Birds of Prey Title Changes to Harley Quinn Amid Box Office Flop

[Sorcerer 10,559]

The movie was good. I didn't think it was just about Harley Quinn so the Birds of Prey title was okay. The cast was given moments to shine and it was explained in the film who the Birds of Prey are. But I guess they had to do this last minute because of the commercial underperformance.

Also, I loved the women empowerment themes and I am a man. If you are triggered by the content of the film, then maybe you are the toxic, egotistical male the film is criticizing.

[Fresco 1,688]

The name change is appropriate. And I liked the Birds of Prey movie as an action flick in that genre. 

Wonder Woman was a female hero, heroine, written and produced to be looked up to with awe, no mistake, no misunderstanding, no confusion by any viewer. Harley Quinn was not written and produced like that, nor was Charlie's Angel's 2019.  It's like they overdid the idea of character dimensions and destroyed the idea of a heroine.

[Fresco 1,688]

2 hours ago, Blue Madonna said:

(such as not knowing Black Canary had superpowers until she used them to save the day??) 

I was like where did that come from and why didn't she do that sooner! Haven't read the comic books ...

[Guest Blue Madonna]

1 hour ago, Meruk Holland said:

  Reveal hidden contents

They referenced the fact that she had powers at least twice in the movie before she used it. The first time when she's singing on stage and shatters a glass. Then the second time when Renee is trying to get her help and she references that Dinah's mother had a gift and she knows the Dinah has the gift too. 

 

ok yeah but they didn’t really establish the extent of her powers...

Spoiler

like breaking glass is very different to sending out a giant shockwave which took out all her enemies. none of the people I was watching it with knew she could do that, and when referring to the fact she had powers they were really vague; I thought that just extended to the glass trick? but no one in the club was affected when she hit the high note.

i guess my main issue was that she was suddenly so much more powerful than we knew and this only came up when the plot needed it to, rather than explained with a logical origin and displayed earlier on.

 

[Luna Lovegood 16,827]

1 hour ago, RAMROD said:

Different situation.

Captain Marvel is from MCU. It did got resistance from neckbeards still. It actually got worse since Brie Larson actually clap back at them and challenge them, which made the neckbeards even angrier lmao. But they can’t boycott successfully because MCU already got good records on their movies which brings confidence and trust for the audience to go and see regardless. Public already know MCU movies are big spectacle events and they won’t be dissapointed. Plus, MCU got legions of loyal fans already that will follow through each movies on each phase. 
 

Harley Quinn did not have that kind of luxury, cos WB kept fxcking up DCEU. Lots of fans still can’t forgive and forget from how BvS, Suicide Squad, and Justice League being ruined, even with WW and Aquaman success, many are still apprehensive over each DCEU release. (And no, Joker is not part of that universe), hence it make people easier to manipulate by the neckbeards.

I’m a minority here that doesn’t know about the DC universe debacle. Care to explain? What did they do to BvS, SS, JL etc. and how was it ruined?

[I LOVE GGD 1,247]

6 hours ago, kyanewest said:

Warner Bros. has apparently changed the official title for "Birds of Prey" to "Harley Quinn," which follows its box office flop (just as I predicted).

So far, just AMC and Regal Movies have updated their websites with the new official title of Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey, from the former "Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn" or simply listing "Birds of Prey."

The official WB social media accounts, Fandango and IMDb haven't made the change as of yet.

The reason for the change is obvious, and also something that I brought up: The flick isn't a Birds of Prey movie at all, Harley Quinn isn't even a member of the Birds of Prey in the movie (or in the comics), and the movie is more the Margot Robbie Harley Quinn show than anything.

Regarding why Birds of Prey failed at the box office, fans just didn't simply show up as theaters are a ghost town. [...]

Warner Bros. is to blame; director Cathy Yan is to blame, who never directed a big-budget movie before (Deadline reported WB President of DC Films Walter Hamada had to fix the movie); Margot Robbie, who produced the flick, is especially to blame (it's been said Robbie passed on doing a Gotham City Sirens movie in favor of Birds of Prey, and Robbie deserves better? No, the fans do.), and checking the other producers listed on the film, none of them have any comic book movie experience (not counting executive producers who probably just consult or get the title due to a previous contract i.e. Geoff Johns and David Ayer).

I'll also add the Birds of Prey Rotten Tomatoes score has dropped significantly since the film's release as it went from a high of 92% to a present 80%. So what does that tell you? It tells you all the critics that saw the movie as part of Warner Bros. marketing campaign (the woke RT critics), all gave it high reviews, but that when the film was released, the other sites gave it a lot of lower-rated reviews. Likewise, the audience score is currently at 81%, which also dropped from the movie's release.

The Birds of Prey opening weekend box office is also worse than thought, even worse than estimated once it knew the movie was bombing.

Estimates pegged the flick at a laughable $55 million, Warner Bros. eyed $45 million (another laughable number), then the Hollywood trades revised their estimates to the low 40 millions, then estimates had the flick at $33.5 million, with the final number now known to be only $33 million.

Birds of Prey has also been a disaster overseas as it has only brought in around $46 million, for a joke-able current $79 million and change worldwide gross.

Regarding whether or not the film will lose money, various reports are offering the film needs to bring in as much as $300 million to break even or at least $250 million. While some sites are reporting the budget was only $80 million or so; however, reportedly due to reshoots, some of the sets and the CGI involved, the budget ballooned to $100 million or more, and then when marketing and other factors are added in, the cost is even higher.

