Birds of Prey (2020)

Avengers, Batman, Superman, etc Discussion about comic mainstream movies and TV shows.
User avatar
TIEnTEEZ
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1246
Joined: 10 years ago

I haven't seen the movie, but I'd like to. But there are quite a few problems with it that I can see.
I think the biggest problem is that this movie doesn't know who it's for. It doesn't know who it's audience is.

Comic book fans aren't going to like it because it plays havoc with the canon.

Nerds aren't going to like it because the costumes are deliberately avoiding sex appeal.

This is probably an attempt to attract the female-empowerment viewer. But those viewers aren't going to watch a comic-book superheroine movie, anyway.

I also think it's really bad timing to release a movie like this. February? Really? I'd actually LIKE to see the movie, but who goes to the movies in February? No one. :-P
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

They just "opened up Pandora's litterbox" (referring to the second 'in-theater retcon'...the first one was changing the content of Cats).
Movies are probably now going to be filmed with multiple endings and varied content that can be changed digitally if sales aren't going well enough...turning theater audiences into unpaid focus groups.

Plus, I disagree that they don't know who the audience is. They know. It's just not a big enough audience to make a movie of this size clearly profitable. It's the fact that they don't understand this which is astounding. Clownfish lays out the desperation:

Lurkndog
Elder Member
Elder Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 13 years ago

For me, the issue with the movie is that I know who the Birds of Prey are, and Cassandra Cain, and Black Mask, and I don't even recognize them in the trailer.
Visitor
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 926
Joined: 14 years ago

https://www.yahoo.com/news/box-office-e ... 18485.html

The movie may still be profitable with its low box office because it wasn't that expensive. Continuing the DC trend of making money with few decent movies.
Dogfish
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: 10 years ago

It made it's money back in four days and it'll probably have a fairly decent run because as off-putting as the premise is the reviews and word of mouth are generally pretty positive, plus it's not got masses of competition to lure audiences away, except maybe from the Coronavirus. People get weird about movies too, it's like, if they'd wanted to make a billion dollars then they wouldn't have made an eighty million dollar movie with an R rating.

It's weird, people complain about the homogenous nature of modern culture, everything becoming bland and shaped by focus groups into this mediocre mass-market slush, and then we have often those same people raging for days about box office numbers. Either you want artists and creative types to follow their visions, or you want profit at all costs. Pick one, can't have both.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

'Unique obstacles', like it doesn't have any of the appeal of the previous four DC movies. :)

It's about to get competition this weekend. Sonic is coming out, and has higher projections for opening weekend than Birds of Prey. A handful of salty BOP superfans are so worried about the distraction that they're writing tweets accusing Sonic of containing 'homophobic slurs' (many accounts have simply copy-pasta'd the exact same wording!). One extreme tweeter even said she was assaulted during a screening of Sonic, which is impossible of course, because it hasn't even come out. When called out on their trollish behavior, these accounts respond that they're just doing it for the LOLs. Right.

The 'reviews' are pretty positive (hence the term 'shill media') but the word of mouth is not - Youtube is abuzz with negativity on it. I never said it would lose money, but unless it gets a lot more support in the next two weeks it's going to hover around the level that is still considered to be a bomb - the lowest DC earnings since Jonah Hex, and not even as good as 2011 Green Lantern. Also, did you forget that Joker cost less than Birds of Prey and made a billion? Birds of Prey might not even make 1/5 of that, and they're in the same league and same market, and as you said, it had no competition whatsoever for a whole week.

And sure, we want artists and creative types to follow their visions. But for that, you've got to go to movies created by the likes of Wes Anderson, who knows what he's doing (the trailers for The French Dispatch look quirky, fun, and even socially responsible). We gave them a chance to work their magic, but Robbie, Hodson and Yan don't. At least not when it comes to superheroes. Maybe they'll learn and do better next time. I'd like to see what Hodson has to offer on Batgirl (I'm sure everyone on this forum wants to see a successful Batgirl movie in a form-hugging costume at least as good as Alicia Silverstone's was) and hopefully it won't be the hipster Burnside version. Or maybe Batgirl and the Gotham City Sirens combined. I'd love to see other female creators pull off what Patty Jenkins seems to be able to do with such ease. They just need to take *all* audiences into account when doing it, that's all - not just make a movie for the Bernie Sanders voting bloc.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
blah blah blah...
The 'reviews' are pretty positive (hence the term 'shill media') but the word of mouth is not - Youtube is abuzz with negativity on it.
All youtube channels you follow are bounding comics alt right manbaby type crap (some w manbaby women hosts), so naturally you're gonna get negativity from them.

I never said it would lose money, but unless it gets a lot more support in the next two weeks it's going to hover around the level that is still considered to be a bomb
That's not a thing. No hover level, no still considered a bomb when it's not. Either it's a bomb or not. And it's not when it makes it's budget back or more. By definition.

- the lowest DC earnings since Jonah Hex, and not even as good as 2011 Green Lantern.
Everything is better than Green Lantern 2011, except hburgh.

not just make a movie for the Bernie Sanders voting bloc.
They didn't make a movie aimed at any voting bloc. Only manbaby ilk would say so in their propaganda. Like you just did.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:


The 'reviews' are pretty positive (hence the term 'shill media') but the word of mouth is not - Youtube is abuzz with negativity on it.
All youtube channels you follow are bounding comics alt right manbaby type crap (some w manbaby women hosts), so naturally you're gonna get negativity from them.
Nope. Plenty of channels I **never even normally watch** are saying bad things. That's why I said Youtube is abuzz with negativity. Because I checked on the veracity of the statement before I said it! Here are some examples:

I've never heard of "What Culture" before, and yet a video with 120K views is saying that Birds of Prey failed at the box office.



I've never watched "Laughingstock Cinema" before, and they say it's the "Worst DCEU Movie". Only 3.5K views though.



Here's a very mainstream channel with 71K views that says the movie's reception was disappointing. The commentator also points out that the failure of the film didn't have to do with the fact that it stars women or that it has edgy politics. It was just a bad movie.



I would hardly even call Lauren Chen a female manbaby, but her video about the topic has 400K views and she does point out that the movie specifically emphasized avoiding the male gaze and highlighting a misogynistic character (Black Mask, who was fairly one dimensional - MacGregor did the best he could with he had). I've heard of her, but never watched one of her videos before.



So, there you have a variety of points of view, all from channels I have never watched before, and it's as easy as simply searching "Birds of Prey" on Youtube to find them. No other search words, just "Birds of Prey". All the points of view have in common is the fact that 1) this film did not do well, 2) this film is not good or 3) both.

So what have we got right there? Only four channels, none of which I've watched before, telling 600,000 people to essentially not bother seeing the movie in theaters? And probably a few dozen other channels saying roughly the same thing, all of whom are targeted towards viewers who normally like to go see superhero movies.....And wait, that has no effect at all?

Of course it does. That's why I said: word of mouth isn't good. It's bad. Except among a very select group of people who directly aspire to the movie's messily nihilistic messaging.

