By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies Discussion - Birds of Prey - 82% RT, and good audience reception

Jaicee said:

I won't mince words: a second-weekend drop rate of nearly 50% is bad, considering that Birds of Prey's opening weekend was just $33 million domestically. (Had it opened to say over $100 million, a second-weekend drop of 48% would've been understandable and normal, but that wasn't exactly the case.) As I look over the demographic breakdown of this film's audience according to the exit polls, this movie's commercial problem has become apparent to me: younger women aren't watching it.

Younger women are the group that scores Birds of Prey the best and are obviously its main intended audience, and yet they compose only a minimal share of those who are going to the theater to see it. It's not that younger women watched it on opening weekend, were disappointed, and spread negative opinions on social media, it's that they haven't given it a chance in the first place. The legacy of Suicide Squad seems to loom larger over this sequel for them. And considering that the median age of any given film's viewing audience increases each successive week after its release, if women under 25 haven't hit the theater for this movie by now, they're not going to either. That's bad for the commercial fate of the picture because it means that Birds of Prey has no core audience, let alone a peripheral one.

In other words, yeah, Birds of Prey is a sequel to a movie people disliked, to which end few are willing to give it a chance, and those who are willing don't belong to the intended audience. It seems destined for a total domestic gross of less than $100 million, and thus to go down as a forgotten entry in the current DC movie "universe".  It's too bad because DC Films clearly took a risk by making this film and I had fun with it anyway. *sighs* What can you do?

That is the point many of us "haters" point out. The company make a product to pander to a demographic that is vocal about the toxic of what the genre is, and when they go and do the product that group asked they just don't watch.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Jaicee said:

I won't mince words: a second-weekend drop rate of nearly 50% is bad, considering that Birds of Prey's opening weekend was just $33 million domestically. (Had it opened to say over $100 million, a second-weekend drop of 48% would've been understandable and normal, but that wasn't exactly the case.) As I look over the demographic breakdown of this film's audience according to the exit polls, this movie's commercial problem has become apparent to me: younger women aren't watching it.

Younger women are the group that scores Birds of Prey the best and are obviously its main intended audience, and yet they compose only a minimal share of those who are going to the theater to see it. It's not that younger women watched it on opening weekend, were disappointed, and spread negative opinions on social media, it's that they haven't given it a chance in the first place. The legacy of Suicide Squad seems to loom larger over this sequel for them. And considering that the median age of any given film's viewing audience increases each successive week after its release, if women under 25 haven't hit the theater for this movie by now, they're not going to either. That's bad for the commercial fate of the picture because it means that Birds of Prey has no core audience, let alone a peripheral one.

In other words, yeah, Birds of Prey is a sequel to a movie people disliked, to which end few are willing to give it a chance, and those who are willing don't belong to the intended audience. It seems destined for a total domestic gross of less than $100 million, and thus to go down as a forgotten entry in the current DC movie "universe".  It's too bad because DC Films clearly took a risk by making this film and I had fun with it anyway. *sighs* What can you do?

That is the point many of us "haters" point out. The company make a product to pander to a demographic that is vocal about the toxic of what the genre is, and when they go and do the product that group asked they just don't watch.

Please cut that crap. If you want to discuss this, go to any of the multiple thismeintiel threads.

Last edited by Moren - on 18 February 2020

This pains me to say as some who wants to see more rated R comic book movies but for a comic book movie to suceed with an R rating it have to be exceptional good like deadpool. Even the people that really enjoyed this movie I dont think would say it falls in that catagory.

I think this one of the major factor why most people put it as a better movie then suicide squad but the p13 suicide squad did a lot better in theaters.

On side note I looked into why half the actions scenes I enjoyed and half I thought was horriable. I found out half the actions scences was reshot using designs by Chad Stahelski (john wick movies). Wish they redid all the actions scences then maybe I could bring my self to recommend it purly for the action. Unfortunally despite wanting to support rated R comic movies if a friend asked me I would tell them what I said in my orginal review.



Moren said:

I don't know - I think marketing had a lot to do with it. I had no idea this was releasing until the week of. Plus, Birds of Prey in itself is a less catchy title than Harley Quinn, that's why they tried to rebrand it.

Not sure. DC's marketing strategy here was based on their experience from marketing the Supergirl series. They found, through that experience, that a low-key approach to marketing based primarily on social media is the most effecting at drawing in a female target audience because they found that female fans prefer to do much of the marketing themselves, giving it more of a sense of community and of being participatory in nature, so they repeated that approach in their marketing of the Wonder Woman movie, to great success. It didn't surprise me, hence, that they tried to replicate that approach for Birds of Prey.

I will say this though, the commercials that they made were bland and didn't highlight the real humor and fun of the movie, as others here have pointed out. That could certainly have been a significant factor as well.



DonFerrari said:
Considering what I heard from some people that watched with similar taste I'll avoid this movie.

