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

[nightrider]

Because they're important to studios, especially regarding cinematic universes whose movies rely on each other to keep hype high. They're a good indication of how audiences actually feel about the movie.

And it's going to stop from making another sequel? Or what?

[nightrider]

I've answered this the past few posts. A movie drops from opening weekend by percentages. The worst drop in second weekend for a movie like this was Harry Potter 7 at 72%. The Twilight movies dropped 69-70% their second weekend. A movie's third weekend is going to be a percentage of its first weekend. Movies don't just drop to nothing, no matter how bad the reception is. Once it opened with $133 mil, it was guaranteed to hit at least something like $17 mil its third weekend just because anything else would be unheard of. Even $17 mil would be one of the worst performances ever.

Wow then I guess the huge drop for twilight and Harry potter movies really stopped the studios from creating another sequel. It surely was a good gauge of how the audiences feel about the movie. Oh wait, they extended and made 1 more movie to milk from the franchise. Weird, didn't audiences hate it?

[AcesX1X]

I realize it's not going to convince people who have already convinced themselves . . . .

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

you've still yet to produce anything to back up your claim that these critics were "just doing their jobs," by the way.

what's your basis for that claim? because i've provided a historical example with dc films where critics were absolutely not "doing their jobs" and then got in trouble for it.

what do you suppose all those critics figured would happen if they all called suicide squad a "dumpster fire" "worse than catwoman?"

[Vegtam]

So it doesn't further their cinematic universe because it didn't make another $50+ million? It's money that determines whether a film furthers it cinematic universe and there's a quantifiable point at which that can be determined??

It didn't further the universe because of the bad reception, evidenced by the large drops. That doesn't mean the universe isn't going to continue. It means this movie didn't do anything to help it.

Sounds reasonable, though worth noting that both 0% and 100% are percentages.

Yes, they are, and neither of them is a percentage a movie drops after opening weekend.

Hasn't happened so it can't happen is circular logic, but let's ignore that for now.

Let's not. Whether or not it's circular logic is irrelevant, since it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it hasn't happened even with bad movies that got very bad receptions even from general audiences. Even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles with a 22% from critics and 51% from audiences only dropped 56%. The point is, if this movie dropped more than 72%, it would be pretty much unprecedented.

Are you saying that if it had gotten the kind of critical reception that Fantfourstik had gotten, it still would have gotten "at least something like $17 mil its third weekend" just because of its opening weekend numbers?

I'm saying that no matter what reception it got, it would have hit something like $17 mil at a minimum on its third weekend. Fantastic Four dropped 68% and then almost 56%. SS dropped 67% and then 52%. Even if it dropped like FF did, it would still have made $18.7 mil.

[Vegtam]

And yet you've spent nearly 200 posts preaching nothing but the Gospel of Legs.

You can understand how this sends mixed signals, yes?

Only if you aren't actually reading what I'm writing.

The fact that you've been carrying on about legs for almost 200 posts leads me to think that you seem to believe that this is a vital issue for the health of the movie and DCEU as a whole.

If it wasn't that big a deal, it wouldn't be worth that much of an investment of time and energy.

Hence? I tend to believe you don't think that legs are such a secondary issue.

Then you're still wrong. It is an important aspect for the DCEU. For a standalone movie, it doesn't mean much. If Suicide Squad was meant as a one-off not connected to anything else, the legs would be interesting but not very important. The only reason I keep harping on it is because people like you keep dismissing it.

And yet these three "legless" movies brought in more money than Marvel did in FIVE movies. So I'm really not seeing the problem here.

Only if you cherry-pick the Marvel movies. I could just as easily say Marvel brought in more money in two movies than DC has in three. And you're not seeing the problem because you're still focusing solely on total box office. Again, that is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing.

First? "Mediocre-to-bad movies" is just your opinion. Plenty of people here will say that they're good movies.

It's my opinion and the opinion of a large portion, possibly even a majority of people who saw the movies.

