Birds of Prey BoP Box Office Thread

[Mysteryman]

‘Birds Of Prey’ Hatching Around $4M+ On Thursday Night – Deadline

That's good, right?

 

[SomeOldGuy]

That's good, right?

Kind of a “meh.” Deadline has a habit of being over optimistic. I’m hoping it’s closer to 5. We’ll see.

 

[Greenlite]

wonder what Scott Mendelson's comparisons are like

 

[Invader Joker]

If this movie doesn't hit 400 million in the same way Shazam didn't, DC is really gonna have to reconsider their strategy. Barely making a profit puts you on very shaky ground that basically guarantees you're gonna have a massive flop at some point.

 

[TMP98]

If this movie doesn't hit 400 million in the same way Shazam didn't, DC is really gonna have to reconsider their strategy. Barely making a profit puts you on very shaky ground that basically guarantees you're gonna have a massive flop at some point.

These movies are also critically acclaimed and don't cost a **** ton though. If WW84 does poorly then it's cause for concern

 

[Invader Joker]

Eh. I still feel it's very shaky ground for a comic book movie to be making numbers that low nowadays, especially seeing how much money Deadpool made. That goes for both BoP and Shazam.

 

[psylockolussus]

Well the budget is $85 million, though I just don't know how content WB is gonna be if like let's say it earned around $130 to $160 million in the States, and this is me assuming that it won't have big drops. I feel like with Wb there's just zero certainty with their Dc movies. They are still all over the place imo, I feel like Aquaman 2 shouldn't be released 4 years after the 1st one, Joker was supposed to be a 1 off but it isn't now, and what do they intend to do with the next Suicide squad and The Flash after they are released? And the fact that they are working with so many Dc ips for a movie adaptation is not necessarily a good thing.

With the goodwill from Joker, it should open quite big, at least 80 million. Crazy how Suicide Squad opened with $133 million and this one might not gross half of that in 3 days.

 

[Invader Joker]

The R rating was a mistake, I stand by that. Back when Suicide Squad released I noticed A LOT of 11-17 year olds were cosplaying as the Joker and Harley and such, for whatever reason the character is very appealing to teens.

 

[Moncton]

In today's comic book marketplace, Harley's popularity, and rave reviews, it this does not hit at least $500 million something has gone wrong. For me, it was the marketing, including trailers. The movie quite frankly seemed stupid

 

[Invader Joker]

The marketing + R rating is my guess.

 

[psylockolussus]

And I think Suicide Squad being a terrible movie is also a factor as Harley Quinn was very visible in that.

 

[Invader Joker]

With the marketing part, I feel I should add the asterisk that I feel the aesthetic of the movie also plays a part on a potential underperformance.

It's like Suicide Squad but it's somehow even more trashy.

Speaking for myself if it wasn't for the aesthetic I might see it but it's a gigantic turn off for me, and I feel for a lot of other people it is as well. It's not like Joker where everyone could at least agree it visually looked pretty amazing and intriguing.

Actually, come to think of it, that might have affected Shazam as well, but in that case the suit being the main thing to blame instead of the art direction, it made the movie look like a cheap spoof.

 

[Moncton]

They should have called the movie "Harley Quinn", Birds of prey is just not a buzzy sounding title. And the drastic costume change did not help, I know many people who are not even aware that a Harley film is out. Their ace was Harley and the opportunity was there to have many girls/women wanting to see this

 

[TMP98]

Well the budget is $85 million, though I just don't know how content WB is gonna be if like let's say it earned around $130 to $160 million in the States, and this is me assuming that it won't have big drops. I feel like with Wb there's just zero certainty with their Dc movies. They are still all over the place imo, I feel like Aquaman 2 shouldn't be released 4 years after the 1st one, Joker was supposed to be a 1 off but it isn't now, and what do they intend to do with the next Suicide squad and The Flash after they are released? And the fact that they are working with so many Dc ips for a movie adaptation is not necessarily a good thing.

With the goodwill from Joker, it should open quite big, at least 80 million. Crazy how Suicide Squad opened with $133 million and this one might not gross half of that in 3 days.

There’s no Joker 2 coming though?

 

[Invader Joker]

There’s no Joker 2 coming though?

lol. Todd and Joaquin have entertained the idea so much at this point I have no doubt it's going to happen. Literally every time they're asked, instead of shutting down the possibility completely, they toy around with it saying "Well... if it's the right story, there are things to tell" and yada yada. Maybe in 2 years, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 10, but it's gonna happen.

