Birds of Prey BoP Box Office Thread

[writer0327]

Next weekend is Sonic and Fantasy Island. There's a real chance this finishes in 3rd.

 

[Greenlite]

Both films have pros and cons. ITSV is animated (are animated films at a disadvantage?), but it's also more family friendly and features the most famous and popular superhero in the world: Spider-Man. Those are advantages, including its awards cred, that should've given it a boost. BOP is rated R and features a rising in popularity star/character in Margot/Harley; she's still not as popular as Spider-Man, though. The animated and R rating kind of cancel each other out as possible disadvantages. Meanwhile, both received good reviews and responses from audiences, generally speaking. They're both relatively standalone without obvious connections to the larger Marvel or DC cinematic universes, which could be a good or bad thing. I certainly think it helped Captain Marvel, which itself was more family friendly and was part of the build up to Endgame.

If I had to guess, the issue with BOP is that it's so unique. It doesn't look like a typical comic book movie, so it's not necessarily going to grab those viewers keen on that kind of content, and it doesn't come across as the serious cinematic take Joker was. It's this weird hybrid of darkness with humor and color. Margot said she had to fight for the R rating, and I wonder if R is more viable with male-driven films or with films that present themselves as serious or straight horror. MOS and BvS may have struggled for similar mismatch reasons. That said, I wouldn't have wanted BOP to be any different and don't think the marketing could've presented it any other way than what it is. This is new territory for comic book movies and female-led movies, so it's understandable that it'll be more of a baby step than a giant leap.

I saw some girl going after WB for the rating, but I thought the creative team was given the freedom to pick the rating so I applaud WB for that, unfortunately it didn't come off, but I thought the producers/director has to share the responsibility as well, and WB and the creative team should be able to see that and compensate to improve the commercial side of things next time.

 

[Greenlite]

was there any more insight on the narrative of "the first cut was poor so Hamada rescued it, but the marketing team didn't have enough to play with until late in the game"?

That's either true, or team hamada telling Deadline s*** to

 

[TheVileOne]

was there any more insight on the narrative of "the first cut was poor so Hamada rescued it, but the marketing team didn't have enough to play with until late in the game"?

That's either true, or team hamada telling Deadline s*** to

Honestly, I don't get that. The marketing was there for the film. There was tons of stuff out there.

I don't know about reshoots or re-edits, but critics generally liked the film and were praising it, unlike Suicide Squad, which was trashed by critics but made money.

 

[Tra-El]

Marketing is tricky. Its too simple to say "oh the marketing was just terrible for this movie", because that begs the question...what exactly makes for good marketing? Is it amount of money spent, is it how good the trailers are, is it the number of trailers and TV spots released? Is it actor interviews? Is it billboards plastered everywhere? We know it when it works, of course, because the buzz is everywhere and the box office explodes, but plenty of movies have been made with equally tremendous marketing campaigns that also bombed.

I agree you can make anyone like anything if you sell it correctly, but in the case of this film, I think ultimately this bad OW performance comes down to people just didn't really want to see it anyway. Not saying marketing didn't have something to do with it, but if I'm carving up the box office blame pie, I think "no one asked for it" gets the biggest piece.

I think good marketing is everything you see. It first has to start with a targeted audience, #1. #2 is doing the leg work and going into that targeted audiences' territory and exploit the crap of it and use a ton of tools at the disposal so it can then expand abroad.

I'm a big DC fan and even though I knew Birds of Prey existed in our community, if I stepped outside of it, I would have had no clue it even existed until the final push, which ironically, was the final trailer and SOME tv spots for me. Other than that, it felt like this movie was flat and DOA from the get-go. Not because of it being a bad film, bad quality or bad reviews or what-not, but simply because it wasn't targeted towards basically anybody.

 

[thangaran]

Bummer about the BO. Haven’t seen the film yet but looks like the BO power of character like Harley was possibly overestimated?

i hear the film is much better than suicide squad so sad to hear about the disappointing Bo results

 

[Moncton]

Someone please explain to me how the marketing was bad.

A title they thought was clever, but came across as pretentious. Posters which conveyed nothing. Awful trailers which made the film look dumb as opposed to delightfully zany. Most importantly, you have a character like Harley where so much social media stuff can be done with, this should have been the film where women 18-25 would be greatly anticipating...and now this

 

[Jonwo]

It wouldn't be the first time that a well received film hasn't clicked with audiences. Doctor Sleep was great but it didn't do well for a multitude of reasons likewise Edge of Tomorrow.

I don't think BOP not doing well will deter WB from doing another R rated DC film but they have to be more selective, I'd put The Trench and GCS on ice and focus on things like Lobo or Swamp Thing as potential R rated projects.

 

[misslane38]

I wonder if it's less that BOP is not targeted to anyone in particular and more that it's got contradictory draws and deterrents. From my experience, some feminists and women adore Harley while some hate her. Even if she's ditching Joker in this one, the character herself has that legacy and some women just don't like her. Some women might like the female empowerment, while others may be too traumatized to want to expose themselves to the triggering Black Mask's antics might cause. Some do love Harley, though, and men might too based on how she's usually featured as sexy and subervient to Joker. That said, for however many you draw in for the more appealing birds (Dinah, Helena, Renee), you turn away because of Harley or vice versa for people who know Harley but don't know the others.

