Birds of Prey Was the R rating necessary?

[Sithborg]

I mean, yeah. Harley and the Joker have been big for the Hot Topic crowd for quite some time.

 

[KaijuDude1992]

As it stands I'm glad this movie was rated R regardless of the BO performance, because I do believe it helped me get even more enjoyment out of it than had it been PG-13. That being said it could have definitely been a PG-13 flick had the language been toned down as well as some of the violence, but like I said I liked how brutal and bone crunching the fights got at times.

 

[Primal Slayer]

I'm not super sure about that.

Spoiler

The club scene where Sionus makes that woman script would not have been in a pg13 movie. And is kind of important to put Canary's situation into a full light

Really? I feel like I've seen worse in PG-13 films.

 

[Iceman]

Yes. It is about the criminal underworld of Gotham City and has a psychopath as main character. The rating was perfectly in line with what they were telling, and that's what matters the most to me.

A PG-13 crime-tinged action movie (featuring all sorts of weapons) in the vein of Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie, such as this, wouldn't do it for me.

Also, movies such as "Mad Max: Fury Road," "It," "John Wick," "Deadpool," "Joker" and other prove that an R-rating is not a problem.

Before "Deadpool" was released people would whine about how the rating would cut out the character's teenage audience and all sorts of BS. And as much as Harley's... "league"... whatever that means, Deadpool wasn't exactly a household name for the general audience either.

They chose the right rating for the kind of story they were telling and movie they were making. Audiences are baffling sometimes. Lots of movies where the right creative choices (as I believe is the case here) are made underperform. This will probably end up on the same pile as "Edge of Tomorrow" and "The Nice Guys" and other unseen and initially underappreciated cult gems.

I hope that, if rumors of James Gunn's "The Suicide Squad" being shot with an R-rating in mind are true, the studio won't backtrack based on this movie's opening weekend. Especially after coming off a $1B movie. They should be smarter than that.

P.S.: The fact that the violence and gore isn't incessant doesn't mean that it wasn't worth it. Few, sparse, grislier moments influence an entire movie tonally more than you think. The small, infrequent details are just as much part of the whole as the rest.

The cutting people out thing isn’t just about box office. It’s also about cutting people out, which is a shame to me if it’s not needed. TDK could easily have had an R rating with a couple more things crossing the line and imagine you were the wrong age to watch it in the cinema and that opportunity is then gone for life. If someone’s making something that is R all the way through then it makes perfect sense that the rating is needed but when we’re talking about probably 10 minutes combined of swearing and assorted bits, I’m not so sure. Not to say I didn’t enjoy some of those bits, but I would give them up for more potential fans being eligible to watch the film regardless of money made.

 

[Iceman]

Really? I feel like I've seen worse in PG-13 films.

Exactly, we all have. The R-rating is just about making sure a few certain boxes don’t get ticked enough times, and avoiding that is how those films that felt R-rated but didn’t get the rating managed it.

 

[Sithborg]

Really? I feel like I've seen worse in PG-13 films.

I don't know. I just feel the intensity of the scene wouldn't make the cut of a PG-13 film.

 

[Yowza]

I think it being a comic film has garnered it way more scrutiny than say the other movies I linked to earlier. It's a niche film that really didn't work with it's TV spots as far as selling it and garnering interest went but here's some an overview of these random bits of data we're all seeing at the the moment:

*Ticketatom and Fandango news sites unobjectively source from all too often when of course estimates will be high... A $55 million domestic initial cautious estimate turned to WB looking at $45 million then the usual trades putting this at 40 million until finally the actual estimates right before release had the flick at $33.5 million.

*Supposedly the budget went up from re-shoots but the numbers are being reported all over the place right now in terms of what this film needs to make back to break even with going as far as saying close to 300 million (I doubt marketing/distribution costs were that much) with others being over 100 million as that was what the budget was around due to re-shoots.

*RottenTomatoes I don't trust as far as their review tallying system goes as the staff pick and chooses how to assign a fresh/rotten not to mention what reviews to aggregate. That being said, perhaps in order to match the trend of the box office reviews the critic score went from a high of 92% (about 57 reviews brought to 90%) to a present 80% (251 reviews it was at this and at 296 reviews still telegraphed to be at this). It's almost as if critics are front loaded by someone but I also think Rottentomatoes likes to get clicks via their critic review aggregation process. In any case, the audience score went down a bit but stands currently at 81% (7839 reviews as of midnight right now).

I'm not going to get into the narrative concerning the marketing (really not much to say besides the obvious) but here's another reference point pertaining to another smaller budgeted film franchise according to Forbes:



Copied from Box Office Mojo Sunday Night:
DOMESTIC (40.9%)
$33,250,000
INTERNATIONAL (59.1%)
$48,000,000
WORLDWIDE
$81,250,000

4,236 theaters was a wide release so definitely showing the film's level of attraction. The number will surely drastically drop off. The audience reviews largely being positive shows there's currently a reception for a film like this and the critics are moreso pushing for it than Joker so I think this type of film needed some very careful multifaceted marketing to get more buzz and interest.

