has a 35% from critics and 50% from audiences and still had a 2.75 multiplier.

[Vegtam]

is it your argument that "reviewing films" is an altruistic service performed?

No, it's a job.

and can you please cite anything credible -- beyond your own opinion -- that "the majority" didn't attempt to make suicide squad a failure?

Why don't we start with you citing a source that the majority did attempt to make it a failure?

because i count a large number of poor reviews, many many more than "positive" reviews, and many of which are urging viewers to pass on suicide squad.

and as far as i'm concerned, if a professional is going to go out of their way to give something a poor rating, they certainly aren't urging viewers to go see a film -- or giving anyone any encouragement to do so. quite the opposite actually.

Why do you claim they're going out of their way? They review films as their job. When they review one they feel was bad, they give it a bad review. The point is that they're not actively trying to keep people away from the movie, nor do they care particularly how the movie does. They're just giving their professional opinion.

[People Of The Earth]

All of that makes perfect sense, now watch it have zero impact on this debate. There are literaly no balanced discussions on these movies because the fanatics on both sides are loudest. I bet 90% of the posts on the SS threads are by the same 5 or so people. Rationale has no effect so the people looking to have a real discussion get drowned out.

There certainly is some degree of "tribalism" at play here, yes. I can relate, I was in this mode for my nationals during the Olympics.

BvS or Marvel are not the movies to compare this to. The clear comparison is Deadpool. The box office returns for the first week and first weekend both domestic and international were very similar. Both were released in unpopular months to grab headlines and records. Unfortunately SS is dropping faster than Deadpool so it is not likely to reach the overall takings of that movie, but there are still broad comparisons.

It still baffles me why these two movies have different age ratings in the US but the same in the UK and other non-domestic markets, making direct comparison slightly skewed. But not having seen SS I can't judge.

This has little to do with fortune though: Deadpool was a genuinely good piece of entertainement, Suicide Squad just pales in comparison.
The difference has more to do with the gap in quality between the two films than with anything else.

[Vegtam]

If you hated a movie, you kinda want to see it fail. Just sayin'.

If you review movies for a living, and one of them was bad in your opinion, that doesn't mean you kinda want to see it fail. Just sayin'.

And I saw plenty of reviews on RT that pretty much amounted to "It's the worst! Don't see it!"

OK, let's see some of them.

And yet, you refer to your efforts to "explain to me" why I'm wrong as if I should just accept any explanation from you because......well, it comes from you.

You don't have to just accept what I say, but you dismiss it without even considering it.

Sooooo, how does a bad movie that's performing so badly make $500 million worldwide in two weeks? Without even the help of China?

By having great marketing that helped it start out massively.

Sorry, not buying it. The movie's successful. That's the only thing that matters.

It may be the only thing that matters to you, but it's not to a lot of people, including WB.

An opinion, by definition, can't be wrong.

Sure, it can.

Sure I am. I just don't recognize you as any kind of authority on this particular subject so your "Hey! I just told you you're wrong! Now just accept that you're wrong! Because I said so!" arguments aren't particularly persuasive to me.

You keep coming back to this, and it's still nothing more than a distraction. You don't have to take my word for anything, and I'm not claiming you do. I'm offering actual arguments. You're offering your opinion backed up by nothing. If you really want support for anything I say, just ask. I just provided some to another user who did just that.

163 posts already. All on one thread, and stating one argument again and again.

165, so?

You say it's a success. Then you turn right around and try to convince everyone that it's "performing badly." Successful movies don't also "perform badly." Either the movie is successful or it isn't.

No. It's a success because it's going to make a profit and it's exceeding expectations. The way it's performing badly is in dropping more quickly than most other movies in the same situation.

If critics mattered, this movie would've been lucky to make $100 million by now. Rather like Ben-Hur is doing right now. $11 million opening week for a movie with a $100 million dollar budget. Now THAT sounds like a poor-performing movie to me. Not one that's been shattering records and making huge profits.