Second? For a guy who's so confident that the DCEU is doing well and capable of rivaling Marvel, you spend an AWFUL lot of time dwelling on this one issue like it's a sign of impending doom. (That is, to say, you've spent literally ALL your time on this one issue.)

I've spent all my time on this issue because I agree with everyone on all the other issues but people keep rejecting this one.

[Vegtam]

you've still yet to produce anything to back up your claim that these critics were "just doing their jobs," by the way.

You've yet to produce anything to show they weren't doing their jobs, by the way. They're professional critics, so it's up to you to show that they went beyond writing their opinions of the movie.

what's your basis for that claim? because i've provided a historical example with dc films where critics were absolutely not "doing their jobs" and then got in trouble for it.

"Critics", meaning a few people. There are over 200 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for Suicide Squad. Thee Mark Hughes article didn't say the Dark Knight thing was widespread, just that there were critics who engaged in it.

what do you suppose all those critics figured would happen if they all called suicide squad a "dumpster fire" "worse than catwoman?"

They figured they'd get more hits on their reviews than if they just said "This movie was not good".

[Vegtam]

Wow then I guess the huge drop for twilight and Harry potter movies really stopped the studios from creating another sequel. It surely was a good gauge of how the audiences feel about the movie. Oh wait, they extended and made 1 more movie to milk from the franchise. Weird, didn't audiences hate it?

We've been over this. They still made money, and they were part of a series with a set ending. Unless they started losing money, they were going to see it through.

However this is beside the point, but this is what keeps happening. You take one point and make it about something else. The point there was what happens with movies after opening weekend, and how even big movies that have huge drop-offs don't drop more than 72% in their second weekends.

[brettc1]

And you're not seeing the problem because you're still focusing solely on total box office. Again, that is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing.

Hmmm.

This sounds like winning a gold medal and then feeling sad you didn't get silver and bronze too.

[Vanguard-01]

Then you're still wrong. It is an important aspect for the DCEU. For a standalone movie, it doesn't mean much. If Suicide Squad was meant as a one-off not connected to anything else, the legs would be interesting but not very important. The only reason I keep harping on it is because people like you keep dismissing it.

That's because I have yet to hear anyone from DC or WB talking about being worried about legs. If it was such an important issue, you'd think they'd acknowledge that there's a problem there and state that they're working on it.

You do, however, frequently hear studio executives talking about how much money a movie made at the box office. That is clearly an important issue to them.

Only if you cherry-pick the Marvel movies. I could just as easily say Marvel brought in more money in two movies than DC has in three. And you're not seeing the problem because you're still focusing solely on total box office. Again, that is the most important thing, but it's not the only thing.

Nope. No cherry picking.

DC made $2 billion in three movies. Marvel needed to make five movies to get to that much. It's not about taking any combination of movies and making them equal $2billion dollars. If that counted, then I could just as easily hold up the Nolan Trilogy as proof of DC's triumph.

I've spent all my time on this issue because I agree with everyone on all the other issues but people keep rejecting this one.

And do you really think that another post is going to magically change our minds? How about another 200?

You've stated your opinion: you think legs are an important issue for which we, and DC/WB, should be concerned. We have stated our opinion: we don't agree. You have tried for nearly 200 posts to convince us that you're right. It hasn't worked. We are allowed to disagree with you, and no combination of words or articles from you have done much to win anyone over.

There comes a time when you have to just acknowledge that other people are allowed to disagree with you and just move on. That's what I'm going to do.

[inisideguy]

One thing I have noticed regarding this franchise is there seems to be some posters who are just unwilling to see that this franchise is still new. And to not see other successful franchises that have grown. Fast and Furious is the prototypical franchise for this. That franchise had ups and downs and actually some major ones. Started off well then dipped then dipped again with tokyo drift majorly. Then came back again and is now a billion dollar franchise. 7 movies now with 4 billion in box office. And now it shows no signs of slowing down. Many of these movies had large drops. It didnt mean anything in the long run. Because it was building a brand. Now whether people like that brand or not is a personal choice. But to not be able to see that a major brand is building here even if the first movies are not critically praised is just being silly. Three of those in the middle were critically ravaged. Then bam the critics started liking them. But critic reviews or drops never slowed the franchise down. They just kept chugging along.