I also take some issue with the media coverage. Joker got incessant coverage about its perceived wrongs (e.g. inciting incel violence), and other films with less going for them get loads of coverage for their barely there representation (e.g. Endgame). Meanwhile, I see few articles celebrating a female African-American superhero, a lesbian Latina hero, or Cass Cain. Regardless of her faithfulness to the source material, having Asian creatives like the writer, director, and co-star that this film has deserves to have lots of noise be made. Again, other films doing less in terms of representation got more coverage and credit for it, and other films potentially doing bad things got more coverage for what was bad than this film is getting for what's good. I mean, after BvS there were dozens of articles about how sexist it was to put Lois naked in a bathtub for the "male gaze," yet fewer articles are being written BY FEMINISTS about how BOP does so many things right.

I'm not sure what the reason is for that, or if this kind of media coverage might pick up in the days ahead, but it feels like so many people decided long ago not to give this movie as much of a chance as they do other projects.

 

[brandeezy89]

The BO seems similar to Tomb Raider which opened to 23M DOM and finished with 58M total. Only problem is that they got the majority of their OS money from China (78M)

 

[Erzengel]

Both films have pros and cons. ITSV is animated (are animated films at a disadvantage?), but it's also more family friendly and features the most famous and popular superhero in the world: Spider-Man. Those are advantages, including its awards cred, that should've given it a boost. BOP is rated R and features a rising in popularity star/character in Margot/Harley; she's still not as popular as Spider-Man, though. The animated and R rating kind of cancel each other out as possible disadvantages. Meanwhile, both received good reviews and responses from audiences, generally speaking. They're both relatively standalone without obvious connections to the larger Marvel or DC cinematic universes, which could be a good or bad thing. I certainly think it helped Captain Marvel, which itself was more family friendly and was part of the build up to Endgame.

You would think that an animated Spider-Man film would make bank but the fact that ITSV couldn't find the audience as compared to it's live action counterparts leads me to believe that it's because it's animated. For the most part the only high grossing movies usually come from Disney/Pixar or Illuminations.

We've had ITSV, Lego Movie 1 & 2 and Lego Batman movie who have all made similarly at the BO. Which again leads me to think that there are CBM and Animated movies and for the time being, never the twain shall meet.

Edit: Incredibles doesn't count.

If I had to guess, the issue with BOP is that it's so unique. It doesn't look like a typical comic book movie, so it's not necessarily going to grab those viewers keen on that kind of content, and it doesn't come across as the serious cinematic take Joker was. It's this weird hybrid of darkness with humor and color. Margot said she had to fight for the R rating, and I wonder if R is more viable with male-driven films or with films that present themselves as serious or straight horror. MOS and BvS may have struggled for similar mismatch reasons. That said, I wouldn't have wanted BOP to be any different and don't think the marketing could've presented it any other way than what it is. This is new territory for comic book movies and female-led movies, so it's understandable that it'll be more of a baby step than a giant leap.

I just got done watching the 1st and 2nd trailers again, and maybe they had to punch up the action specifically fight scenes? I think they even repeated several things in the 2nd trailer in the 1st.

And as to this being new territory for specific female group movies, this would be the 2nd time (Shazam) that DC has stumbled with a critically well received movie. Which I think a lot of people will forget about considering the next 3 movies are WW84, Batman and SS.

 

[super85]

Someone please explain to me how the marketing was bad.

They released a couple of trailers that didnt get People hyped at all.

 

[Anonymous1213]

Audience in US are not supporting DC movies (Aquaman and Joker are the exceptions)

Its great that DC movies are doing well in countries like Brazil, Mexico, Australia and South Korea but it needs to do well in US too, which is the place of origin.

What? Every single DC movie in the DCEU has made bank in the USA besides Shazam and Birds of Prey which are two movies that didn’t do well anywhere.

 

[Anonymous1213]

This movie had bad marketing because the movie gives it nothing to market. It’s R-rated but there isn’t much of anything in the movie that warrants an R-rating except the swearing. The violence and action sequences are tame for a rated R film. There are no big set pieces. So from that end the marketing team doesn’t have much to work with.

The bits of humor the movie has works in the context of the film but doesn’t really work if you put it in trailers.

The actual Birds of Prey are side characters so featuring them too much and you’re ruining their parts in the trailers.

WB didn’t market this correctly but it’s not just on the marketing team. This movie would have done well and would have been marketed well had the creators either went all in with the R-rating or made it PG-13. But the movie itself doesn’t know whether it wants to be PG-13 or Rated R which is why the marketing itself was all over the place.

 

[Erzengel]

What? Every single DC movie in the DCEU has made bank in the USA besides Shazam and Birds of Prey which are two movies that didn’t do well anywhere.

Don't think JL can be considered making bank.