Yet again, opening weekend isn't about critics; it's about marketing. You talk about my many posts saying the same thing, well it's because people like you just keep making these false claims without even listening to anything else. As I've said, this movie was tracking at $125 mil well before any reviews came out. It was always going to have a huge opening weekend. What happened after that is the relevant part here.

[inisideguy]

If you review movies for a living, and one of them was bad in your opinion, that doesn't mean you kinda want to see it fail. Just sayin'.



OK, let's see some of them.



You don't have to just accept what I say, but you dismiss it without even considering it.



By having great marketing that helped it start out massively.



It may be the only thing that matters to you, but it's not to a lot of people, including WB.



Sure, it can.



You keep coming back to this, and it's still nothing more than a distraction. You don't have to take my word for anything, and I'm not claiming you do. I'm offering actual arguments. You're offering your opinion backed up by nothing. If you really want support for anything I say, just ask. I just provided some to another user who did just that.



165, so?



No. It's a success because it's going to make a profit and it's exceeding expectations. The way it's performing badly is in dropping more quickly than most other movies in the same situation.



Yet again, opening weekend isn't about critics; it's about marketing. You talk about my many posts saying the same thing, well it's because people like you just keep making these false claims without even listening to anything else. As I've said, this movie was tracking at $125 mil well before any reviews came out. It was always going to have a huge opening weekend. What happened after that is the relevant part here.

Its made 130 million dollars domestically since opening weekend. More than most movies have made all year. If opening weekend is about marketing why has it made 130 million in the states alone since then?

[AcesX1X]

No, it's a job.

just a job? professionals in the industry disagree.

[on media bandwagoning] It’s not just common, it’s a consistent aspect of modern mass media. There are entire press outlets dedicated to the pursuit of tabloid journalism, rumormongering, gossip, and muckraking..

further,

Nobody informed about the press (note: I’ve worked as a political journalist, op-ed writer, news reporter, news program producer, and entertainment writer in print, radio, and online for many different outlets — including national and worldwide — on and off since the early 1990s) would seriously argue this isn’t generally true, even if they might debate how widespread it tends to be...

lastly,

So it would be absurd and dishonest for anyone to pretend it doesn’t happen in entertainment journalism.

Why don't we start with you citing a source that the majority did attempt to make it a failure?

i'll provide you with plenty of quotes urging people away from the film in a bit, but first a reminder of how critics "just do their job," as presented from another set of dc films, the dark knight series from christopher nolan:

There was a time when entertainment writers at major outlets were literally publicly calling for reviewers to write negative reviews of Christopher Nolan’s movies to teach his fans a lesson, based purely on supposed principle of preventing too much praise for the director and thus too much validation of his fans. There are film critics who posted bad Rotten Tomato ratings before they even saw a movie, publicly admitting they did it just to troll fans whom the reviewer felt were out of line (one such critic was booted from Rotten Tomatoes after his actions were publicized and many other writers — myself included — alerted the site to the abuse of the Tomatometer).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhugh.../#41c936586f4e

The point is that they're not actively trying to keep people away from the movie, nor do they care particularly how the movie does. They're just giving their professional opinion.

really, because many of the statements i found from various critics "just doing their job" paint a drastically different picture..

Suicide Squat.

If you know someone you really can’t stand — not someone you dislike, not someone who rubs you the wrong way, but someone you really loathe and detest — send that person a ticket for “Suicide Squad..

Suicide Squad amounts to an all-out attack on the whole idea of entertainment.

Just unpleasant from beginning to end.

A giant dumpster fire of perplexing plotting, erratic pacing, racial stereotypes and a problematic male gaze.

This is what happens when the comic book fanboys have taken over the asylum. It is damaged goods from the get-go, the kind of film grown in a petri dish in Hollywood.

To say that the movie loses the plot would not be strictly accurate, for that would imply that there was a plot to lose.

If I have not yet convinced you of the movie's astonishingly slipshod quality, I'm unlikely ever to do so.

Call DC Comics the Donald Trump of blockbusters..