Now this is how you should make the decision based on what other people say. Good on ya mate



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
Jaicee said:
Moren said:

I don't know - I think marketing had a lot to do with it. I had no idea this was releasing until the week of. Plus, Birds of Prey in itself is a less catchy title than Harley Quinn, that's why they tried to rebrand it.

Not sure. DC's marketing strategy here was based on their experience from marketing the Supergirl series. They found, through that experience, that a low-key approach to marketing based primarily on social media is the most effecting at drawing in a female target audience because they found that female fans prefer to do much of the marketing themselves, giving it more of a sense of community and of being participatory in nature, so they repeated that approach in their marketing of the Wonder Woman movie, to great success. It didn't surprise me, hence, that they tried to replicate that approach for Birds of Prey.

I will say this though, the commercials that they made were bland and didn't highlight the real humor and fun of the movie, as others here have pointed out. That could certainly have been a significant factor as well.

Yeah, marketing could have been a lot better. The only reason I knew this was coming out was that I am a super nerd and went to movie schedules to see when it releases.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
Jaicee said:

Not sure. DC's marketing strategy here was based on their experience from marketing the Supergirl series. They found, through that experience, that a low-key approach to marketing based primarily on social media is the most effecting at drawing in a female target audience because they found that female fans prefer to do much of the marketing themselves, giving it more of a sense of community and of being participatory in nature, so they repeated that approach in their marketing of the Wonder Woman movie, to great success. It didn't surprise me, hence, that they tried to replicate that approach for Birds of Prey.

I will say this though, the commercials that they made were bland and didn't highlight the real humor and fun of the movie, as others here have pointed out. That could certainly have been a significant factor as well.

Yeah, marketing could have been a lot better. The only reason I knew this was coming out was that I am a super nerd and went to movie schedules to see when it releases.

I don't watch regular TV since ever, but even like that I saw a lot of ads for it on YT and FB, probably because I have a lot of friends who are feminists and were spreading the word.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Jaicee said:

I won't mince words: a second-weekend drop rate of nearly 50% is bad, considering that Birds of Prey's opening weekend was just $33 million domestically. (Had it opened to say over $100 million, a second-weekend drop of 48% would've been understandable and normal, but that wasn't exactly the case.) As I look over the demographic breakdown of this film's audience according to the exit polls, this movie's commercial problem has become apparent to me: younger women aren't watching it.

Younger women are the group that scores Birds of Prey the best and are obviously its main intended audience, and yet they compose only a minimal share of those who are going to the theater to see it. It's not that younger women watched it on opening weekend, were disappointed, and spread negative opinions on social media, it's that they haven't given it a chance in the first place. The legacy of Suicide Squad seems to loom larger over this sequel for them. And considering that the median age of any given film's viewing audience increases each successive week after its release, if women under 25 haven't hit the theater for this movie by now, they're not going to either. That's bad for the commercial fate of the picture because it means that Birds of Prey has no core audience, let alone a peripheral one.

In other words, yeah, Birds of Prey is a sequel to a movie people disliked, to which end few are willing to give it a chance, and those who are willing don't belong to the intended audience. It seems destined for a total domestic gross of less than $100 million, and thus to go down as a forgotten entry in the current DC movie "universe".  It's too bad because DC Films clearly took a risk by making this film and I had fun with it anyway. *sighs* What can you do?

I saw this movie a week or so ago.  I thought it was good.  Not great.  Not bad.  It's a good movie.  

I think the box office is not a reflection of the movie's quality so much as Margot Robbie's ability as a producer.  She is a good actor, but a terrible producer.  A good producer would have made this movie PG-13 (and it could have been done by only minorly changing the movie).  As you pointed out younger women are the ones who especially like Harley Quinn.  I myself have an 11-year old daughter who I was going to take to this movie (as she was really excited by the poster), and then I saw the R rating, so I saw it by myself.  This is probably what hurt the movie's financial side more than anything else.

Also, I am not much of a DC fan, but I think fans were upset that the characters were not true to the comics (especially Ewan McGregor's character), and the Birds of Prey are kind of side characters for most of the movie.  My understanding is that Harley Quinn would have been a better fit in a Gotham City Sirens movie (Harley Quinn, Catwoman, Poison Ivy).  But in that kind of movie Catwoman is going to be an even bigger draw than Harley Quinn.  Since Margot Robbie wanted a movie where she played the main character, we ended up with a Birds of Prey movie about Harley Quinn.  This is another sort of thing that a competent producer would have fixed.  But when an actor makes a movie to show off their character, then then end up making decisions that are not necessarily good on the business side.

Anyway, none of that affected my personal enjoyment of the movie.  It's still a good movie.  I'm just explaining why it's flopping commercially.



The R rating and confusing title killed this movie at the box office. I thought the film was decent. I personally do not like DC films but saw this one to support the filmmaker.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

A shame that the theme song is garbage



Your sword did not cut deep enough