 

[DlAMONDZ]

This had very low trailer views and never tended high on Twitter when the trailers/posters were released- that is a marketing issue not an r rated issue

While true. Exits polls do show teens especially female teens liked it the most but were only like 7% of the audience. WB played their cards wrong here

Considering they've been pushing her in stuff like 'DC Superhero girls' alongside Wonder Woman I'm still surprised WB allowed this to be rated R

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Next weekend is Sonic and Fantasy Island. There's a real chance this finishes in 3rd.

It's kinda hard to believe that this is gonna get creamed by Sonic the Hedgehog, but that's probably what's going to happen.

 

[-JKR-]

This movie had bad marketing because the movie gives it nothing to market. It’s R-rated but there isn’t much of anything in the movie that warrants an R-rating except the swearing. The violence and action sequences are tame for a rated R film. There are no big set pieces. So from that end the marketing team doesn’t have much to work with.

The bits of humor the movie has works in the context of the film but doesn’t really work if you put it in trailers.

The actual Birds of Prey are side characters so featuring them too much and you’re ruining their parts in the trailers.

WB didn’t market this correctly but it’s not just on the marketing team. This movie would have done well and would have been marketed well had the creators either went all in with the R-rating or made it PG-13. But the movie itself doesn’t know whether it wants to be PG-13 or Rated R which is why the marketing itself was all over the place.

It is R-rated and knows it is, sometimes people act as if the R-rating automatically meant "eXtREMe! Gore, ****, drugs, dicks." It doesn't. Birds of Prey knows it's R-rated just as much as Die Hard, Speed, Deadpool, John Wick, Mad Max Fury Road and others.

Also, this ain't exactly Wonder Woman, Supergirl and Batgirl.

I'm glad WB allowed this to be R-rated and unique and glad for the kind of movie it ultimately is. They could have made a tame, pale, sugarcoated version of this and this sure isn't.

Thank God, Warner Bros., Walter Hamada, Margot Robbie, Cathy Yan and Christine Hodson for this fun, funny, whacky, pulpy and at times cartoonish crime action movie.

Sometimes the world needs their new Gremlins 2s, even if they don't get imminent reward.

So, if you liked the movie, just spread the word about it. Let's not get caught up in "should they"s. We're film fans and often get too caught up in that vile crap.

 

[Anonymous1213]

It is R-rated and knows it is, sometimes people act as if the R-rating automatically meant "eXtREMe! Gore, ****, drugs, dicks." It doesn't. Birds of Prey knows it's R-rated just as much as Die Hard, Speed, Deadpool, John Wick, Mad Max Fury Road and others.

Also, this ain't exactly Wonder Woman, Supergirl and Batgirl.

I'm glad WB allowed this to be R-rated and unique and glad for the kind of movie it ultimately is. They could have made a tame, pale, sugarcoated version of this and this sure isn't.

Thank God, Warner Bros., Walter Hamada, Margot Robbie, Cathy Yan and Christine Hodson for this fun, funny, whacky, pulpy and at times cartoonish crime action movie.

Sometimes the world needs their new Gremlins 2s, even if they don't get imminent reward.

So, if you liked the movie, just spread the word about it. Let's not get caught up in "should they"s. We're film fans and often get too caught up in that vile crap.

Sorry but I disagree. The quality of the movie would not have been affected had they made it PG-13 and then marketed at such. It was a very tame R which is why the movie wasn’t marketed to reflect an R-rated movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

A title they thought was clever, but came across as pretentious. Posters which conveyed nothing. Awful trailers which made the film look dumb as opposed to delightfully zany. Most importantly, you have a character like Harley where so much social media stuff can be done with, this should have been the film where women 18-25 would be greatly anticipating...and now this

The title and Birds of Prey concept don't work. I'll cop to that. But I mean the posters and marketing material seemed to get across what the movie was supposed to be.

 

[-JKR-]

Sorry but I disagree. The quality of the movie would not have been affected had they made it PG-13 and then marketed at such. It was a very tame R which is why the movie wasn’t marketed to reflect an R-rated movie.

It would have been a different movie.

 

[Kuwolski]

It would have been a different movie.

Apparently it was. The studio meddled in the directors 'vision'

https://***********/HollywoodInToto/status/1226606815867092993

 

[-JKR-]

We have known that Chad Stahelski helped punch up the action for quite a while, but still the movie was prepped and shot for an R-rating to begin with.

 

[Tra-El]

A title they thought was clever, but came across as pretentious. Posters which conveyed nothing. Awful trailers which made the film look dumb as opposed to delightfully zany. Most importantly, you have a character like Harley where so much social media stuff can be done with, this should have been the film where women 18-25 would be greatly anticipating...and now this

I agree with the trailers. They felt boxed in like nothing was happening at all. Almost like "This is a random movie and Harley Quinn is in it so go see it I think". They just didn't sell what it was.

 

[Kuwolski]

We have known that Chad Stahelski helped punch up the action for quite a while, but still the movie was prepped and shot for an R-rating to begin with.

Thankfully. I thought the action was great.