They are saying that the Robert Downey, Jr. film "Doolittle" is going to bomb when released this weekend.

Cost 175 M to make, and is predicted to gross maybe 20 M, if that much.

Didn't they cover all of this with the Eddie Murphy films, 20 years ago ?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
They are saying that the Robert Downey, Jr. film "Doolittle" is going to bomb when released this weekend.

Cost 175 M to make, and is predicted to gross maybe 20 M, if that much.

Didn't they cover all of this with the Eddie Murphy films, 20 years ago ?

I don't know, I think I only saw the first of those. However, I do still remember the much earlier Rex Harrison version which was excellent...which is why I still remember it

It's kind of like Charlies Angels, I don't see much demand for it.

The original was a box office bomb and the Murphy version was a comedy during the last years of his popularity.

From the trailers the movie looks fine but it will be a home viewing for me. Other films take my theater going priority money.

"Underwater" with Kristen Stewart bombed. Has made 9 M to date at the U.S. box office.

Cost up to 80 M to make, at least.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
"Underwater" with Kristen Stewart bombed. Has made 9 M to date at the U.S. box office.

Cost up to 80 M to make, at least.

Again I don't understand who even thought this was a good idea. These underwater research labs threatened by giant squids, sharks, whales, dinosaurs or aliens are just so similar to each other and there is only so much you can do in water. They got away with it in The Meg because people fall for big sharks and no one was taking it seriously anyway.

Underwater is Alien crossed with The Abyss, which sounds way better than the result apparently, at least according to the reviews. And the Kristen Stewart fan club has left the building, so she won't do anything for it either.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
They are saying that the Robert Downey, Jr. film "Doolittle" is going to bomb when released this weekend.

It did bomb, especially because it cost so much and is unlikely to get anywhere near break even. This is the first big test of Robert Downey Jr.'s star power since he quit being Tony Stark and it doesn't bode well for him.

Actors have always complained of type casting, but I think its even worse in this age of mass media and social networks. People are falling in love with characters that have long running franchises and the actors are the faces of those characters. When they step away from it, their same fans are disappointed and either just don't support the effort or get very vocal in their dissatisfaction. It's the price some actors are paying for landing iconic roles and its not fair, but I think worse than ever because fan recognition spreads farther and faster than ever. Actors are being type cast not just in a certain genre, but in specific characters, and not being accepted in any other roles.

Only when they do play them again, like in Bad Boys or maybe the next Coming To America, do the fans reward them with a hit.

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
They are saying that the Robert Downey, Jr. film "Doolittle" is going to bomb when released this weekend.

Cost 175 M to make, and is predicted to gross maybe 20 M, if that much.

Didn't they cover all of this with the Eddie Murphy films, 20 years ago ?

It's a very strange time of year to release a film that is classed as a 'family film'.

Apparently Robert Downey Jr. is about to film "Sherlock Holmes 3" and the first 2 were hits, so maybe this one will make money, as well.

They say that most films which are released in January or late Aug/Sept are "dumped" because the studios realize that they are turkeys, and just want them to quietly go away.

Regarding Kristen Stewart, it seems to me that she can be added to the heap of recent stars who were once BIG, but whose glory days seem to be over. Examples: Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor, plus many, many actresses of the past 20 years.

Looks like "Birds of Prey" under performed this weekend. Only made 33 M, which was much lower than expected.

Reportedly this was the lowest opening for any DC Comics related film over the past 10 years.

I'm not sure why they expected so much of it when Birds of Prey was bucking so many negatives at once. It got pretty good reviews and Margot Robbie has been hot off the Oscars, but here's what it was up against.

A bad schedule. February is not a good month in general and really bad for potential block busters.

Robbie may be hot, but she has never carried a film by herself. The supporting actors here are largely new. Ewan McGregor is not the strongest villain you could have.

Both the DC and Marvel universes are now trying to drill down and elevate comic characters that are less familiar to the non-fanboy public in order to keep the movies coming. Many of these characters are lesser known for a reason, they are kind of dumb.

Finally, I'm not one of those who yells sexism when they make junk films and expect people to go just to support women led movies. Some of those all girl affairs have tanked because they are simply poor efforts. However it can also be said that there are some segment of the public who won't go to see a female centered action or comic based movie unless there is something in it for them, like apparently Wonder Woman. Harley Quinn is way to angry to be Wonder Woman and isn't going to get that part of the audience in my opinion.

So considering all that, 33M doesn't sound so bad to me. I think they overestimated what they had from the start and it will do well when it streams or whatever.