I never said it would lose money, but unless it gets a lot more support in the next two weeks it's going to hover around the level that is still considered to be a bomb
That's not a thing. No hover level, no still considered a bomb when it's not. Either it's a bomb or not. And it's not when it makes it's budget back or more. By definition.
But first of all, the movie hasn't made its budget back yet. The amount you see listed is just the production budget. Not promotions.
To quote: "When you read in the trades, or in various avenues of the media, that X film had X amount of dollars as a budget, they are only referring to all three phases of PRODUCTION (pre, shooting, and post)." And promotions budget are almost never released to the public.

Now, promotions is mostly accounted for as the overall budget that the studio has for promoting movies, not necessarily for a specific movie. Nonetheless that expenditure still has to be accounted for, whether the specific movie in question makes that money or not.

And not only does it have to make its allotment of the studio's promotions budget back, it has to make a substantial amount above that, to still not be a failure after all of that work is done on it. If it doesn't, it fails, whether you strictly define that level of failure as a "bomb" or not. It's still on track to be the worst-earning DC movie since Jonah Hex, but as I said, let's see if it does better in the coming weeks or not. But I'm going to guess *not*, because of the bad word of mouth. Q.E.D.
- the lowest DC earnings since Jonah Hex, and not even as good as 2011 Green Lantern.
Everything is better than Green Lantern 2011, except hburgh.
woo! burn! ad hommina hommina homminem. irrelevant to the argument.
not just make a movie for the Bernie Sanders voting bloc.
They didn't make a movie aimed at any voting bloc. Only manbaby ilk would say so in their propaganda. Like you just did.
Sure, you could go that route. Except for one small fact: Bernie Sanders *was mentioned in the movie by Margot Robbie*. Which was the only reason why I said that - I wasn't serious about them targeting *exactly* that voting bloc. It was a joke referencing the film's dialogue.

If you had watched the film already, like I did, you would have caught the reference. So, have I caught you criticizing something you haven't actually watched yet? Hmmmm......
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
shevek says "blah blah..."
Plenty of reviews and opinions either way, like with all movies. I'm not going to look at your four manbaby demographic (whether hosted by woman or not) aimed reviews. I can find non-manbaby non-hate reviews too, and prefer them.



Psst...just an example, you shouldn't watch this tho, not meant for you.

So, have I caught you criticizing something you haven't actually watched yet?
So, have I caught you saying something utterly stupid? Of course I've watched your BS (even quoted it) and am criticizing it. duh!

But first of all, the movie hasn't made its budget back yet.
I know. That's why I said "when..."
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

And...in more wacky Birds of Prey-related news.....it seems that Batman is the problem in Gotham due to his privilege, and lack of empathy for minorities.....

https://www.cbr.com/birds-of-prey-prove ... n-problem/

And here's some more interesting news: there are leaked images from the production of the next Suicide Squad film (to come out
in 2021) that show Harley Quinn back to her old look. Specifically the New 52 version of Harley.

Could it James Gunn wasn't having nunn...?

https://www.republicworld.com/entertain ... ealed.html
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
And...in more wacky Birds of Prey-related news.....it seems that Batman is the problem in Gotham due to his privilege, and lack of empathy for minorities.....

[some lame opinion piece at cbr . com]

And here's some more interesting news: there are leaked images from the production of the next Suicide Squad film (to come out
in 2021) that show Harley Quinn back to her old look. Specifically the New 52 version of Harley.

Could it James Gunn wasn't having nunn...?

[some article at republicworld . com that DOESN'T SHOW harley quinns new look...lame waste of time]
Some dubious opinion piece on cbr.com is not actually news. It's opinion, and pretty dumb opinion at that, very weak writing. Weird that you follow that article with "more interesting news" when your first article wasn't news or interesting. You find boring stuff interesting? OK then.

2nd article you posted also lame. Zero for 2. No new look. Do you make money on these waste of time articles clicks? Well, anyway...

Suicide Squad 1 had a different director. James Gunn's Suicide Squad 2 is gonna be Gunn's vision, his movie. "Could it James Gunn wasn't having nunn...?" is like a question formed by someone not following superhero comics and movies with any observational skills (not surprised).

Articles w Margot Robbie quotes here are way more interesting...

https://movieweb.com/the-suicide-squad- ... ley-quinn/
"You get to see another side of Harley [in The Suicide Squad]. It's interesting. You keep getting to meet her at different points in her life, as if a couple of years have gone by. Of course, the films aren't directly connected, but as an actor, I can map it out in a chronological sense. So, it's fun to see 'Okay, what was she like a couple of years ago when she was with Mister J?' 'What is she like now, after they've broken up? And what is she going to be like in another couple of years' time?' I love seeing her at these different stages of her life."

https://movieweb.com/suicide-squad-2-ja ... ot-robbie/
"I can tell you that it's gonna be incredible, and, again, it's just interesting to see what a different filmmaker makes of Gotham and these characters and Harley, really. I'm fascinated by what James finds fascinating about her compared to what Cathy finds interesting, compared to what David found interesting about her. He's such a comic book lover, so you know it's always going to be, again, rooted in the source material, which is always important to me."
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Hmm...I should have found a more comprehensive piece, but nonetheless the article I posted *does show Harley's look in the upcoming Suicide Squad film*..the red and black costume! And note: I own multiple TPBs of Harley Quinn material from the past couple decades.

The point, though, is that in the next Suicide Squad, she goes back to looking like she did in the New 52. The writer of that MovieWeb article is being diplomatic about things, but the box office shows that what "Cathy Yan found interesting" in the character did not resonate enough with audiences. So James Gunn is going to go a different way, and his Suicide Squad will draw way bigger numbers.

You're more diligent at finding articles than I am, but all you did in the above post was essentially echo what I said: 1) CBR's opinion on Batman in Birds of Prey is dumb; and 2) Harley Quinn has a new look in the next Suicide Squad film, and it will be better. We agree!

Female manbaby Nerdette, in her video commentary about the dumb CBR piece, also reviews the new DC Black Label comic Harley Quinn and Birds of Prey #1, by Palmiotti and Conner. True to all the characters (including Cassandra Cain) it is *way* better than the film, and should have been part of the source material for the film. Palmiotti and Conner should have been the writers of this movie - their studio is called Paperfilms, after all. We're going to pick up this book on Sunday!

User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
Hmm...I should have found a more comprehensive piece, but nonetheless the article I posted *does show Harley's look in the upcoming Suicide Squad film*..the red and black costume! And note: I own multiple TPBs of Harley Quinn material from the past couple decades.

The point, though, is that in the next Suicide Squad, she goes back to looking like she did in the New 52. The writer of that MovieWeb article is being diplomatic about things, but the box office shows that what "Cathy Yan found interesting" in the character did not resonate enough with audiences. So James Gunn is going to go a different way, and his Suicide Squad will draw way bigger numbers.

