BIRDS OF PREY starring Margot Robbie (2020?) 1 1

[theCapraAegagrus]

7 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

"30 pairs"? Japan selling Robbie's used pantaloons...?

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

"30 pairs"? Japan selling Robbie's used pantaloons...?

Pairs of tickets, you goof.

[theCapraAegagrus]

9 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Pairs of tickets, you goof.

Damn. Literally the opposite spectrum of interest...

[RedRaven]

5 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

"30 pairs"? Japan selling Robbie's used pantaloons...?

Limited edition vending machine.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, RedRaven said:

Limited edition vending machine.

That's how they do it in Japan.

[jsilverjanet]

One thing I thought about is did they change Harleys look too much? Is that a factor? She looks at time like a mess. I get that she’s quirky but part of her appeal I think to both male and female audiences in suicide squad was her look. 

[@therealsilvermane]

41 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

One thing I thought about is did they change Harleys look too much? Is that a factor? She looks at time like a mess. I get that she’s quirky but part of her appeal I think to both male and female audiences in suicide squad was her look. 

I thought she looked better in Birds of Prey. Her "Daddy's Little Monster" t-shirt in Suicide Squad was a little too spot on, I thought.

[Chaos_in_Canada]

 

After 19 days,

JW2, $76,690,588 million

Adios to $90 million domestic BO.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

11 minutes ago, Chaos_in_Canada said:

 

A**gard.

Edited February 26, 2020 by theCapraAegagrus
Censors!

[Gatsby77]

So...If I rent this from Redbox for $2.12 for Easter, the studio cut is what? 50 cents?

[zhamlau]

The film marketed itself in such a way to make it seem like it would be another preachy bore fest. From Ewan's comments about the film being designed to stomp misogyny/toxic masculinity/patriarchy/whatever the buzz word is this week, to the marketing comments from Robbie about the redesigned costumes to reduce Harley's and others "male gaze" appeal. It was part of the marketing, no point denying it now. Those comments don't come in a vacuum. Heck If you make the original title have "emancipation" of a female character from a male one, you are telling your audience what this film will be about and what its themes/messages will be...

...And there is nothing wrong with that.I say more power to you as you "tell your truth'...just be prepared though because in doing so you're making a somewhat hostile marketing campaign that seems to be designed to aggressively make a stand against potentially tens of millions of men and women you are trying to sell to.

The film cost roughly 95 million dollars (some say 100, some say 85, 95 probably most accurate). They spent tens of millions more to marketing it world wide. That means that the film has to make around 300 million box office total (Variety's estimates, for what that's worth these days) for the studio cut to even cover costs. Right now it sits at 173 million world wide, its not gonna get much closer. That means a short fall of 127 million dollars below the break even point...that's hard to spin as anything short of bomb territory.

So why did it bomb? Was it a train-wreck of a film? No, by all accounts the movie was solid, decently well acted, and occasionally funny. Little poor on the directing/editing, but overall generally competent...Is Harley just an unlikable character that no one really wanted to see in a film? Probably not seeing as the studio changed the name to Harley Quinn after initial box office came in, hoping to promote the fact that it was for all intents and purposes a Harley vehicle (vroom vroom, pun intended). So why did it bomb? Was it because it was R rated? Doubtful, the last few R rated super hero films made bank. Besides this is a character who has murdered countless people with no remorse over multiple platforms spanning a generation or so. This aint Elsa or Anna this is Harley Quinn, amoral is part of the formula. Besides most of your buying public is 18+ year old men and women anyway, the rating isn't gonna scare them off.

I think it bombed for the reasons I said it would earlier, you cant go out insulting much of your fan-base and then expect them to show up and hand you cash to go see the film. Both men and women who are tired of hyper political/socially "think pieces" being marketed as mass entertainment, didn't spend the money to go see it. EVEN if the film didn't end up being completely about that, just the implication of that was enough to turn off huge sections of your buying public.

There's always of course an excuse or misdirection when this type of thing happens over, and over, and over again. From Ghostbusters to Terminator to now Harley (usually lead by the biggest shill Scott Mendelson and his cohorts) there's always a rationalization to justify the failure and hopefully set up the next seasons big politically tinted box-office-bomb. But this result, much like all Star Wars films since The Last Jedi, wasn't a big shock to me or anyone else paying attention. Until the infotainment complex understands that its buying public has more say then they did even 5 years ago, films like this will keep getting made and they will keep making studio folks lighter in the pocketbook.

 

P.S.