To contrast two recent DC Comics movies, "Joker" made 335 M domestically and over 1 billion worldwide on a budget of 55 M ( ! )

Birds of Prey is unlikely to gross 75 M domestically at the rate that it is going.

The title of the movie is not only stupid but does not resonate with audiences. I swear I have heard of this movie several times but when someone says Birds of Prey I ask "what is that?" It's forgettable.

If they would have just named the damn thing Harley Quinn Returns it might have made more money.

Not to mention the trailer released in Jan looks really REALLY dumb! It looks like I am supposed to take my Valentine date to it.

I think that the reality is with these DC Comics related movies, that the average, non comic book fan knows Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Joker, and maybe Aquaman.

No one, aside from comic book fans, knows who Harley Quinn is, and no one cares. She cannot sustain a movie on her own. Only the comic book fans will go to see it, and that doesn't bring in 100 M.

So attempts to mine the DC Universe to make new movies with secondary characters, just will not work.

To garner interest, the movie should have been marketed as a Batgirl/Harley Quinn movie. It could have picked up with the events of "The Killing Joke" where the Joker shoots and cripples Barbara Gordon. That could have led to Joker and Harley Quinn going their separate ways. It would have allowed Batgirl/Barbara Gordon to become Oracle. The Hollywood crowd would have loved that, as one of the heroines is also using a wheelchair.

quote:

Originally posted by Kennywood:
To garner interest, the movie should have been marketed as a Batgirl/Harley Quinn movie. It could have picked up with the events of "The Killing Joke" where the Joker shoots and cripples Barbara Gordon. That could have led to Joker and Harley Quinn going their separate ways. It would have allowed Batgirl/Barbara Gordon to become Oracle. The Hollywood crowd would have loved that, as one of the heroines is also using a wheelchair.

What you are talking about there is the 2002 TV series Birds of Prey, that aired a grand total of 13 episodes before cancellation. Ashley Scott was Huntress, Dina Meyer was the injured Batgirl/Oracle and a relatively brief appearance by Mia Sara as Harley Quinn. It is or was available on DVD, since I did pick it up, but I saw it on TV. I remember it just sort of ended.

Anyway, this film is not the same story, although both Quinn and the Huntress are in it. In this one they are not exactly enemies, but you know, turn into the all-girl squad out to avenge something.

I don't know why they kept the title, as it wasn't successful the first time around. It should have just been called Harley Quinn, if she is the main character. I guess they wanted to bring in the group dynamic, but honesty I don't think any name would have helped that much. Quinn is no Wonder Woman heroine and The Suicide Squad itself didn't exactly work. So to me, the whole idea was misguided and they will be lucky if they get 100M.

Yes, I remember the TV series. If they were going to title the movie the same, it should have had some resemblance to TV series or the comics.

I was pleasantly surprised to see/hear both Ashley Scott and Dina Meyer in the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" crossover episodes recently.

It was OK, not much to the plot.
Robbie is an excellent actress and will get another crack at playing Harley in the next "Suicide Squad" movie, done by the fellow who did the Guardians of the Galaxy movies for Marvel. Maybe the third time will be the charm...

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:
I think that the reality is with these DC Comics related movies, that the average, non comic book fan knows Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Joker, and maybe Aquaman.

No one, aside from comic book fans, knows who Harley Quinn is, and no one cares. She cannot sustain a movie on her own. Only the comic book fans will go to see it, and that doesn't bring in 100 M.

So attempts to mine the DC Universe to make new movies with secondary characters, just will not work.

It worked for Marvel and Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel - none were household names. Even the whole MCU was kickstarted by Iron Man, in no way an a-list character at the time. Most people probably thought of the Black Sabbath song before the superhero.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Ewan McGregor is not the strongest villain you could have.

I didn't even know he was in the movie until I just read your post!

One problem with DCU movies is that they're dark. No, I don't mean in terms of stories, although that's usually true. What I mean is that the movies are literally dark. It seems like most of what happens takes place at night; in shadows; or in dark, cavernous areas. Even the daytime shots look overcast. That lends to the movies coming across as depressing.

MCU movies usually take place in daylight, bright, open areas/cities, or in well lit rooms. There's more of an openness to these movies that draws you in.

quote:

Originally posted by Kennywood:
MCU movies usually take place in daylight, bright, open areas/cities, or in well lit rooms. There's more of an openness to these movies that draws you in.

I agree. There is just more joy, humor and optimism in Marvel movies than in DC based movies. If its because the DC characters are darker and more complex, than maybe they should stray from the source material more. You could argue about the characters, but I think we have had enough films now to prove that Marvel films have hammered DC.