[AcesX1X]

"Critics", meaning a few people. There are over 200 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for Suicide Squad. Thee Mark Hughes article didn't say the Dark Knight thing was widespread, just that there were critics who engaged in it.

yet it's still historical context. which is certainly more than you have been able to provide, and really all i am looking for from you beyond your 'belief-in-faith' insistence that these critics were "just doing their jobs."

for the record, i'm not the one who made a claim that critics were "just doing their jobs." that was you. that is your claim. which is fine for you to make. but be prepared to defend it with more than a repeated statement.

because in fact, we know of several examples where they do not do their jobs. here's another:

2013′s The Lone Ranger suffered a prolonged negative narrative that began when the film was still in production, and that bad buzz turned into outright hostility in the press. Reviews didn’t just disapprove of the film, they acted offended at its very existence. Online reviewers in particular engaged in a game of one-upsmanship to see who could write a snarkier headline or pull-quote bashing the film. Similar such things have happened before, when the first many reviews set the tone and the rest of the press are afraid to deviate too far from the established “official artistic sensibilities” of that narrative..

so in the case of critics "just do their jobs," we have multiple people within the industry (not anonymous internet posters) who have verified both personal preconception influencing professional reviews and outright sabotage schemes using their own experience plus real-life historical events that can be searched by anyone with access to google and a means to do so.

and just a reminder, when one makes a claim -- in your case, "critics just do their jobs" -- it is up to that person to make a case for that claim, not everyone else to prove that claim to be true.

in your case, you've stated multiple times critics were just "doing their jobs." i disagree on this, and i've provided a slew of negative statements about the film that go beyond standard negativity and into the realm of abusive language. not only that, but i've now provided not one, but two examples where the media made a collected and concentrated effort to damage public perception of a film.

so tell me, why should i -- why should anyone -- take you at your word when you say critics were "just doing their jobs" in this case? what have you provided beyond your own assertions? further, what credentials do you carry to speak with any authority on this matter whatsoever?

in this case, i'll take the word of mark hughes (a respected journalist) and john ostrander (a respected author and widow of a professional film critic) over yours. but once again, you are free to make your case on this matter if you disagree.

lastly, for emphasis:

The point being, it not only happens but happens frequently enough we can point to multiple occurrences of major historic import within any several-year period. And it happens in less historic, more mundane ways on a far more frequent basis.

[Vegtam]

That's because I have yet to hear anyone from DC or WB talking about being worried about legs. If it was such an important issue, you'd think they'd acknowledge that there's a problem there and state that they're working on it.

You do, however, frequently hear studio executives talking about how much money a movie made at the box office. That is clearly an important issue to them.

The movie is successful. Why would you hear them insult their own movie? Of course they're not going to bring up the problems with the movie, as long as it's successful overall. They're going to do the old "We're very happy with this and how exciting it makes the future of the DCEU!", because they want to focus on the positive and keep everyone else doing the same.

Nope. No cherry picking.

Yup, cherry-picking. You chose to compare to the first few Marvel movies, when we all know that's not a good comparison.

DC made $2 billion in three movies. Marvel needed to make five movies to get to that much. It's not about taking any combination of movies and making them equal $2billion dollars. If that counted, then I could just as easily hold up the Nolan Trilogy as proof of DC's triumph.

It is about taking a particular combination of movies. As I pointed out, I could take two Marvel movies and show how they made more than the 3 DC ones so far. But let me also just explain why it's such a terrible comparison between these and Marvel's first few:

DC's first two including Superman and Batman, two characters who have been a huge part of pop culture for many decades, partly because they've been on TV and in movies many times before. Marvel's characters weren't much of a part of pop culture because only one of them had ever appeared onscreen before (Hulk). They had to start from the ground up. Before then, you would never have possibly expected a Captain America or Iron Man movie to compete with Superman or Batman. So, when you compare the DCEU movies to the Marvel ones that are more appropriate, the comparison tips in Marvel's favor.