*I copied the Box Office from Box Office Mojo last Sunday night and see right now on Monday night (before Monday's box office has been reported) that this past weekends numbers have been tweaked:
DOMESTIC (41.5%)
$33,010,017
INTERNATIONAL (58.5%)
$46,500,000
WORLDWIDE
$79,510,017

I wish there was a way to see how many times sites like this "edit" their results.

*The name change being reported around is also maybe not really a name change. I can't find the source due to all the headlines reporting name change but read something about it just being done for catoguing purposes for for the theaters or distributors so... Yes, it probably is a name change but just some PR to soften any negative stigma this may cause I don't know... I suppose there'll be back/forth headlines regarding this in the coming days for more clicks...

*I've looked to a Variety article that reports on a supposed breakdown of the demographic data this past weekend as far ticket sales went domestically in the U.S.: Why ‘Birds of Prey’ Whiffed at the Box Office

“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. Sources close to the production say the breakeven number is closer to $250 million. Hitting those marks could prove difficult overseas, since fears of coronavirus have impacted moviegoing in Asia. However, its R-rating meant the film wasn’t going to open in China in the first place....

...Ticket buyers were mostly older males — 54% were men and 65% were over the age of 25 — according to PostTrack surveys...

Unless “Birds of Prey” picks up steam, it’ll mark another casualty for Warner Bros. Other than “Joker,” the studio has suffered a steady stream of box office duds including “Richard Jewell,” “Doctor Sleep” and “The Goldfinch.” It’s unclear how much patience AT&T, Warner Bros.’ new corporate parent, will have with the current leadership. The pressure is certainly on studio chief Toby Emmerich, marketing leader Blair Rich, and other top executives to turn things around quickly. The good news is that help may be on the way in the form of this summer’s “Wonder Woman 1984,” Christopher Nolan’s “Tenet” and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “In the Heights,’ which all appear to be crowdpleasers… at least on paper.

“In the coming days and this weekend, it will be joined by new films that offer little in terms of direct competition, in what will be admittedly be a very crowded theatrical marketplace,” said Paul Dergarabedian, a senior media analysts with Comscore. “That will be the true test.”

 

[Primal Slayer]

The 'R' rating likely turned off some families along with teens not being able to watch the film which overall not the smartest move.

 

[Yowza]

Thinking on this some more, the low box office and demographic data being fairly even I can't ignore when it was obviously sold as a chick flick bucking the trend of needing to be PG-13 as Margot said. It's a niche film that very easily could've also been marketed at younger men or older fans of the Batman IP too I think to get the box office higher without necessarily having to go PG-13 as this is a spin-off and WB is looking to differentiate their products while still keeping them recognizable (how Todd Phillips was attracted to Joker after looking up at a billboard for instance being an I.P. based age of theatre with so much content to distinguish from).

I mean I can just see other couples sitting together watching a basketball or football game in the living room and a TV spot plays showing Huntress riding a guy down a slide then saying whooo! and the whole that chick has anger issues line punctuating a very short TV spot getting eyeroll judgemental reactions. It's a niche film that had some odd creative decisions behind it but hey that's what they want to do so the question becomes how to make this work? Big thing is imagine watching a live event with non-comic acquainted friends and the impression (or lack of) that the short TV spots would give.

Even if the film is by some measures more niche the TV spots still could've been more open ended with intrigue to draw people's curiosity. When more people are in seats and devoting time to watching perhaps this would allow a bit more openness towards approaching the film in the theaters (yes, I'll bet many more will be streaming the heck out it).

 

[Sithborg]

The 'R' rating likely turned off some families along with teens not being able to watch the film which overall not the smartest move.

There were 8 year olds at my 7 p.m. showing.

Thinking on this some more, the low box office and demographic data being fairly even I can't ignore when it was obviously sold as a chick flick bucking the trend of needing to be PG-13 as Margot said. It's a niche film that very easily could've been marketed more at men too I think to get the box office higher.

I mean I can just see a couple sitting together watching a basketball or football game in the living room and a TV spot plays showing Huntress riding a guy down a slide then saying whooo! and the whole that chick has anger issues very short TV spot sort of getting an eyeroll reaction at times. It's a niche film that had some odd creative decisions behind it but hey that's what they want to do so the question becomes how to make this work? Big thing is imagine watching a live event with non-comic acquainted friends and the impression that the short TV spots would give.

Even if the film is by some measures more niche the TV spots still could've been more open ended with intrigue to draw people's curiosity. When more people are in seats and devoting time to watching perhaps this would allow a bit more openness towards approaching the film in the theaters (yes, I'll bet many more will be streaming the heck out it).

I mean, it is a chick flick. Granted, they sold it as kind of a different kind of flick chick. A lot of the trailers sold it as Harley breaking up with Joker, which kind of has its own issues with how that relationship is portrayed. And I think they move they tried to sell isn't quite as compelling as what the movie is. Add in the stink of Suicide Squad, and you have this result.