A vapid, soulless, tedious and painfully boring blockbuster. A contender for one of the worst films of the year.

Revenge has seldom tasted so boring.

Nothing's perfect, or I would call this a perfect waste of time. ..if you have seen one of these, you have seen them all..

Seriously, "it wasn't the cast's fault" should be the epithet on the DC movie universe's tombstone.

If there is an original idea in its ugly little head, Suicide Squad conceals it better than Batman hides his cave.

It is (perhaps by default) probably the worst "big" DC Comics live-action movie since 'Catwoman.

It’s ugly and boring, a toxic combination that means the film’s highly fetishized violence doesn’t even have the exciting tingle of the wicked or the taboo....“Suicide Squad” is ultimately too shoddy and forgettable to even register as revolting. At least revolting would have been something.

Can't we go back to watching those cool Suicide Squad trailers and ignore this massive disappointment?

It's like looking forward to Christmas all year and then waking up on the big day to find Santa Claus sprawled out dead under your tree..

Suicide Squad is an exposition dump masquerading as a cinematic experience.

Suicide by movie for some soon-to-be A-list actors and for Will Smith who used to be one.

Forget “Batman v Superman” — at least it tried. This botch job makes “Fantastic Four” look good.

Everyone should just go watch something from the Criterion Collection, OK?

finally, some thoughts from john ostrander on critics and their supposed neutrality when "just doing their jobs" - while he himself isn't a critic, his late wife was, and he was around critics for a lot longer than you or me.

and no offense meant, but i choose to take his word over yours on this one.

My late wife, Kim Yale, was a movie critic for a while for a small suburban newspaper in the Chicago area and I went with her to some of the movie screenings. Don’t tell me that some of the critics didn’t come with pre-conceived attitudes to some films. I know better. I saw and heard it.

http://www.comicmix.com/2016/08/07/j...suicide-squad/

[Vanguard-01]

OK, let's see some of them.

1.)http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/s...nt?oid=7271082

2.) http://eclipsemagazine.com/movie-rev...eserve-better/

3.) http://nycmovieguru.com/aug5th16.html#suicidesquad

Not even ten minutes of searching.

Edit: Aaaand Aces just ninja'd the HELL out of my meager efforts on this front.

You don't have to just accept what I say, but you dismiss it without even considering it.

I read what you said. I didn't agree. That's all there is to it.

It may be the only thing that matters to you, but it's not to a lot of people, including WB.

WB cares about making a profit. Mission accomplished.

You keep coming back to this, and it's still nothing more than a distraction. You don't have to take my word for anything, and I'm not claiming you do. I'm offering actual arguments. You're offering your opinion backed up by nothing. If you really want support for anything I say, just ask. I just provided some to another user who did just that.

And yet you continue to say "I explained this to you, why can't you just see that I'm right?" That's not an argument. That's stating your own opinions as fact.

And even your "support" is just you posting articles that other people are posting in the ongoing effort to paint Suicide Squad's success in as negative a light as possible.

No. It's a success because it's going to make a profit and it's exceeding expectations. The way it's performing badly is in dropping more quickly than most other movies in the same situation.

Has it made back it's budget and then some? Then it's a success. "Success" equals "Good Performance."

Yet again, opening weekend isn't about critics; it's about marketing. You talk about my many posts saying the same thing, well it's because people like you just keep making these false claims without even listening to anything else. As I've said, this movie was tracking at $125 mil well before any reviews came out. It was always going to have a huge opening weekend. What happened after that is the relevant part here.

It had a huge opening weekend and it's CONTINUING to make money now. It made one fifth of it's money opening weekend. Then it made another four fifths after the "magical marketing spell" wore off on the people of the world. And it's not done making more money yet to come.

Those aren't false claims. Those are verifiable facts. They also happen to be the ONLY verifiable facts that businesses really care about. All these other arguments of yours are a secondary concern at best.

[Vegtam]

Its made 130 million dollars domestically since opening weekend. More than most movies have made all year. If opening weekend is about marketing why has it made 130 million in the states alone since then?