You're more diligent at finding articles than I am, but all you did in the above post was essentially echo what I said: 1) CBR's opinion on Batman in Birds of Prey is dumb; and 2) Harley Quinn has a new look in the next Suicide Squad film, and it will be better. We agree!
the article I posted *does show Harley's look in the upcoming Suicide Squad film*..the red and black costume!
I did not see, in the article you posted: Harley's look in the upcoming Suicide Squad film, the red and black costume. Saw Margot a couple times. Is this what you saw and think it's her red and black costume (pssst...it's not the red and black costume...at least I hope not!)? Please enlighten.
shevek thinks this is harley's new look in Suicide Squad 2.png
shevek thinks this is harley's new look in Suicide Squad 2.png (497.95 KiB) Viewed 2989 times
Or are you refering to Margot in the red dress. Also not Harley's red and black costume. Does seem to be how she'll look in a scene for the movie tho (unless it's not used).

Please post the image you saw in the ARTICLE you LINKED that shows Margot on set for Suicide Squad 2 that VERIFIES this statement: *does show Harley's look in the upcoming Suicide Squad film*.

Otherwise, we can all agree that you're LYING.

Or prove me wrong about this, and show what I missed seeing in your article.

Anyway, next topic: you have a really bad habit of totally twisting what other people actually say, mangling it, misrepresenting it, getting it completely wrong. You do it all the time. Well, maybe you don't do this so much to manbabies, but you do to everyone else.

essentially echo what I said: 1) CBR's opinion on Batman in Birds of Prey is dumb; and 2) Harley Quinn has a new look in the next Suicide Squad film, and it will be better. We agree!
And so you're wrong as usual: I did not echo what you said.

1. You DID NOT say the CBR opinion piece was dumb when you posted it. You said it was interesting (when you say "here's some more interesting news" refering to 2nd article, you're also saying 1st article is interesting but not as much as 2nd). You posted it for people to read, basically wasting everyone's time who looked at it. If you thought it was dumb when you linked it, why the fuck link it, why post about it. If you're agreeing with me after the fact, that's you echoing me.

2. I did not comment on which of Harley's looks is, or will be better, so you saying we agree that "it will be better" is attributing something to me that's not based on anything I wrote. Which you do a lot, virtually all the time. Make shit up about what other people say or think or believe. You can guess "it will be better." I'm not venturing a guess, other than Margot will be hot as ever. Feel free to put words in your own mouth, but not attribute your words to others when you haven't got a clue.

Without a doubt, you haven't got a clue what other people think or believe. But the weirdest part is when you can read (you can read right?) what people actually write and say, you get it completely wrong even then. After you just read it! You read it, and STILL haven't got a clue what you just read!
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
Bert

Shevek is like a religious zealot. He begins with a conviction and then sets out to "prove" it. His conviction is that woke, SJWism is rampant and ruining everything, and he manages to cram every development in the entertainment industry into that box. It's not always wrong, but it sure as hell gets tiresome.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

I didn't initially say the CBR article was interesting, I said it was wacky, and summarized why.

The second article does, in fact, show the Harley New 52 costume (which the new Suicide Squad movie will be using) in a comic book image to the immediate right of the photo you posted.

Bert, pardon me, but you're exaggerating. It's not "every" development by a long shot - just the ones that exhibit such tendencies. And it's not zealotry, it's an advocacy for reason and balance in entertainment rather than blatant displays of agenda. For example, I've been saying lots of good things about the Harley Quinn cartoon, The Orville, The Expanse, The Boys and plenty of others. I mean, if you watch Bill Maher, he has pretty much the same stance.
Bert

There's the guy you think you are, and then there's the way way you come across here. Take my word for it, here you're like a broken record.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Bert wrote:
4 years ago
There's the guy you think you are, and then there's the way way you come across here. Take my word for it, here you're like a broken record.
These things happen so often since 2014 - several times in 2019 alone - that commenting on them does indeed seem like a broken record. The Hollywood Reporter said about Charlie's Angels: "..the film specifically "failed to attract moviegoers over the age of 35," as well as "younger females—its target audience—in enough numbers." The same exact shortcomings are evident with Birds of Prey.

Movie is unlikely to make its true expenses back.

https://www.gamesradar.com/birds-of-pre ... fice-flop/

Variety of reasons for the lack of success. The R rating was an issue. Suicide Squad was PG-13, and interest in Harley exploded as a result. For interest in Harley to *retract*, somebody must be doing something wrong.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/14/bo ... s-of-prey/
Bert

I don't think it's up to you to decide how your posts are received by others.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
4 years ago
I don't think it's up to you to decide how your posts are received by others.
They say that failure has many fathers and I don't know quite where I fall in this debate, but I was just Curious Bert, what reasons do you attribute to the film tanking?
Bert

According to Forbes it has earned 143 million worldwide in a little less than two weeks on an 82 million budget. I'm not sure that qualifies as tanking. My comments here weren't about the movie's success, they were about Shevek's ongoing crusade against women's issues. In a world where women directors, critics and actors are still fighting an uphill battle for fair treatment, Shevek's endless screeds against the evils of wokeness irk me. There's a battle for equality happening. The playing field is still slanted. The sitting president of the United States has bragged about sexual assault, been accused over a dozen times of sexual assault, and has the blessing of 43% of the electorate. That's the present reality. But if a female actress or director, or some program or movie steps slightly over the line in the opposite direction, Shevek is there crying foul. That annoys me.
bushwackerbob
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 781
Joined: 10 years ago
Location: Boston, MA

Bert wrote:
4 years ago
According to Forbes it has earned 143 million worldwide in a little less than two weeks on an 82 million budget. I'm not sure that qualifies as tanking. My comments here weren't about the movie's success, they were about Shevek's ongoing crusade against women's issues. In a world where women directors, critics and actors are still fighting an uphill battle for fair treatment, Shevek's endless screeds against the evils of wokeness irk me. There's a battle for equality happening. The playing field is still slanted. The sitting president of the United States has bragged about sexual assault, been accused over a dozen times of sexual assault, and has the blessing of 43% of the electorate. That's the present reality. But if a female actress or director, or some program or movie steps slightly over the line in the opposite direction, Shevek is there crying foul. That annoys me.
I just don't see why both ideas need to be mutually exclusive, that they both can be true. Yes, the playing field in Hollywood (and elsewhere) is slanted in favor of men to the disadvantage of women, there is no question in my mind that inequality exists. At the same time though, is someone automatically a sexist or misogynist pig if they make the observation that Hollywood seems to be overcompensating for that gender inequality by putting out these gender specific targeted films. I do not lose too much sleep over that observation though, because Hollywood could no more impose an unwelcome woke ideology on an unwilling public anymore than religious puritanical zealots could impose their version of morality on those here in our SHP community. We can't help but like what we like, there is no crime or injustice towards how we feel about a SHP film, a Hollywood flick, or anything else. I think changing the title of the film so late speaks volumes as to the success of the movie.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
I didn't initially say the CBR article was interesting, I said it was wacky, and summarized why.

The second article does, in fact, show the Harley New 52 costume (which the new Suicide Squad movie will be using) in a comic book image to the immediate right of the photo you posted.
...
I didn't initially say the CBR article was interesting, I said it was wacky, and summarized why.