 

[psylockolussus]

There’s no Joker 2 coming though?

Well I'm sure Wb saw a lot of dollar signs after its opening weekend and especially when it hit a billion, and quickly discarded what they said about the movie being a stand alone 1 off. Even if Joker 2 takes 5 years or longer.

 

[Invader Joker]

They should have called the movie "Harley Quinn", Birds of prey is just not a buzzy sounding title. And the drastic costume change did not help, I know many people who are not even aware that a Harley film is out. Their ace was Harley and the opportunity was there to have many girls/women wanting to see this

Harley's yellow jumpsuit is awful compared to the outfit in Suicide Squad (which I didn't like either) and I don't mean just in terms of sex appeal, I mean just in terms of... being something that looks good lol. It doesn't feel nearly as iconic as that outfit, as much as I disliked it, I can see why girls were super into it and her general aesthetic. Here she looks like a mess, which I guess it's the point but idk, they could've gone with something a bit better.

 

[psylockolussus]

Harley's yellow jumpsuit is awful compared to the outfit in Suicide Squad (which I didn't like either) and I don't mean just in terms of sex appeal, I mean just in terms of... being something that looks good lol. It doesn't feel nearly as iconic as that outfit, as much as I disliked it, I can see why girls were super into it and her general aesthetic. Here she looks like a mess, which I guess it's the point but idk, they could've gone with something a bit better.

I think whoever was the costume designer of this film, just picked what he/she wanted and didnt really look at the comics or past adaptations of the 5 female characters for inspiration.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Heh. Some of ya'll really like to move them goal posts, especially without even seeing the damn thing first or even waiting for legit numbers to come. This was really fun watch, will give it another rewatch in about week. I just want to see a sequel.

 

[Invader Joker]

I think whoever was the costume designer of this film, just picked what he/she wanted and didnt really look at the comics or past adaptations of the 5 female characters for inspiration.

I think it's not even that, because even while doing their own thing they can still make something visually appealing.

It's just that the designs for this film are... not that lol. Heck, the other day a ladyfriend of mine was complaining to me about how terrible Harley's hair looked.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the outfit Harley was wearing in Suicide Squad but compared to the jumpsuit I can see now why people really liked it. I just don't see that same sort of passion for a design of a jumpsuit, and I feel that Black Canary's design is even worse. It's fine to not make completely comic book accurate costumes, but at least make them cool. Joker wasn't comic book accurate at all but it looked interesting and cool.

I like Huntress outfit tho.


And now I just got thinking...
What do Shazam and this film have in common that'd make them both underperform even though they both received great reviews?
Well, they're both directed by essentially newcomer directors that really only became active , both of which were given free reign to do whatever they wanted.

Perhaps DC should rethink this whole "give every director 100% creative control". I'm in favor of directors having the much creative control as possible, but you kinda have to see who you're giving it to.

James Wan: It makes sense to give him full creative control. He's more than experienced and his track record speaks for itself.
Todd Phillips: It also makes sense to give him full creative control in Joker. Again, he's extremely experienced and while the Hangover movies were not masterpieces, they made bank.
Matt Reeves: Makes sense to give him full creative control in The Batman. Been around the industry a long time, made 2 critically acclaimed succesful blockbusters, and Cloverfield made a ****load of money.
Patty Jenkins: Makes sense to give her creative control, she's been around the industry a long time, although even then she still had Geoff Johns around for the first Wonder Woman.

I'm not saying take creative control completely away from not as experienced directors, Shazam and this movie obviously did something right if they're getting great reviews, so the stories themselves and the pacing and character building are probably not the problem, but when you have directors that are not as experienced and you put them working on these films that while low budget for the genre are still bigger and more complex than anything they did before, I think it'd be wise to kinda guide them a little bit more to ensure the audience gets intrigued by the films and actually see them. The reason Marvel thrives on hiring nobodies as their directors is because they guide them through the process, they help them very closely to cast, to design, etc.

 

[Vlyse]

Speaking for myself if it wasn't for the aesthetic I might see it but it's a gigantic turn off for me, and I feel for a lot of other people it is as well.

My mind completely changed about the R-rating after seeing it. This movie earned its R and then some.

 

[TMP98]

I think it's not even that, because even while doing their own thing they can still make something visually appealing.

It's just that the designs for this film are... not that lol. Heck, the other day a ladyfriend of mine was complaining to me about how terrible Harley's hair looked.

