Birds of Prey (2020)

darktinker4 said:Fair point, but I was thinking more about the chaos—like when she takes in a hyena, hacks off her hair in a fit of rage, swaps out her whole wardrobe, tosses his necklace, obsesses over that orange outfit, cries, and rips his picture right off the wall.

She didn't blow up their meeting spot; they just fell in love there. Unless, of course, the factory happens to be right next to the prison, since they met while she was "treating" him in jail.

neonhound32 said:I don't see why she would be exempt from those feelings. She's still a woman, and she's emotional, even if she is a bit poco loco. She had to endure that entire transformative phase following the breakup.
Personally, I didn't get the impression that she's just spiraling. She moved past the breakup stage and pulled herself up from rock bottom. She's quite resilient. Now, she can't just act on every impulse because without The Joker's protection, she has to be more calculated about whose side she takes. 😁

The scene with the chicken is excellent, truly. 😁

analogwolf10 said:What an absolute, epic piece of LGBTQ+ trash this movie turned out to be... honestly, I’m just glad I grabbed it via a torrent so I didn't waste a single cent on this disaster.

It’s just the same old formula: a Black woman, an Asian woman, and some crazy girl. Apparently, if you want to be part of this crowd, you have to have short hair, identify as a lesbian, and then everything is just rainbows and sunshine, right?

I remember someone on the last thread saying the film was actually pretty decent, but did they really think that? Because from where I'm sitting, this thing was a massive financial flop. It pulled in maybe 200 million after spending 100 million on production, and that's without even touching the marketing budget.

graniteotter6 said:Whenever she brings up a movie, she immediately starts suffocating everyone with endless screenshots and canon debates 🤦

The film was just plain terrible.

analogwolf10 said:What an absolute, epic piece of LGBTQ+ trash this movie turned out to be... honestly, I’m just glad I grabbed it via a torrent so I didn't waste a single cent on this disaster.

It’s just the same old formula: a Black woman, an Asian woman, and some crazy girl. Apparently, if you want to be part of this crowd, you have to have short hair, identify as a lesbian, and then everything is just rainbows and sunshine, right?

I remember someone on the last thread saying the film was actually pretty decent, but did they really think that? Because from where I'm sitting, this thing was a massive financial flop. It pulled in maybe 200 million after spending 100 million on production, and that's without even touching the marketing budget.

neondriver7 said:85 million dollars was the actual budget.

As far as the characters go, it’s pretty obvious you haven't read the comics. In the source material, that Asian girl is a major player who eventually grows up to become Batgirl.

And for the record, Montoya is gay in the comics too.

All these characters are straight out of the comics. The biggest change they actually made was to Black Canary by making her Black. That's really it. So please, stop spreading such nonsense.









By the way, the Birds of Prey comic runs have been coming out since 1996.

neondriver7 said:85 million dollars was the actual budget.

As far as the characters go, it’s pretty obvious you haven't read the comics. In the source material, that Asian girl is a major player who eventually grows up to become Batgirl.

And for the record, Montoya is gay in the comics too.

All these characters are straight out of the comics. The biggest change they actually made was to Black Canary by making her Black. That's really it. So please, stop spreading such nonsense.









By the way, the Birds of Prey comic runs have been coming out since 1996.

ruggedfalcon28 said:You can't just look at the production budget—you have to factor in the massive marketing spend too. To actually break even, a movie has to claw back every cent spent on filming *plus* every dollar poured into advertising. Real profit only starts once you clear that combined mountain of debt. It seems some people struggle with the math regarding why the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot was such a financial disaster—even though it pulled in $229 million against a $144 million budget. An amateur would look at those numbers and claim there was an $85 million profit ($229 - $144 = $85). Technically true, sure—but it ignores the ad campaign. Sony openly admitted the film needed to hit the $300 million mark just to break even. Since it only made $229 million, Sony ended up staring down a loss of about $70 million.

Minor tweaks aren't the issue—it's the massive shifts that fail. Since we're talking comics, let's get one thing straight: who actually founded the Birds of Prey? Is it Harley Quinn? It isn't! The founder is Barbara Gordon—the original Batgirl—who, after being paralyzed from the waist down by The Joker, decided to fight justice as a hacker known as Oracle, leading a team of heroes to handle the field work for her. In the comics, Harley Quinn has absolutely nothing to do with the Birds of Prey. How could she? She’s a chaotic criminal, while the Birds of Prey are actual heroes. Because Barbara Gordon is missing from the DCEU, this movie is trying to force two polar opposites together. That's what's bothering people—myself included.

graniteotter6 said:I don't recall ever bringing up DC Comics in any of my posts. And if I did, it was probably in a negative light. If I’m mistaken, please feel free to set me straight; I wouldn't mind.
Comic book lore and all those endless debates don't really move the needle for me. I'm more of a movie person. At the end of the day, if a film is bad, it doesn't much matter which studio produced it or whose source material they used.

dustyfalcon122 said:Did you even see the movie?
Harley didn't just fail to found the Birds of Prey; she isn't even a member.