I think there is a smarter way to do this. If you want to make super political social commentary "entertainment", just be smart about it. Do it on a streaming service where people have already paid for the content before they see it. Additionally it has the other major bonus that critics cant see the viewership numbers (which works like box office on many levels) which would undermine the pieces impact by showing how few people actually want to watch it. Then you can bundle it with product people actually want to see, and you can get your ideology messaging across while not going broke at the same time..."win win"

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by zhamlau

[Bosco685]

7 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Spoiler

 

The film marketed itself in such a way to make it seem like it would be another preachy bore fest. From Ewan's comments about the film being designed to stomp misogyny/toxic masculinity/patriarchy/whatever the buzz word is this week, to the marketing comments from Robbie about the redesigned costumes to reduce Harley's and others "male gaze" appeal. It was part of the marketing, no point denying it now. Those comments don't come in a vacuum. Heck If you make the original title have "emancipation" of a female character from a male one, you are telling your audience what this film will be about and what its themes/messages will be...

...And there is nothing wrong with that.I say more power to you as you "tell your truth'...just be prepared though because in doing so you're making a somewhat hostile marketing campaign that seems to be designed to aggressively make a stand against potentially tens of millions of men and women you are trying to sell to.

 

The film cost roughly 95 million dollars (some say 100, some say 85, 95 probably most accurate). They spent tens of millions more to marketing it world wide. That means that the film has to make around 300 million box office total (Variety's estimates, for what that's worth these days) for the studio cut to even cover costs. Right now it sits at 173 million world wide, its not gonna get much closer. That means a short fall of 127 million dollars below the break even point...that's hard to spin as anything short of bomb territory.

Although you make some good points, this part of your opinions is way off. If you had seen the film, you would instantly realize no way did they spend more than the $81M to $85M reported by Deadline, the-Numbers, Box Office Mojo and even Forbes. There has been little deviation on that part of this production.

Massive marketing expense? Due to Margot Robbie being tied up with Once Upon Hollywood all the way into late January, and it being a low-budget film it is estimated to have a sub-$100M P&A budget ($50M to $80M), the big launch to promote the film didn't really go into high-gear until the Mexico City premiere. It is one of the biggest marketing complaints from fans on social media why they had to wait so long for more details about the film. Including the trailers that came in late as well on a film being released in February.

7 hours ago, zhamlau said:

Spoiler

So why did it bomb? Was it a train-wreck of a film? No, by all accounts the movie was solid, decently well acted, and occasionally funny. Little poor on the directing/editing, but overall generally competent...Is Harley just an unlikable character that no one really wanted to see in a film? Probably not seeing as the studio changed the name to Harley Quinn after initial box office came in, hoping to promote the fact that it was for all intents and purposes a Harley vehicle (vroom vroom, pun intended). So why did it bomb? Was it because it was R rated? Doubtful, the last few R rated super hero films made bank. Besides this is a character who has murdered countless people with no remorse over multiple platforms spanning a generation or so. This aint Elsa or Anna this is Harley Quinn, amoral is part of the formula. Besides most of your buying public is 18+ year old men and women anyway, the rating isn't gonna scare them off.

I think it bombed for the reasons I said it would earlier, you cant go out insulting much of your fan-base and then expect them to show up and hand you cash to go see the film. Both men and women who are tired of hyper political/socially "think pieces" being marketed as mass entertainment, didn't spend the money to go see it. EVEN if the film didn't end up being completely about that, just the implication of that was enough to turn off huge sections of your buying public.

Spoiler

 

There's always of course an excuse or misdirection when this type of thing happens over, and over, and over again. From Ghostbusters to Terminator to now Harley (usually lead by the biggest shill Scott Mendelson and his cohorts) there's always a rationalization to justify the failure and hopefully set up the next seasons big politically tinted box-office-bomb. But this result, much like all Star Wars films since The Last Jedi, wasn't a big shock to me or anyone else paying attention. Until the infotainment complex understands that its buying public has more say then they did even 5 years ago, films like this will keep getting made and they will keep making studio folks lighter in the pocketbook.

 

P.S.

I think there is a smarter way to do this. If you want to make super political social commentary "entertainment", just be smart about it. Do it on a streaming service where people have already paid for the content before they see it. Additionally it has the other major bonus that critics cant see the viewership numbers (which works like box office on many levels) which would undermine the pieces impact by showing how few people actually want to watch it. Then you can bundle it with product people actually want to see, and you can get your ideology messaging across while not going broke at the same time..."win win"

 

 

I think with this opinion you missed some of the details I shared earlier where there is a massive female movie-goer base that exceeds males in-general (all films). And even age-wise 13% of potential movie-goers are in the 12-17 age range.

But with DC and MCU films traditionally the attendance has been 55%-60% male, 40%-45% female. So assuming 'market to us more like before' and not tap into that massive female audience further to break the trend misses that opportunity.

The biggest misses here was an unnecessary R-rating cutting out all those young females that could have watched this film, cutting out key male characters that counter-balance the world of Harley (Joker, Batman) and the messaging about this film that even I was not a fan of what I was seeing until I finally went to see the film. Also, calling this 'Birds of Prey' jumped the gun as this would have been better to be that Gotham City Sirens it was originally going to be leading to BOP which comes together in the end.