You linked two articles in that one post. And in it said the 2nd article was "more interesting" than the 1st. Which in english means the 1st article is interesting, but the 2nd is more interesting. If you meant otherwise, that the 1st article wasn't interesting at all and you were just wasting everyone's time by linking to it, you can clarify now if you want.

I said it was wacky,
Yes, you said that. However, it wasn't really wacky so much as entirely nonsense, entirely dumb. Not the same thing. Too bad you can't discern the diff.

---

The second article does, in fact, show the Harley New 52 costume (which the new Suicide Squad movie will be using) in a comic book image to the immediate right of the photo you posted.

There's the article. There's the tweet linked in the article that shows a comic book image. That we can all see who bothers to look.

What there IS NOT is one iota of visual info, or text info that confirms, verifies, shows or states that...
the new Suicide Squad movie will be using the Harley New 52 costume shown in a comic book image to the immediate right of the photo of Margot on set, in the HeroesAndVIllains tweet.

shevek, YOU made THAT whole load of BS up. Per YOUR M.O. Nowhere in that article or tweet is that claim made.

Here's the tweet...
Margot on set w umbrella + comic jpg posted on twitter.png
Margot on set w umbrella + comic jpg posted on twitter.png (740.63 KiB) Viewed 2852 times
The tweet's image shows Margot on set on the left, and comic book image (from 2015 Suicide Squad comic) on the right.
The tweet's text is only about HAIR. (not costume.)

The tweet writer doesn't say that comic book image costume is the costume the new Suicide Squad movie will be using.
The tweet writer text is only comparing the side-by-side images hair color. (He seems to ignore Margot's mostly blonde hair in photo)

The article writer (that-links-to-the-tweet) doesn't say that comic book image costume is the costume the new Suicide Squad movie will be using.
No one mentioned in the article, in tweets, in video, says that comic book image costume is the costume the new Suicide Squad movie will be using.

James Gunn doesn't say that comic book image costume is the costume the new Suicide Squad movie will be using.
Margot Robbie doesn't say that comic book image costume is the costume the new Suicide Squad movie will be using.

Only shevek makes the huge nonsense leap, based on comparing hair color of Margot on set to hair color of 2015 comic book cover and proclaims, in his ultra-limited teenie-weenie virtual brainless capacity way, that...

The second article does, in fact, show the Harley New 52 costume (which the new Suicide Squad movie will be using) in a comic book image to the immediate right

It's just plain asinine. shevek has no clue what he's talking about.

----
Altho it is a guess anyone might make! But then one should say they're guessing. Not proclaim it as FACT, when one has no proof, didn't find out from anyone in the know, haven't heard it from anyone working on the movie. Got no source.

Yep, it's one thing to guess, surmise about SS2's Harley costume. It's another thing to completely lie about what an article is saying, or a tweet in the article is saying, or what an image a fan tweet represents.

No one not working on the movie knows if a costume resembling the New 52 Harley costume will be in the movie. Not until they show us. It's not a bad guess considering that all Harley content from comics can inform the filmmakers on the new movie, including the New 52 stuff. Wonder Woman's costume for her 1st movie was different than the comics, yet familiar. Of course, when it was first revealed, there was lots of complaining, not just about Gal, but of the costume. But now people love Gal as WW, and people are OK with the costume. Most have grown accustomed to it. (Seems to me.)

---

BTW, that comic book art that HeroesAndVillains on twitter tweeted is from 2015...
.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/New_Suicide_Squad_Vol_1_4

---
I am kind of curious how shevek's brain works.

HeroesAndVillains tweeted the photo of Margot with an umbrella, and wearing a white top and black pants. Is this proof to you that that outfit is one that Margot will be wearing in the movie? Based on how your mind works, are you convinced from that photo that Margot as Harley will use that umbrella in the movie and refer to herself as the Penguin?

When I looked at the article page on the linked site, I see on the right side: Selena Gomez and some other actresses in various outfits (I imagine these right side images and links change overtime). If HeroesAndVillains had tweeted their images in his tweet side by side with Margot, would you, Shevek, think Selena Gomez is in the movie? Or the other actresses are modeling some of Harley's New 52 outfits to be used in the movie? :joker:

---
So, what about the ACTUAL on set photos/video that the article calls 'Leaked Photos.' The ones that show Margot's Harley hair, and costume she wears during the outdoor location stuff they were shooting that day

Well we're in luck.

Here's Margot's ACTUAL Harley costume (not a comic book image) worn while portraying Harley on set, shot this 2020, actual video taken by onlookers...
(have to play the video to see Margot, Margot will appear lower left)
.



.
This from actual Suicide Squad 2 movie shoot, and well, her costume is red and black. It's not ala New 52 tho (or maybe it is and I just don't read enough!). It's kinda meh from what I can tell. The dress is red, the shoes are black (seem black, pretty dirty tho). Otherwise nothing like HeroesAndVillains tweeted comic book image with New 52 costume. No guns? No bullet holsters? No cool Harley belt buckle? No any details ala comic book image costume details?

Well, I for one, hope these 'leaked photos/video' images of Margot as Harley in SS2 don't show her only costume! That would be disappointing. She really needs to get a much hotter costume in this movie. Probably won't be exactly like the New 52 costume from that comic cover image, but I wouldn't complain if it is. The red and black ponytails do seem to allude to New 52 red and black, and maybe this will carry on to her, unseen as yet, hot costume.

Hmm..what other Harley scene has had red and black costume, sorta like from a New 52ish comic. How about this one (have seen a few roller-derby Harley New 52 comic book images)...
.
birds-of-prey-harley-quinn-derby-margot-robbie-765x444.jpeg
birds-of-prey-harley-quinn-derby-margot-robbie-765x444.jpeg (65.77 KiB) Viewed 2852 times
.
Anyway, that comic book image again...

Suicide Squad v1-4 jan 2015.png
Suicide Squad v1-4 jan 2015.png (910.74 KiB) Viewed 2852 times
.

Yeah, I don't know. She may get costume that alludes to this, but I really doubt she'll have all those bullets in bullet holsters. Has she ever used a gun with real bullets in a movie (SS1, Birds of Prey)?

I do personally vote for lotsa bare leg, keep doing that. And bare middle.

Margot Harley Legs.png
Margot Harley Legs.png (1.01 MiB) Viewed 2852 times
.
Harleygif.gif
Harleygif.gif (1.27 MiB) Viewed 2852 times
.

So maybe some kind of combo of details involving aspects of above.

Anyway...

Shevek = unreliable source of info as ever. Guesswork masquerading as knowledge. Making up stuff. Pretender. If you like your truth twisted and spun and made up, Shevek's your man!

To conclude...

The article Shevek linked to that brought this all up is titled:
Harley Quinn's New Look Revealed In Leaked Photos From 'Suicide Squad 2' Set.

Is her New Look that comic book image in tweet. Nope! Or we don't really know yet, might be surprised, the tweeter might have accidentally selected just the right guessing image.

from the article tho: the New Look Revealed in Leaked Photos turned out to be........drum roll..........
........This one (kinda blurry but you get the gist)
.
Margot on set as Harley in red dress cap 1.png
Margot on set as Harley in red dress cap 1.png (227.53 KiB) Viewed 2852 times

Yep, not great. We need to see that as yet unseen, really HOT costume pretty soon I'd say!