I just hope it finds decent legs and gets to a position where, while not a huge success, makes WB willing to gamble on an increased good will. But sadly, I fear that is in Gunn's hands.

 

[Primal Slayer]

There were 8 year olds at my 7 p.m. showing.

Thats why I didnt say it turned off all families lol. But Box Office probably wouldve been a little better if it had been PG-13.

 

[Lantern Venom]

There were 8 year olds at my 7 p.m. showing.

Let me be perfectly clear when I say that this is *not a shot at you personally*, but that kind of scenario makes me irate. Yes, this was a light "R" film, but it still featured gruesome torture, sexual favors being exchanged, and more brutal fight visuals than a PG-13 movie. Anyone who took a pre-teen to see it displayed outright horrendous parenting.

OK, I'm off of my soapbox. It's a dad moment.

As for the "R", no, I don't think it was necessary. Take out some of the F-bombs, some of the close-up shots of the blood, and the visual of how Harley paid for Bruce and it's a hard PG-13. All of that stuff could have been on the extended cut and allowed BoP to have a better BO haul.

 

[Yowza]

I mean, it is a chick flick. Granted, they sold it as kind of a different kind of flick chick. A lot of the trailers sold it as Harley breaking up with Joker, which kind of has its own issues with how that relationship is portrayed. And I think they move they tried to sell isn't quite as compelling as what the movie is. Add in the stink of Suicide Squad, and you have this result.

I just hope it finds decent legs and gets to a position where, while not a huge success, makes WB willing to gamble on an increased good will. But sadly, I fear that is in Gunn's hands.

I had to edit my post a bit that you quoted but pretty much says the same thing.

I'm still not sure what to think in regards to how previous DC releases could've effected the reception to this film so will just leave my thought up in the air in that regard. The negative relationship with Joker reference and Margot Robbie confirming the Joker wouldn't appear in the film I think was moreso a distancing from the actor that wasn't able to star in it than an issue with including it in the narrative. Besides that, she also knew when people look at the Joker in the poster there was a possibility of people connecting it to Suicide Squad or being confused wondering if it was Joachine Pheonix but I'm taking a guess that had only a minor negative impact overall.

Thinking on things some more I also thought of the following comparison box office wise:
The Catwoman film starring Halle Berry I think is a separate yet informative example of a film that was for intents and purposes a film aimed at little girls (not comic fans) but of course some aspects (the outfit for instance) didn't work that was PG-13. Box Office Mojo data shows it had a very wide release (surprising as worldwide distribution not as coordinated then as now) and I'm not sure what the numbers at this link translate to now inflation wise but for reference sake here it is: Catwoman - Box Office Mojo Funnily enough I've seen reviews on some streaming video services these past few years that give it a thumbs up liking it as a cheesy popcorn movie (often from older females perhaps unfamiliar with comics or how said film was received many years ago or what the average score is at on various well known websites).

R-Rated Birds of Prey of course does seem to be a well received film amongst comic fans and well received critically and by the general audience as well at it's opening unlike PG-13 Catwoman. It's unfair to compare the two as apples to apples quality or content wise but as a niche PG-13 film aimed at a female audience to a niche R film aimed at a female audience there seems to be consistent box office results. I'll just sum up by that I don't think Birds of Prey as it is has to be PG-13. It could've been different but regardless assuming everything stays the same and the release window give or take a few weeks I think the TV spots should've been different to build intrigue and pull more butts into seats to at least not market it as niche even if it in fact is...

 

[samsnee]

Should have been PG-13 so younger kids could go workout their parents and just their friends.

 

[-JKR-]

Should have been PG-13 so younger kids could go workout their parents and just their friends.

Nah, not really.

 

[Filmfreak]

Here's the thing. While I'm glad they didn't overdo it with violence and nudity like other movies and TV shows, even some great ones, with excessive and forced use of the R rating, the film never felt like it justified it. It could have easily been edited a tad differently and pretty much be the exact same movie by using a PG-13 one. And it gave me a strong impression that they didn't know for sure which way the studio would want to go when it was written and filmed, thus they kept it in a thin line where it could go either way and when finally WB decided market-wise to reach adult audiences because it worked wonders with Joker, that's where they went with R. That's the feeling it gives anyway.

So while I was ok with it being light R it did feel unnecessary in the end.

 

[Marvolo]

Should have been PG-13 so younger kids could go workout their parents and just their friends.

Not every comic book film needs to be for kids. Especially the ones that have violent homicidal criminals as the protagonists. Harely is a twisted, mentally broken, homicidal psychopath. She shouldnt be presented as kid friendly.

And what's even the point of giving her a big carnival mallet if she isnt going to make bloody pulp out of skulls and limbs? Ya know in Casino when Nicky and his brother are beaten to a bloody pulp and thrown in a shallow grave to suffocate? Yeah, that's the kind of thing I expect from Harley. And I expect her to laugh like a lunatic while shes doing it.