And do you really think that another post is going to magically change our minds? How about another 200?

No, but it has to be said anyway.

You've stated your opinion: you think legs are an important issue for which we, and DC/WB, should be concerned. We have stated our opinion: we don't agree. You have tried for nearly 200 posts to convince us that you're right. It hasn't worked. We are allowed to disagree with you, and no combination of words or articles from you have done much to win anyone over.

There comes a time when you have to just acknowledge that other people are allowed to disagree with you and just move on. That's what I'm going to do.

Farewell then. It's OK to disagree. The only difference is I have backed up my points with data, logic and sources. If you still disagree, so be it.

[Vegtam]

yet it's still historical context. which is certainly more than you have been able to provide, and really all i am looking for from you beyond your 'belief-in-faith' insistence that these critics were "just doing their jobs."

for the record, i'm not the one who made a claim that critics were "just doing their jobs." that was you. that is your claim. which is fine for you to make. but be prepared to defend it with more than a repeated statement.

because in fact, we know of several examples where they do not do their jobs. here's another:

It's one situation. That doesn't mean it's widespread all the time. It means it happened with a few critics one time. The Lone Ranger is not the situation you're talking about. That's a matter of something getting bad press and then it snowballing. If your only point is that Suicide Squad got harsher reviews than it deserved, then maybe, maybe not. Some of the ones you posted were certainly over the top. But that's not what the argument was before. It was about critics actually wanting the movie to fail and caring how it did financially. You haven't shown that at all.

so in the case of critics "just do their jobs," we have multiple people within the industry (not anonymous internet posters) who have verified both personal preconception influencing professional reviews and outright sabotage schemes using their own experience plus real-life historical events that can be searched by anyone with access to google and a means to do so.

and just a reminder, when one makes a claim -- in your case, "critics just do their jobs" -- it is up to that person to make a case for that claim, not everyone else to prove that claim to be true.

in your case, you've stated multiple times critics were just "doing their jobs." i disagree on this, and i've provided a slew of negative statements about the film that go beyond standard negativity and into the realm of abusive language. not only that, but i've now provided not one, but two examples where the media made a collected and concentrated effort to damage public perception of a film.

so tell me, why should i -- why should anyone -- take you at your word when you say critics were "just doing their jobs" in this case? what have you provided beyond your own assertions? further, what credentials do you carry to speak with any authority on this matter whatsoever?

in this case, i'll take the word of mark hughes (a respected journalist) and john ostrander (a respected author and widow of a professional film critic) over yours. but once again, you are free to make your case on this matter if you disagree.

lastly, for emphasis:

Critics are professional movie reviewers. Unless you have something that shows that they in general go beyond just reviewing movies based on their standards and tastes, then the default is that they're just doing their jobs. It's not up to me to prove critics are just doing their jobs. It's up to you to prove your claim that they're not. You haven't done that. All you've done is post a few excerpts or headlines from reviews that you don't like because they insult a movie you like. Showing a critic calling something a dumpster fire is not showing him "not just doing his job". His job is to write reviews that get attention. His employer wants people to actually read his reviews, and he wants that too. So, saying "it was bad" in a more colorful way is still just doing his job.

There are 284 reviews counted on Rottentomatoes. Show me that some significant percentage did more than use colorful language to say "it's bad". Also, check out some other movies that got bad reviews and see how those reviews were stated. You'll probably find a lot of the same kinds of comments about them.

[GSwarthout]

It's my opinion and the opinion of a large portion, possibly even a majority of people who saw the movies.

Your opinion, yes. A large portion, very likely. A majority of people, demonstrably false.

[GSwarthout]

I'm saying that no matter what reception it got, it would have hit something like $17 mil at a minimum on its third weekend.

Okay, so you're saying that critics don't matter (or only matter slightly). You'll notice that this is the exact opposite of your original position. Sorry to have Perry Masoned you.