The movie itself is fun, though—not "good," just fun.

ruggedfalcon28 said:That’s not the point. The issue is that the entire origin story of the Birds of Prey was completely rewritten just to carve out space for Harley Quinn. If this is a Birds of Prey movie, why is Harley Quinn the lead when she has zero connection to them originally? And if it's a Harley Quinn movie, why are the Birds of Prey even there? It’s the same deal with the villain, Black Mask. His primary rivals are Batman and Catwoman—neither of whom show up here. When you make a solo film about, say, Batman, you aren't going to pick Lex Luthor or Black Mask as his antagonist. You'd choose someone actually tied to him—someone like The Joker, Penguin, or Scarecrow. In this movie, nobody is connected to anyone. It feels like the screenwriter just grabbed random scraps from everywhere, tossed them in a washing machine, ran a cycle, and called it a plot.

northerndriver said:I popped the movie on and shut it off after like ten minutes...

Antihero

Think of an Antihero as a lead character who doesn't fit the standard mold. They lack the usual toolkit—idealism, traditional bravery, or a strict moral compass.

Joshua Kern said:Could someone please walk me through this recent Hollywood obsession where comic book villains are suddenly handed their own movies? It seems like the trend is to frame them as the protagonists, forcing us to watch them struggle against even more despicable antagonists, all while expecting the audience to somehow root for them.🤔 I just don't quite grasp the logic behind it. Harley Quinn is meant to be an adversary to Batman, a true antagonist, rather than some central figure who ends up walking away as the hero at the end of the film.

ruggedfalcon28 said:You can't just look at the production budget—you have to factor in the massive marketing spend too. To actually break even, a movie has to claw back every cent spent on filming *plus* every dollar poured into advertising. Real profit only starts once you clear that combined mountain of debt. It seems some people struggle with the math regarding why the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot was such a financial disaster—even though it pulled in $229 million against a $144 million budget. An amateur would look at those numbers and claim there was an $85 million profit ($229 - $144 = $85). Technically true, sure—but it ignores the ad campaign. Sony openly admitted the film needed to hit the $300 million mark just to break even. Since it only made $229 million, Sony ended up staring down a loss of about $70 million.

Minor tweaks aren't the issue—it's the massive shifts that fail. Since we're talking comics, let's get one thing straight: who actually founded the Birds of Prey? Is it Harley Quinn? It isn't! The founder is Barbara Gordon—the original Batgirl—who, after being paralyzed from the waist down by The Joker, decided to fight justice as a hacker known as Oracle, leading a team of heroes to handle the field work for her. In the comics, Harley Quinn has absolutely nothing to do with the Birds of Prey. How could she? She’s a chaotic criminal, while the Birds of Prey are actual heroes. Because Barbara Gordon is missing from the DCEU, this movie is trying to force two polar opposites together. That's what's bothering people—myself included.

Minor tweaks aren't the issue here; it's the massive shifts in direction that sting. If we're going to talk about comic book source material, let's get our facts straight: who actually founded Birds of Prey? Is it maybe Harley Quinn? No way! The founder is Barbara Gordon, the original Batgirl, who—after being paralyzed from the waist down due to the Joker—decided to fight for justice as a hacker known as Oracle, leading a team of bird-themed heroes to handle the field work for her. In the comics, Harley Quinn has absolutely zero connection to Birds of Prey. How could she? She's a chaotic criminal, while Birds of Prey are justice seekers. Because Barbara Gordon isn't part of the DCEU, this movie is trying to force two complete opposites together. That's what bugs so many people, myself included.

Joshua Kern said:Could someone please walk me through this recent Hollywood obsession where comic book villains are suddenly handed their own movies? It seems like the trend is to frame them as the protagonists, forcing us to watch them struggle against even more despicable antagonists, all while expecting the audience to somehow root for them.🤔 I just don't quite grasp the logic behind it. Harley Quinn is meant to be an adversary to Batman, a true antagonist, rather than some central figure who ends up walking away as the hero at the end of the film.