Because you're going to make at least a certain multiplier of your opening weekend. No movie is ever just going to drop off a cliff. If a movie opens at $133 mil, it would have to drop 80%, then 70%, etc. to not make any movie thereafter. Even then, it would still make $50-60 mil after opening. And that kind of drop just doesn't happen with a movie like this. Here is a list of the all-time biggest second-week drops:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm

A lot of them are lower-budget small movies. To pick out a few to give a bit of context, the Twilight movies all dropped 69-70%. X-Men: Last Stand dropped 67%. Compared to SS's 67.4% drop.

[Vegtam]

just a job? professionals in the industry disagree.

We already discussed that article. So, yes, in general, it's professionals doing a job. As he notes, some probably bring more to it than that, but that's not the norm.

really, because many of the statements i found from various critics "just doing their job" paint a drastically different picture..

No, they don't. Most of those quotes are just critics finding more interesting ways of saying what they thought. Critics are supposed to tell us what they thought. Them doing so in more than just "I didn't like it" terms is still just them telling us "I didn't like it".

finally, some thoughts from john ostrander on critics and their supposed neutrality when "just doing their jobs" - while he himself isn't a critic, his late wife was, so he does have intimate knowledge on the industry:



http://www.comicmix.com/2016/08/07/j...suicide-squad/

Cool, I'll read that later.

[AcesX1X]

No, they don't. Most of those quotes are just critics finding more interesting ways of saying what they thought. Critics are supposed to tell us what they thought. Them doing so in more than just "I didn't like it" terms is still just them telling us "I didn't like it".

you can say this in as many different ways as you like. it isn't going to convince me or anyone else that they were "just doing their jobs."

[GSwarthout]

Sure. There are a couple ways to go about it. First, I posted an article earlier where the writer talks about how SS will be one of the most front-loaded August releases in history. Unfortunately I can't find the article right now, and I don't have time to keep looking.

Second, here is the post from earlier where we went over the top ten August opening weekends and their final totals:



To put those percentages into multipliers, they start at 2.7 for Straight Outta Compton and range up to 3.5 for GotG. For comparison, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had a 22% from critics and 51% from audiences, and it still hit a multiplier of 2.94. We can keep going and look at other August releases, if you want, but this gives you a good idea at least to start.

EDIT: To take a closer look at another of those - Rise of Cobra has a 35% from critics and 50% from audiences and still had a 2.75 multiplier.

Ugh, maths. I hate to be a bother, but can you transcribe that into a range for me? I'm guessing you already did since you said it came on the low side of the range. I'm just curious what it is.

It may be the only thing that matters to you, but it's not to a lot of people, including WB.

This seems to be more information privy to you that us laymen don't have. Do you have contacts in WB? That would be so cool!

[inisideguy]

Because you're going to make at least a certain multiplier of your opening weekend. No movie is ever just going to drop off a cliff. If a movie opens at $133 mil, it would have to drop 80%, then 70%, etc. to not make any movie thereafter. Even then, it would still make $50-60 mil after opening. And that kind of drop just doesn't happen with a movie like this. Here is a list of the all-time biggest second-week drops:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/drops.htm

A lot of them are lower-budget small movies. To pick out a few to give a bit of context, the Twilight movies all dropped 69-70%. X-Men:so Last Stand dropped 67%. Compared to SS's 67.4% drop.

So the first 130 million are suckers for marketing. The next 170 million or so are zombie lemmings. Sigh ok.

[Vegtam]

Ugh, maths. I hate to be a bother, but can you transcribe that into a range for me? I'm guessing you already did since you said it came on the low side of the range. I'm just curious what it is.

Well, of those, the range starts at 2.7. That's why I brought up Straight Outta Compton. The top end of those is 3.5.

This seems to be more information privy to you that us laymen don't have. Do you have contacts in WB? That would be so cool!

No, it just comes from lolling at the data. WB will be happy with Suicide Squad but still a little concerned at another very front-loaded offering.