:hq: <- "I'm HOT no matter what I wear!"
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
Bert wrote:
4 years ago
There's the guy you think you are, and then there's the way way you come across here. Take my word for it, here you're like a broken record.
These things happen so often since 2014 - several times in 2019 alone - that commenting on them does indeed seem like a broken record. The Hollywood Reporter said about Charlie's Angels: "..the film specifically "failed to attract moviegoers over the age of 35," as well as "younger females—its target audience—in enough numbers." The same exact shortcomings are evident with Birds of Prey.

Movie is unlikely to make its true expenses back.

https://www.gamesradar.com/birds-of-pre ... fice-flop/

Variety of reasons for the lack of success. The R rating was an issue. Suicide Squad was PG-13, and interest in Harley exploded as a result. For interest in Harley to *retract*, somebody must be doing something wrong.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/14/bo ... s-of-prey/
There's no law that says you have to comment like a broken record. That's your choice cause you like it. Serves your agenda.

Charlie's Angels was a good movie. Just as good as the Cameron Diaz era Charlie's Angels. Unfortunately, good movies failing to generate good box office will make things tough for similar potential good movies. Likewise, Crap movies doing well at box office gave us too many Crap Transformer movies, large budget, crap movies, lot of good movies then don't get made. So it goes.

On the other hand, streaming is great cause a lot of the poor box office yet good movies, get a great chance of being seen by people and minds get changed. Doesn't mean there'll be a Liz Bank's Charlies Angels 2, but I'd go see it if they made it.

Movie is unlikely to make its true expenses back.
Way too early to tell. So I'll predict it's likely to make its true expenses back. We'll see.

--
2nd link to thefederalist is manbaby land propaganda agenda. So of course you link to there, like you often link to manbaby zone boundingcomics. Waste of time.

--
Birds of Prey long title was a mistake.
R rating was mistake.

For interest in Harley to *retract*, somebody must be doing something wrong.
Well, yeah, they retracted Harley's best asset. Known as the Joker. :joker:

Harley without Joker was a major mistake. Reminds me of Supergirl show on CBS where they did that weird: can't have Superman there on screen to show her the ropes, get her started. Weird ghosting Superman crap. That and other meh stuff writers came up with destined Supergirl show to only one season on CBS. It woulda been gone if not for little league option: the CW.

Harley's a fun character with Joker, not so much without. It's breaking up a team. If you don't use Joker then you need a character that can fill that hole. Not so much on an animated 30 min TV show, but a feature movie: Absolutely. But who really? Catwoman maybe. Poison Ivy maybe. Batgirl maybe. Supergirl maybe. Powergirl. Zatanna. Alfred, Booster Gold from the future, Martian Manhunter in disguise, the Atom, Robin. I dunno. Joker would still be best, even Leto. A big hole left with him not there. Joker is way more famous to the masses than sidekick Harley, but together they're both enhanced, more than the sum of their parts. Black Canary & Huntress weren't enough, or maybe they weren't used enough. Harley needs an equal or near equal.

No positive male characters was a mistake. No nice men with some dimension. That's a void.

And a weird aside, seemingly from leftfield you might think, as to why I think Harley and the girls movie didn't attract ticket buying moviegoers, and that is: the really bad CW Batwoman and Supergirl shows. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that bad superheroine shows on week to week TV could contribute to messing up expectations for quirky supervillianess group movie, but I think that's got a lot to do with it. Particularly the Alice character on Batwoman. Not blaming the actress, I blame the writing.

Also plenty of male driven superhero movies have worked (aware some are lousy), so moviegoers more likely to take a chance on them. But other than Wonder Woman's first movie, is there another superheroine led movie that's worked well. I can't think of one. Is there a supervillainess movie that's worked? Is there a supervillainess movie!? I note that Wonder Woman's band of merry men were all men, no women, for important middle and 3rd act of movie. And they were men of good character, some dimension. WW did have the amazons in first half hour of movie setup, but that's a bit different: the whole amazon army vs the Harley crew of 2nd raters. Don't get me wrong, Gal as WW is a revelation, I'm not at all saying the band of merry men made the movie. Gal made the movie for me, but everyone else was really good too, so team sport moviemaking with Gal wonderful as the lead.

Suicide Squad 2 with no Joker and no WIll Smith. That's not great either. Will James Gunn style be enough with Margot and rest of cast. Suicide Squad not nearly as interesting as SciFi Guardians of the Galaxy. (to me anyway.) He'll probably make it work. Won't be easy.

Margot's hot, well-known, but Harley's B-list not A-list, basically Joker's sidekick. Had Margot been cast as movie Supergirl who is A-list like Margot, then whole different, way better box office (says me!)

She's stuck as Harley now. That's how it is. How it seems anyway. Get Joker back!

Altho we do have multi-universes. An alternate universe movie with Margot Robbie as Supergirl. I'm up for that!

And somebody make a good superheroine TV show. The dearth is sad.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
Femina
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1473
Joined: 14 years ago
Contact:

What is the f'king deal with hollywood's roller derby obsession? I swear to god, the only place I've ever seen roller derby is on a movie screen, and MORE OFTEN than larger world renown sports.

Like seriously, even when its not ACTUALLY Roller derby... it's still actually just roller derby extreme like in Battle Angel Alita or that 'Roller Ball' sci-fi film.
TIEnTEEZ wrote:
4 years ago
This is probably an attempt to attract the female-empowerment viewer. But those viewers aren't going to watch a comic-book superheroine movie, anyway.
This isn't true. Wonder Woman sold fine to the female-empowerment viewers... but its at least sort of true. I think most of the female-empowerment viewers would recognize a member of the SUICIDE SQUAD on the posters of your movie and wonder why they are trying to push a psychopathic killer as the empowerment model.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Interesting....Scribbler's rambling obsession with making me seem "unreliable". Alright, man, you go for it.

Birds of Prey won't break even on its true costs after three entire weekends in the theaters. It's toast.

Femina - the evolution of roller derby actually parallels the evolution of feminism from an egalitarian movement in the 1970s
right up to today's intersectionalist celebration of violent psychopathy in the name of fighting the innumerable -isms.

1950s
roller derby 1950s.jpg
roller derby 1950s.jpg (47.92 KiB) Viewed 2753 times
1970s
1970s roller derby life magazine.jpg
1970s roller derby life magazine.jpg (9.58 KiB) Viewed 2755 times
2020s
2020 roller derby.jpg
2020 roller derby.jpg (34.01 KiB) Viewed 2753 times
Bert

"the evolution of roller derby actually parallels the evolution of feminism from an egalitarian movement in the 1970s
right up to today's intersectionalist celebration of violent psychopathy in the name of fighting the innumerable -isms."

Well thanks for clearing that up.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
Birds of Prey won't break even on its true costs after three entire weekends in the theaters. It's toast.
By "it's toast", shevek means his assertion that he knows the movie's true costs is toast. Cuz everyone knows he doesn't know.