The title overall was a risk with that zany-long approach. I get they were trying to play on how Harley sees the world and her attempt to break free of Joker. But it most probably confused people further what this film was about.

[Gatsby77]

10 hours ago, zhamlau said:

The film cost roughly 95 million dollars (some say 100, some say 85, 95 probably most accurate). They spent tens of millions more to marketing it world wide. That means that the film has to make around 300 million box office total (Variety's estimates, for what that's worth these days) for the studio cut to even cover costs. Right now it sits at 173 million world wide, its not gonna get much closer. That means a short fall of 127 million dollars below the break even point...that's hard to spin as anything short of bomb territory.

Bosco's correct here.

Multiple credible sources have said the film cost $97 million to produce, which was reduced to $84.5 million net after tax credits. Thus, the cost of the film is accurately reported as $84.5 million.

Likewise, total marketing costs for this film are far closer to $50 million than $100 million.

The point?

It doesn't require anything close to $300 million theatrical to break-even. The credible range for break-even is just $230 - $250 million theatrical.

Easiest formula for it to get there is to gross $90 million domestic and another $160 million overseas.

Unfortunately, it looks like it won't reach either of those numbers. But it's nowhere *near* on track to be a massive financial bomb for Warner Bros.

[Bosco685]

3 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Spoiler

 

Bosco's correct here.

Multiple credible sources have said the film cost $97 million to produce, which was reduced to $84.5 million net after tax credits. Thus, the cost of the film is accurately reported as $84.5 million.

Likewise, total marketing costs for this film are far closer to $50 million than $100 million.

The point?

It doesn't require anything close to $300 million theatrical to break-even. The credible range for break-even is just $230 - $250 million theatrical.

 

Easiest formula for it to get there is to gross $90 million domestic and another $160 million overseas.

Unfortunately, it looks like it won't reach either of those numbers. But it's nowhere *near* on track to be a massive financial bomb for Warner Bros.

Japan will have to explode to Joker-level results ($46.7M). That's a high bar to set. But hard to say now what that market will do. It was a diminishing returns market for Spider-Man until just recently when it popped slightly.

[drotto]

7 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

 

The biggest misses here was an unnecessary R-rating cutting out all those young females that could have watched this film, cutting out key male characters that counter-balance the world of Harley (Joker, Batman) and the messaging about this film that even I was not a fan of what I was seeing until I finally went to see the film. Also, calling this 'Birds of Prey' jumped the gun as this would have been better to be that Gotham City Sirens it was originally going to be leading to BOP which comes together in the end.

The title overall was a risk with that zany-long approach. I get they were trying to play on how Harley sees the world and her attempt to break free of Joker. But it most probably confused people further what this film was about.

I think this is spot on.  I really think they missed a massive opportunity to make a PG 13 Gothem City Sirens.  Giving the general audience three high profile female characters as a team, seems like a no brainer. Catwoman being viewed more as an anti-hero would have provided some of the counterbalance that you mention by not including Batman. They could have dabbled with some of the bisexuality that is already well established between Harely and Ivy. I think that mix would result in a better balanced story, that would not all hinge on one character. 

 

Really the biggest obstacle I could see with a GSC is the casting having a large effect on future DCEU films.  The Batman filming has its Catwoman, do you use Kravitz or or go with someone else.  Is that movie even in the same universe,  and DC's castings with the Arrowverse is already confusing enough.

 

BoP really makes me question, who was making the decisions on characters included, plotting, costuming, etc. Not to say this was a bad film,  but it seems Margo Robbie was making too many decisions aimed at her desires, and promoting her career rather than doing what was best overall. She wanted HQ as the star so she took lesser known characters and actresses as not to be overshadowed.  She wanted a different look so swung the costume from to sexualized ( remember she hated the costume) to odd gold potatoe sack.  I think WB gave her too much control, as shown by how SS2 seems to be retooling HQ again to something in the middle.

[zhamlau]

8 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Although you make some good points, this part of your opinions is way off. If you had seen the film, you would instantly realize no way did they spend more than the $81M to $85M reported by Deadline, the-Numbers, Box Office Mojo and even Forbes. There has been little deviation on that part of this production.

Massive marketing expense? Due to Margot Robbie being tied up with Once Upon Hollywood all the way into late January, and it being a low-budget film it is estimated to have a sub-$100M P&A budget ($50M to $80M), the big launch to promote the film didn't really go into high-gear until the Mexico City premiere. It is one of the biggest marketing complaints from fans on social media why they had to wait so long for more details about the film. Including the trailers that came in late as well on a film being released in February.