It should also be pointed out that Birds of Prey faced no competition at the box office, as it was the only "big" movie to have opened, but it failed anyway. 

source: https://cosmicbook.news/birds-prey-title-change-harley-quinn?utm_source=pushengage&utm_medium=pushnotification&utm_campaign=pushengage

This is factually a lie.

Warner Bros. hasn’t changed the name of “Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” to “Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey,” an individual with knowledge at the studio told TheWrap.

Nonetheless, top theater chains Regal Cinemas, Cinemark and AMC Theatres updated their websites this week after the DC comic-book adaptation’s disappointing opening weekend to put Margot Robbie’s lead character front and center: “Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey.”

Full article: https://www.thewrap.com/birds-of-prey-name-change-harley-quinn/

[Regina George 59,387]

1 hour ago, misunderstood said:

Yeah no, it's not that deep

 

Yes I think it is.. this movie is being considered as a movie for females almost like a romcom.. so.. 

[Miel 15,009]

I... did it even "flop"? I know for a DC film, it's not doing as well, but considering

1) DCEU's reputation for having mostly bad films

2) that it's a sequel to Suicide Squad, which is arguable the worst DCEU film

3) it's by women, with women, and is wholly about women

4) it's rated R, and is violent and vulgar as hell

I think it's doing well.

Plus, it's a really, really good movie.

[Alfonso 1,202]

2 hours ago, VeniceBeach said:

The movie was good. I didn't think it was just about Harley Quinn so the Birds of Prey title was okay. The cast was given moments to shine and it was explained in the film who the Birds of Prey are. But I guess they had to do this last minute because of the commercial underperformance.

Also, I loved the women empowerment themes and I am a man. If you are triggered by the content of the film, then maybe you are the toxic, egotistical male the film is criticizing.

 

1 hour ago, Miel said:

I... did it even "flop"? I know for a DC film, it's not doing as well, but considering

1) DCEU's reputation for having mostly bad films

2) that it's a sequel to Suicide Squad, which is arguable the worst DCEU film

3) it's by women, with women, and is wholly about women

4) it's rated R, and is violent and vulgar as hell

I think it's doing well.

Plus, it's a really, really good movie.

This! 

I also thought it was a great movie! Well done and really entertaining.. Margot was on point 

I'm just hoping that this situation doesn't affect the movie / future projects, for me it feels like the media is trying to sabotage it  because you can see that almost everyone that went to see it loved it (when I went people got even excited during some scenes )

[Oyster 2,458]

it was SO good 

[gumzy3000 6,469]

Since when is an 80% on Rotten Tomatoes bad? Like what the fu*k?! 

[beaublue 3,868]

8 hours ago, Ryusei said:

Wonder Woman says hi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)

Wonder Woman didn’t paint men in a negative light though lol it also had a man as the costar who wasn’t a villain. Men had someone to identify with in the movie. In Birds of Prey the only men are villains, extremely misogynistic violent men who no one wants to identify with. Not to mention they made it sound like there’s be a gay relationship in the movie when there actually wasn’t. Margot f*cked up.

[RAMROD 96,481]

4 minutes ago, lovedillon said:

 Margot f*cked up.

She didn't.

[Miel 15,009]

17 minutes ago, lovedillon said:

Wonder Woman didn’t paint men in a negative light though lol it also had a man as the costar who wasn’t a villain. Men had someone to identify with in the movie. In Birds of Prey the only men are villains, extremely misogynistic violent men who no one wants to identify with. Not to mention they made it sound like there’s be a gay relationship in the movie when there actually wasn’t. Margot f*cked up.

I actually thought it was interesting how they played it out. Obviously the whole film’s core was the exploration of men’s abuse of power, in wildly different tones- in a comical and campy manner (all the villains), in a more realistic manner (police force workplace), and even in the more subtle emotional moments (Harley getting sold out by the one man she trusted).

I don’t know, as a man I thought it was well done. It was a hyperbolic film with a hyperbolic message regarding women empowerment.

That said, I agree with you regarding the placement of the implication of the gay relationship, if you are talking about Mask and Zasz. While the sexual tension between them was definitely played up and intended to be menacing and disturbing, it still rubbed me the wrong way.

Happy enough to get queer implications around both Harley and Montoya (not implied! direct?), though.

1 hour ago, Alfonso said:

 

This! 

I also thought it was a great movie! Well done and really entertaining.. Margot was on point 

I'm just hoping that this situation doesn't affect the movie / future projects, for me it feels like the media is trying to sabotage it  because you can see that almost everyone that went to see it loved it (when I went people got even excited during some scenes )

The audience I was with had a blast. Very vocal reactions, surprisingly. 

[beaublue 3,868]

3 minutes ago, Miel said:

I actually thought it was interesting how they played it out. Obviously the whole film’s core was the exploration of men’s abuse of power, in wildly different tones- in a comical and campy manner (all the villains), in a more realistic manner (police force workplace), and even in the more subtle emotional moments (Harley getting sold out by the one man she trusted).

I don’t know, as a man I thought it was well done. It was a hyperbolic film with a hyperbolic message regarding women empowerment.

That said, I agree with you regarding the placement of the implication of the gay relationship, if you are talking about Mask and Zasz. While the sexual tension between them was definitely played up and intended to be menacing and disturbing, it still rubbed me the wrong way.

Happy enough to get queer implications around both Harley and Montoya (not implied! direct?), though.

The audience I was with had a blast. Very vocal reactions, surprisingly. 

I personally didn’t have an issue with how men were portrayed in the film. I liked the film generally but I can see the obvious reasons why it didn’t connect with people... including the false advertising of gay representation between black mask & zsaz. Not to mention they barely touched on Harley being bi with a cartoon in the beginning while she plays love “roulette” lol