By "it's toast", shevek means his assertion that the movie won't break even is toast, as well as his bizarro assertion that a movie not breaking even "after three entire weekends in the theaters" is just plain shevek weirdness. And everyone knows it.

By "it's toast", shevek means his above statement was 100% toast the instant he posted it, cuz it's loaded with shevek BS that everybody can see, so basically shevek is in effect, saying that he, himself, is toast.

In a nutshell, by "it's toast", shevek is projecting: about his own H-burgh bombs. But no worries, shevek, your bombs are so far off in the distance that virtually no one hears or sees them bomb, so very, very few people even know. That's good right?

So Birds of Prey Worldwide box office now is:
.
Harley Quinn BoP Box Office 022320.png
Harley Quinn BoP Box Office 022320.png (71.76 KiB) Viewed 2717 times
.

It will be adjusted some a few days after this weekend, probably won't change much. More weeks (including weekends) ahead for it in theaters to come, more ahead of it than behind it. Has definitely broke even (by almost double) over production budget already. Other movie budget costs only the studio knows. It's not a metric the public can use with any certainty cause they can only guess at the numbers. Twice the production cost is as good a guess as any, and the movie is well on its way to exceed that. Good enough for me!

On one hand, I wanted it to do well enough so Margot gets to play Harley in more movies. Then again, if SS2 is the last, I'm fine with that. Skip a few years, then cast her as DC's movie Supergirl!

Anyway, shevek has no clue, per usual.
shevek wrote:
4 years ago
Interesting....Scribbler's rambling obsession with making me seem "unreliable". Alright, man, you go for it.
There's no "making [you] seem". You are who you've proven yourself to be...

Shevek = unreliable source of info as ever. Guesswork masquerading as knowledge. Making up stuff. Pretender. If you like your truth twisted and spun and made up, Shevek's your man!

But I get it. My precise, to-the-point accuracy that pierced and exposed your failed BS about costume has sent you whimpering with tail between your legs, so the above is the best you can do.

It comes down to shevek having no defense or explanation for this...

shevek linked to article and claimed article reported this is the costume SS2 will be using:
Suicide Squad v1-4 jan 2015 sml.png
Suicide Squad v1-4 jan 2015 sml.png (261.41 KiB) Viewed 2717 times
While the article itself made no such claim (nor has anyone else on the web). It did however show Margot in this SS2 Harley costume (very different):
Margot on set as Harley in red dress cap 1.png
Margot on set as Harley in red dress cap 1.png (227.53 KiB) Viewed 2717 times
So shevek is wrong either due to
1. failed reading comprehension of article that he linked to, or
2. willfully misrepresenting article he linked to.
He's done the willfull misrepresenting so many times in the past that that would be my guess.
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Nice try. In many places, Birds of Prey isn't even getting three weekends in theaters. At the theater where I saw it (with almost nobody else in the audience) nearest my neighborhood, it was pulled out after two weekends and didn't even *get* a third weekend, replaced by the Will Ferrell/Julia Louis-Dreyfuss comedy "Downhill". How apropo. A similar trend is happening across the country where theaters are giving up on it.

Meanwhile, Sonic The Hedgehog, which had the largest-ever opening for a video-game based movie, and listened to its fanbase when making improvements to the film (instead of ignoring and insulting the core fanbase like Margot & Co. did) is giving Birds of Prey the drubbing it deserves. Sonic broke even on *all* of its costs in two weekends, and it is going to remain in theaters for three weekends in places that Birds of Prey did not. There is already talk of a sequel by Jim Carrey.

You can look at your own information that you posted to see your claims are baseless.
The movie had "$82-100 million" in production costs. With additional costs of promotion, that doubles to about $200 million.
If it reached only $173 million after three weekends in the theater, then it hasn't broken even yet on its actual costs.
It still might do so, but just barely (at least, in theaters). If it barely breaks even, then it is still a failure compared to any other
recent movie in the DC Universe going back to 2011. It is in the same category with recent failures such as Charlie's Angels and Terminator: Dark Fate. None of those movies made their investors any money. That is a fact.

This has nothing to do with my "projecting". These are the facts. And bickering about whether I misunderstood about a New 52 Harley Quinn costume (and continuing to harp on that, as if making that incredibly minor point has any bearing on my larger assertions) is small potatoes compared to those facts.

If I'm so unreliable, let's see what happens next with the plans for any more Margot-led superhero productions, while you keep endlessly 'stanning' for her (as the kids like to say) simply because she's 'hot'. Hopefully she'll get back to being good at her main job - acting - in the next Suicide Squad movie.
User avatar
theScribbler
Millenium Member
Millenium Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 13 years ago

shevek wrote:
4 years ago
blah blah
Nice try. In many places, Birds of Prey isn't even getting three weekends in theaters. At the theater where I saw it (with almost nobody else in the audience) nearest my neighborhood, it was pulled out after two weekends and didn't even *get* a third weekend, replaced by the Will Ferrell/Julia Louis-Dreyfuss comedy "Downhill". How apropo. A similar trend is happening across the country where theaters are giving up on it.

Nice try? Try at what?

So shevek replies with slanted statement (2nd sentence) right out of the gate!

Hey Mr. Blind to the Obvious, I'll now correct your slant...

In many, many theaters, Birds of Prey HAS GOTTEN three weekends in theaters, in 3,565 theaters to be specific!

And will be in theaters next week as well AKA week four. and five.

Man oh man, shevek bursts out of the gate with a HUGE bogus shevek slant. What a surprise!

Made over $7 million in theaters, this friday thru sunday.

At the theater where I saw it

Since bursting out of the gates with a meaningless shevek serving slant, I'm guessing this follow up is also likely fake, but I don't really know. You saying anything is always suspect, the follow up about your theater, well, no one cares about screenings at your boondock's really small theater.

Meanwhile, Sonic The Hedgehog, which... etc.

Sonic movie: I'm not taking your word for anything. Might do some research on Sonic later, but only casually interested, so I dunno.
You can look at your own information that you posted to see your claims are baseless.
The movie had "$82-100 million" in production costs. With additional costs of promotion, that doubles to about $200 million.
If it reached only $173 million after three weekends in the theater, then it hasn't broken even yet on its actual costs.
It still might do so, but just barely (at least, in theaters). If it barely breaks even, then it is still a failure compared to any other
recent movie in the DC Universe going back to 2011. It is in the same category with recent failures such as Charlie's Angels and Terminator: Dark Fate. None of those movies made their investors any money. That is a fact.
FTR, I'm not really all that interested in the movie's money making. Somewhat, but not that much. It's the shevek BS (as well as manbaby agenda stuff) that pulls me into countering this stuff.

You can look at your own information that you posted to see your claims are baseless.

Yes, I can look at my own info and see my claims are 100% on the money, a refreshing change and counter to your sheveky claims that are baseless

The movie had "$82-100 million" in production costs.

Who are you quoting with "$82-100 million"? Are you pretending as usual? Where'd you get this quote? I never wrote that.

I'll take my sources over your bogus shit claims any day.

I'll stand by $84,500,000 as being the production budget. But I'll look at your sources if you have two corroborating sources, or one known honest one.