I think with this opinion you missed some of the details I shared earlier where there is a massive female movie-goer base that exceeds males in-general (all films). And even age-wise 13% of potential movie-goers are in the 12-17 age range.

But with DC and MCU films traditionally the attendance has been 55%-60% male, 40%-45% female. So assuming 'market to us more like before' and not tap into that massive female audience further to break the trend misses that opportunity.

The biggest misses here was an unnecessary R-rating cutting out all those young females that could have watched this film, cutting out key male characters that counter-balance the world of Harley (Joker, Batman) and the messaging about this film that even I was not a fan of what I was seeing until I finally went to see the film. Also, calling this 'Birds of Prey' jumped the gun as this would have been better to be that Gotham City Sirens it was originally going to be leading to BOP which comes together in the end.

The title overall was a risk with that zany-long approach. I get they were trying to play on how Harley sees the world and her attempt to break free of Joker. But it most probably confused people further what this film was about.

I was basing a lot of the 100 million off rival studio executives estimates from an article by variety, maybe your right maybe they are we can’t know. As for marketing budget all I said was tens of millions of dollars, you would seem to agree with that assessment (and to me an 80 million dollar marketing campaign is massive, it’s only modest compared to MCU blockbuster type movies but it’s still money they have to factor in.

Also for comic book movies, isn’t the demographic mostly male? We can’t compare all movies to this, we have to compare comic book Movies (in particular R-rated ones if being honest) to find what should have been expected.  I think this was 56-44 split? That’s in line with most comic book movies. Men and women it just seems equally didn’t want to see it.

In general it seems like we agree on most points beyond truly unknowable cost estimates and if we should consider the audience split of general films (including the demo adjust made when factoring only movies like Little Women and Frozen) or if we count it against its peers, comic book movies.

[Bosco685]

12 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

I was basing a lot of the 100 million off rival studio executives estimates from an article by variety, maybe your right maybe they are we can’t know. As for marketing budget all I said was tens of millions of dollars, you would seem to agree with that assessment (and to me an 80 million dollar marketing campaign is massive, it’s only modest compared to MCU blockbuster type movies but it’s still money they have to factor in.

Also for comic book movies, isn’t the demographic mostly male? We can’t compare all movies to this, we have to compare comic book Movies (in particular R-rated ones if being honest) to find what should have been expected.  I think this was 56-44 split? That’s in line with most comic book movies. Men and women it just seems equally didn’t want to see it.

In general it seems like we agree on most points beyond truly unknowable cost estimates and if we should consider the audience split of general films (including the demo adjust made when factoring only movies like Little Women and Frozen) or if we count it against its peers, comic book movies.

It was a trolling article written from a biased perspective before seeing the film. If you actually saw Birds of Prey, you would laugh at someone saying rival studio executives noted elaborate sets and extensive CGI. AND, it depends on which Variety article contributor you quote, and how consistent they are with their reporting. Dave McNary changed figures three times.

Variety: Birds of Prey (January 16, 2020)

Quote

“Birds of Prey” is directed by Cathy Yan from a -script by Christina Hodson. Robbie, who originated the idea, is a producer along with Bryan Unkeless and Sue Kroll. The film carries a reported price tag of $97 million.

Variety: Birds of Prey (February 7, 2020)

Quote

“Birds of Prey,” which carries a reported $80 million price tag, touched down with $4 million on Thursday night. Reviews have been strong, earning the film a 84% rating on Rotten Tomatoes — a reversal from “Suicide Squad’s” 27%.

Then Rebecca Rubin stepped in with her 'insights".

Variety: Birds of Prey (February 10, 2020)

Quote

“Birds of Prey” cost a reported $82 million to produce, with executives at rival studios putting that number as closer to $100 million (due to elaborate sets and CGI), and estimating the film needs to make around $100 million domestically and $300 million globally to break even.

So 'Variety' depends on which contributor you are reading, and what figure they now want to claim.

As far as comic book films being an extensive boys game, Wonder Woman addressed that myth even more than Captain Marvel achieved with its traditional MCU male-heavy attendance (52% Female, 48% Male).

Which also surpassed the average theater market estimate for 2017 of Female to Male potential movie-goer ratio.

So if studios can land the right comic book genre production that appeals to female audiences, the results can be quite eye-opening.

[paperheart]

one more time before this disappears, chart looks like BOP caught the coronavirus

https://www.hsx.com/security/view/GOTCS

[Gatsby77]

But will it finish domestically at or above it's $84.5 million production cost??

Will lose lots of screens next weekend because one of the three wide releases is The Way Back, the Ben Affleck sports drama, from Warner Bros.

[kimik]

3 hours ago, paperheart said:

one more time before this disappears, chart looks like BOP caught the coronavirus

https://www.hsx.com/security/view/GOTCS

I am curious to see what happens to box office totals as COVID-19 spreads globally.