Like I said, I'm not a fan of the outfit Harley was wearing in Suicide Squad but compared to the jumpsuit I can see now why people really liked it. I just don't see that same sort of passion for a design of a jumpsuit, and I feel that Black Canary's design is even worse. It's fine to not make completely comic book accurate costumes, but at least make them cool. Joker wasn't comic book accurate at all but it looked interesting and cool.

I like Huntress outfit tho.


And now I just got thinking...
What do Shazam and this film have in common that'd make them both underperform even though they both received great reviews?
Well, they're both directed by essentially newcomer directors that really only became active , both of which were given free reign to do whatever they wanted.

Perhaps DC should rethink this whole "give every director 100% creative control". I'm in favor of directors having the much creative control as possible, but you kinda have to see who you're giving it to.

James Wan: It makes sense to give him full creative control. He's more than experienced and his track record speaks for itself.
Todd Phillips: It also makes sense to give him full creative control in Joker. Again, he's extremely experienced and while the Hangover movies were not masterpieces, they made bank.
Matt Reeves: Makes sense to give him full creative control in The Batman. Been around the industry a long time, made 2 critically acclaimed succesful blockbusters, and Cloverfield made a ****load of money.
Patty Jenkins: Makes sense to give her creative control, she's been around the industry a long time, although even then she still had Geoff Johns around for the first Wonder Woman.

I'm not saying take creative control completely away from not as experienced directors, Shazam and this movie obviously did something right if they're getting great reviews, so the stories themselves and the pacing and character building are probably not the problem, but when you have directors that are not as experienced and you put them working on these films that while low budget for the genre are still bigger and more complex than anything they did before, I think it'd be wise to kinda guide them a little bit more to ensure the audience gets intrigued by the films and actually see them. The reason Marvel thrives on hiring nobodies as their directors is because they guide them through the process, they help them very closely to cast, to design, etc.

Lmao why would you campaign to support stifling creative freedom. The only reason this film and Shazam! work is because they have their own distinct voices in a genre that’s pretty over-crowded and filled with movies that could be seen as interchangeable with one another.

 

[Invader Joker]

Lmao why would you campaign to support stifling creative freedom. The only reason this film and Shazam! work is because they have their own distinct voices in a genre that’s pretty over-crowded and filled with movies that could be seen as interchangeable with one another.

And they underperfomed.
Like I said, I'm not saying take away the freedom entirely from the hands of newcomer directors, but just kinda put your foot when it comes to some stuff, or at least help the filmmakers or give them more notes. I'm not saying re-edit their movies like they did with Suicide Squad and Justice League, but just... raise your voice a little bit more to certain things.

When it comes to more experienced directors then sure, let them do whatever the **** they want, they know the game, they know how to play it and how to make money while telling the stories they wanna tell.

But Sandberg and Cathy Yan literally just became active in 2010 making mostly small movies until suddenly they're given these IPs. Did they make good movies? Yeah.
Did Shazam underperform? It did.
Is BoP appareantly set to underperform? Yeah, although I'd be more than glad to eat my words if it does 400-500 million dollars.
Case in point, the directors with the most experience were given full creative freedom (Todd, Wan and Jenkins) and they turned out movies that got good reviews and made 800 million-1 billion dollars.
And the directors with the least experience (Sandberg and Yan) were given full creative freedom and they turned out movies that got good reviews but are appareantly gonna make 300-400 million dollars. There's a pattern here.

 

[DlAMONDZ]

WB just needs to do better. DC is all over the place box office wise because the movies don't play off each other (unless they're direct sequels like BvS and JL)

Put these movies under an official label and start marketing them under said label. It's why Marvel is able to sell bottom of the barrel characters

 

[Black Narcissus]

Unperformed doesn't mean bombing tho. What, you think WB and co' are just going to make a sequel to Shazam out of the goodness in their hearts? No, tis' happening cause it made a profit. It might not have been that ''magic number'' for some, but more than enough to merit a sequel. Same thing will hopefully happen with this as the quality and over all film experience deserves more money.

If we talkin film wise experience, Jenkins had only directed one film prior to WW. Sandberg had directed two flicks before Shazam. If anything, this benefited from the studio/producers giving Cathy Yan all the freedom she needed, this could not have worked with a pg13 rating.

Here's the thing, the gals delivered, but their marketing team has landed a bit short imo. Now its up to word of mouth and the benefit that nothing really noteworthy is coming in the next two weeks or so.