With additional costs of promotion, that doubles to about $200 million.

No, it doesn't. Taking the max of your "$82-100 million" range and doubling that is the height of bogusness. Clearly showcasing your manbaby agenda intent.

Doubling as guesswork is dubious, but I'll try it for kicks.

Let's see: $84.5 million doubles to $169 million, and $173.7 million gross is way above that by more the $4 million fucking dollars. So yeah, breaking even plus profit achieved! You lose as expected.

If it reached only $173 million after three weekends in the theater, then it hasn't broken even yet on its actual costs.

OK, that is a number near reported worldwide gross that I posted. And while neither of us know if actual costs are below or above this number, I counter your pessimistic view that it is gross above costs, and the next couple weeks will just keep going up. Clinching it. You lose more.

It still might do so, but just barely (at least, in theaters).

$4 million fucking dollars is not barely, it's 4 with significant series of 6 fucking lovely zeroes as in $4,000,000. And then there'll be disc sales, and years and years of streaming. The studios will make money continuously, the above the line people (like cast) who get royalties will also make money continuously. As well as anyone who has points in a movie. Good stuff.

If it barely breaks even, then it is still a failure compared to any other recent movie in the DC Universe going back to 2011.

Says you?

Nope, not true on so many levels. But I'll not get into this with you, as you have no understanding how things work, or should be considered, or any movie business knowledge at all, so I'll not bother.

It is in the same category with recent failures such as Charlie's Angels and Terminator: Dark Fate.

Same category: you mean they're action movies? duh.

None of those movies made their investors any money. That is a fact.

Do you mean in theaters? You do know these movies are destined to make their investors money over time, or don't you? Yeah, I know, you likely don't. Discs and streaming? Heard of this occuring for movies? sales opportunities?

Far as BoP, it's going to clearly make money while in theaters now. Every gross dollar earned from now on will go towards net (not getting into the weeds of accounting). Studios will profit, actors and others eligible for royalties will make more money.

Yep, another shevek so-called fact bites the dust. Seems more and more that you don't know what a fact is.

This has nothing to do with my "projecting". These are the facts.

Yes it does, and no not facts.

And bickering about whether I misunderstood about a New 52 Harley Quinn costume (and continuing to harp on that, as if making that incredibly minor point has any bearing on my larger assertions) is small potatoes compared to those facts.

Tis not bickering. Tis proving the obvious! And it's an obvious proven FACT that proves who you are, and have always been...

Shevek = bizarro source of misinformation and guesswork masquerading as knowledge as has ever been perpetrated on readers. Making up stuff. Pretender. If you like your truth twisted, spun, hugely wrong be it totally false, or half-truths: Shevek's your man!

If I'm so unreliable, let's see what happens next with the plans for any more Margot-led superhero productions, while you keep endlessly 'stanning' for her (as the kids like to say) simply because she's 'hot'.

Yes, I realized something while writing here. I take it back. You are totally reliable, I see that now. You are 1000% reliable at being committed to lying, slanting, misrepresenting, blowing smoke, bizarre twisting, spinning, claiming things are facts when they're not facts. Remarkable levels of illogic, confused arguments, attempts at wordplay that don't work, know-nothing BS in a way that's easy to spot most times, but hard to fathom what's in it for you.

Yes, unreliable was a poor word choice. Possibly suggesting you might not always twist, slant, skew, maul, mess with something true and actually say the truth, but I didn't intend to say that. Just came out wrong. I admit to that.

Altho what does seeing "what happens next" for Margot Robbie have anything to do with you being unreliable or anything. Her work has nothing to do with you doing or being anything. Pretty weird statement you've made there. Well, anyway, let's see: she has a leading part in SS2, so what's next for that? I imagine "what happens next" is SS2 will come out in theaters. Is that somehow telling for you? I don't know why it would be. Are you making allusions to how well it will do? I don't imagine that has anything to do with you in any way. You're in the clear. You're not at all a factor. No worries. Nothing for you or anyone to ponder about.

I do hope they plan to do Gotham City Sirens still. Margot's Harley will be a lead character in that. But whether they do it of not will have nothing to do with you in any way. That's a fact!

You fancy yourself a know-it-all, yet time and time again, show you're not one. A committed pretender whose bogus claims everywhere on this forum betrays your true nature.

while you keep endlessly 'stanning' for her (as the kids like to say) simply because she's 'hot'.

Had to look that one up. :cap:

So no, not an overzealous or obsessive fan of a particular celebrity. Just a normal fan.

I'm not especially standing up for Margo. What I am doing is smacking down your BS. Exposing and debunking your know-nothingness. Yep, I'm standing up against that shit, your shit. You got my focus wrong. And your concluding reasoning is wrong. My argument with you is not about her being hot, but has to do with you being so full of shit. Altho I wouldn't say it's "simply because" you're full of shit, cause you know, context matters, content matters, so it's also what your BS is about. You know, superhero movie related stuff.

Hopefully she'll get back to being good at her main job - acting - in the next Suicide Squad movie.

Another weird statement from shevek who knows nothing about acting, or directing.

Clearly, Margot's plenty good an actress. Nothing to get back to. But do please tell us Mr. Know-it-all, what do you suggest she do to get good at her main job as you see it? Win more awards maybe? What amount of know-nothingness about acting would you expose if you tried to answer this question!? This should be good!!
the Scribbler

:christmastree:
If U C Xmas tree on TV show
it's Xmas Activism! :christmas:

:lynda1:
If U C attractive brunette in a movie

it's Dark Haired Women Activism!

Be very careful!
Don't B indoctrinated!
Cover your eyes! & ears!
:tv:
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

I'm not in the boondocks. Talk about making wrong assumptions. In fact, I live in a very hip, urban area. The movie theater I was citing, which pulled Birds of Prey after two weekends, is in an adjacent upscale area of town long known to be cultured and full of liberal-minded moviegoers, which has six screens, essentially equivalent to a mainstream movie theater in Brooklyn. It is in those kinds of sophisticated situations that Birds of Prey got pulled first (it happened in three theaters here in such areas). Ironically, it's probably way out in the "boondocks", in the multiplexes that have 16 or more screens, that BoP might stay the longest. In fact, I just checked a 22-screen theater's listings which is also not too far away from me (I went to see Aquaman and Bladerunner 2049 there, both in healthy crowds) and indeed, on a Monday (today) Sonic has nine showings and Birds of Prey still has four. With 22 screens and not a lot of good movies out at the moment, such a huge multiplex can afford to keep showing BoP to practically nobody. But anyway, your attempt at demeaning my neighborhood backfired.

Where I did get "82 to 100 million"? Wikipedia. It's there right now - go look. And nobody's changed it in a while, so it probably won't change. But when you Google the words "Birds of Prey production budget", something very simple happens - the words "97.1 million" pop up right at the top! Then you get articles like the one from Screen Rant hovering near the top of the searches with quotes like these, from Feb 6: "The Birds of Prey production budget is reportedly around $97.1 million, the least expensive price tag for a DCEU film....Going by the general rule of thumb (a film needs to earn twice its production budget to break even), Birds of Prey would need to gross only $194.2 million globally to make its money back. That figure is definitely attainable, and a mark Birds of Prey should cross relatively quickly. The film is without question this weekend's biggest release and won't face much competition in its first three days.... Things will probably get more interesting next weekend when the family-friendly Sonic the Hedgehog opens, but for now, Birds of Prey is the main attraction at the multiplex."

That Screen Rant article wasn't critical, it was hopeful. Unfortunately, things didn't work out as planned, and the mark isn't being crossed "quickly"..it's being attained slowly and arduously, scraping through at (by your own admission) "$7 million" per weekend. Hence, Birds of Prey did not break even yet, in its third weekend, and it may not even do so by its fourth weekend. In contrast, Shazam had almost the same size estimated production budget (80-100 million) but went over $300 million by its third week, and you can bet that a lot less audience members (especially younger ones) were as familiar with Billy Batson as they were with Harley Quinn. And the aforementioned Sonic The Hedgehog broke even in two weekends.

I never said Margot can't act. She acted well in the first Suicide Squad, playing the character that David Ayer wanted her to play, saving the movie in the bargain and making it watchable and thus a success even though critics didn't like it. She also acted 'well' in Birds of Prey, but in that case, she acted a character that she and Christina Hodson concocted, joining up with a bunch of other characters that they also created, and the audiences did not respond favorably to almost any of that. So when I say she should get back to acting, I meant that she should play the Harley that James Gunn wants her to play, and then the second Suicide Squad movie will also be a quick financial success. Meanwhile, when I'm talking about 'stanning', I'm referring to the almost obsessive level to which you're running apologetics for the movie that Robbie was responsible for creating (since it was her idea from quite a while back) and promoting.

And from what I understand, even *you* didn't like much of Birds of Prey? So why are you so staunchly denying its failure? Is there some reason you can't just say, "Hey, you know what, this one just didn't work too well," and move on? But you're sticking to your guns just to have the opportunity to battle it out with me personally?
Bert

Shevek, you're a stubborn one. You're not always wrong, but when you are you almost never admit it. Does any part of you wonder why Scrib is investing so much time with this battle? It's really very simple; the impression you make on this forum is that of an insufferable know-it-all. You have this obsession - SJW's are ruining stuff. Sometimes that's true but your obsession with it makes you overreach. You preach in absolutist terms about questionable stuff. That pisses people off and they challenge you on it. Then you dig in and whip out those rhetorical skills that in your mind win the day. Mostly, they don't. You managed to land a few body shots in this donnybrook, but you're the one with his back on the canvas. It doesn't stop you though, you're still banging away on those keys after the ref has counted you out.

Try to see how this looks to other members of the forum - you know, the audience for your rants? Try to get this: know-it-alls are tiresome. Constantly bashing SJWness, even when the link is tenuous, is tiresome. It can inspire people to challenge your arguments point by point, which can end up making you look pretty bad.
User avatar
DrDominator9
Emissary
Emissary
Posts: 2455
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: On the Border of the Neutral Zone

Okay everyone, lighten up on the personal attacks here, please. The harping in this thread is getting tiresome. Can anyone find common ground about what they DO like about the film and offer that?
Follow this link to descriptions of my stories and easy links to them:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=32025
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

OK, Dominator.

There are only two things to really like about the film, which made it worth the $7.50 for me to make the overall critical assessment:

1) The first part of the story which is Harley's solo saga after leaving Joker.

2) MacGregor's performance as Black Mask.
User avatar
DrDominator9
Emissary
Emissary
Posts: 2455
Joined: 13 years ago
Location: On the Border of the Neutral Zone

I agree about those two aspects as well, Shevek. I probably liked the film more than you did, but overall, it was "just okay" as they say in the AT&T ads. Sure, Margot is gorgeous to look at and I honestly think her acting was fine for the role. The movie just never seemed to reach escape velocity emotionally. Lots of pyrotechnics, sure, but also some silly and unnecessary set pieces, the worst being the number as Marilyn Monroe singing Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend. Totally editing room floor material, imho.

Honestly, some of my favorite lines in the film were when Harley reached back to her psychology training and uttered her spot on diagnoses of behavior by the other characters. I would have loved to seen more of that. More depth of character. No, not like in the Joker film but at better glimpse of her without the comics movie overlay.
Follow this link to descriptions of my stories and easy links to them:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=32025
User avatar
Shakeshift
Producer
Producer
Posts: 575
Joined: 19 years ago
Contact:

Shevek is a classic example of a person who paints himself as an "expert" in comic culture, yet cannot really be taken seriously by the majority of people who have critical thinking skills. Like many, he just hates for the sake of seeming trendy and elitist because he's been shunned and he's carrying all that emotional baggage with him. Cry me a river.

I've enjoyed watching the posts on here though. It's true that if your own defining take on superhero culture is something as badly written, poorly directed, and as "questionably competent" as HBurgh, then really that sort of taints your opinions on almost everything else you say.

If THAT is your own creativity at work, maybe you should get a better education, or at least try to read more comics so you can get some life experience. - Nobody in the pro circles takes his content seriously, and he'd be laughed out of Fetishcon if he tried to present himself as an authority on anything (other than being in love with the sound of his own voice.)
User avatar
CJS
Henchman
Henchman
Posts: 58
Joined: 5 years ago
Contact:

Shakeshift wrote:
4 years ago
I've enjoyed watching the posts on here though. It's true that if your . . .
Like probably most everybody, I too grow really, really tired of Shevek finding SJW issues in everything in life, and beating that drum in almost every single post, but I wouldn’t want to criticize his creative efforts as part of that (my own creative work could receive plenty of criticism of its own, and so could most everything — that whole glass houses thing). As tiring as his shtick gets, I applaud his efforts and willingness to put his work out there.
Sapphire Angel - Superheroine
Book 1 — Superheroine (complete)
Book 2 — Power Play (complete)
Book 3 — Deconstruction (complete)
Book 4 — Savage Dawn (complete)
Book 5 — Savage Vengeance (coming January 2024)
Bert

Yes. This is exactly why, despite many arguments, I've never gone there. Regardless of what you think of the work, it takes guts to put something out there knowing it will garner criticism.
User avatar
shevek
Producer
Producer
Posts: 3744
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

I started this thread a year ago because I was particularly excited about this movie. It was only after I actually saw it that my attitude about the movie soured. I gave it a serious chance, even taking copious notes. Unfortunately it was a letdown.

In this entire thread, I never used the word "SJW" once. Most of my criticisms of the movie were not on sociopolitical grounds.

I've been reading comics for decades. I'm VERY familiar with the entire run of Birds of Prey throughout the 90s and early 2000s, having read it straight through under Dixon, Simone and Swierczynski.

I stand by my general statement that 75% of all SHIP productions have better costuming than the Birds of Prey movie. I think that's pretty accurate considering that BOP costume designer Erin Benach described her aesthetic as 'DIY'.

Most of the posters in this thread had significant problems with the movie.

At this point, the movie itself has run out of steam and there's nothing more to say.
Post Reply