Connect with us

Entertainment

‘Birds of Prey’ Renamed After Disappointing Box Office Opening

Published

on

  • After a less than stellar opening weekend, Birds of Prey will be renamed in order to boost its SEO quality. 
  • Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) will now be called Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey so that audiences can clearly tell it’s a Harley Quinn film when searching for it online. 
  • The new title is intended to only be used for its theatrical run.
  • Compared to other DC films, it had a poor opening weekend, with some blaming the name, R-rating, and release date as potential reasons as to why.
  • The film also received criticism from some for not featuring its cast in “sexy” enough attire.

Birds of Prey’s Name Change

After bringing in a disappointing opening box office haul on its opening weekend, Birds of Prey will be getting a search-friendly name change. 

The Harley Quinn-centered film originally touted the lengthy title of Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). Now, movie theaters will list it simply as Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey. 

This comes after the Margot Robbie-led picture brought in $33 million domestically during its opening weekend, much lower than Warner Brothers’ projections of $45 million. A representative for Warner Bros. told The Verge that the name change is to specifically enhance “search expansion for ticket sites.”

The move is essentially aimed at making the name of the film more user and SEO-friendly for moviegoers looking to see the new Harley Quinn project by making it clear that the film is about the famous character. Now, rather than having her name buried at the end of a parenthetical, it’s the first thing potential audiences will see. 

The change will likely not be permanent, though. Once the movie makes its way to DVD and streaming, it could still be called Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). As least for now, Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey is intended to last only as long as its theater run.

DC Box Office Hauls

In terms of Birds of Prey’s box office numbers, DC and Warner Bros. have reason to be disappointed. Even though it topped the weekend box office and brought in under $80 million worldwide, which is just five million shy of its budget, the bar is set high for films of this nature. Some pictures might be pleased with a $33 million domestic debut, however, superhero– or in this case, supervillain films– typically do better. 

DC’s recent film Joker became the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time, making it past the billion-dollar benchmark by the end of its run. The Oscar-winning Joaquin Phoenix project also had a smaller budget than Birds of Prey and pulled in three times the money in the United States on its opening weekend. Other big movies like Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman ended up raking in over $100 million on their opening weekends. 

Potential Factors for Low Box Office

This all leads to the larger question at hand: Why is Birds of Prey not getting the attention that DC and Warner Bros. were hoping for? From the critics’ side, the movie is getting a good amount of praise. On Rotten Tomatoes, it boasts an 80% rating with an audience score of 81%.

The issue of the name is one that Warner Bros. is already addressing. Box office analyst Jeff Book told Variety that “not naming [the film] ‘Harley Quinn’ was a huge misfire.”

“It was a niche comic-book movie,” Bock later added. “Warner Bros. keeps having to learn these lessons.”

Birds of Prey would not be the first comic book movie to deal with titling issues potentially impacting its box office haul. In its early marketing, Dark Phoenix rarely attached the X-Men brand to it in its title. Matched by poor reviews, the movie also brought in a lackluster amount of cash

It is unlikely that this is the only factor standing in Harley Quinn’s way. The films R-rating does it no favors, as this isolates it from young girls who might be a fan of the anti-heroine. Still, Joker broke records with an R-rating, meaning DC likely still had high hopes.

What Birds of Prey did have to face was a February opening, which can be a dry month as far as box office earnings. Comic book movies, however, do have a good record of breaking that mold. Black Panther broke financial records with a February release. Logan and Deadpool, both of which also had the burden of an R-rating, were massive successes in the month.

Female-Led Comic Book Movies

Some have pointed to the general backlash female-led comic book movies usually face upon their release. This trend extends back to Wonder Woman in 2017 when mainly male fans were upset the film was, for certain showtimes, being screened to all-female audiences. When Captain Marvel came out in 2019, again mainly male fans were upset by feminist messaging used by Brie Larson leading to its release. Some even said they would boycott the movie because of it. 

Both those movies did well, so to say their earnings were impacted would be hard. It is worth noting, though, because Birds of Prey is following suit and has gender-based criticism of its own. Some users believed the movie was not sexy enough for a Harley Quinn standalone film.

“They’ve removed any sex appeal these characters had to appeal to a female ‘girl power audience instead of the core male comic book audience,” one Twitter user wrote in a now-viral tweet before the film’s release. “They literally don’t know who they’re making this movie for.”

The idea that the film is for a “core male comic book audience” is only partially true. According to Variety, in its opening weekend, 54% of viewers were male. So while the theaters were filled slightly more by men, it was too close to a 50/50 split to state that the audience was “core” male. 

This comment received a lot of backlash online. Some argued that it degrades women to being worth nothing more than their looks, while others argued that the characters in the film did have appeal and were attractive. 

One of Birds of Prey’s producers, Sue Kroll ended up responding to this. 

“I read that and I thought, ‘Oh my God. That’s so asinine’” she said.

“When you look at the comics, you see these women in there, it’s always very tight clothing, short shorts, boobs pushed up. It’s always very graphic in that way. And we were having none of that,” she added. “But I think they all look beautiful and sexy, and if you look at [Black Canary, played by Jurnee Smollett-Bell] and her costumes, she’s wearing a bustier [bust-ear] but of a different kind. That’s not sexy? She’s not sexy in the club? You bet she is. She’s gorgeous. That’s nuts.”

As was the case with Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman, it’s hard to tell if this kind of backlash affected Birds of Prey in terms of revenue. Still, it does show that female-led comic films usually do have a battle to fight every time they come out.

Because of these narratives around it, many are praising Birds of Prey online in hopes that people will see it and save it from its current box office situation. 

As the movie enters the weekend under the Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey title, it will face new competition. The weekend encompasses both President’s Day and Valentine’s Day, which could help fill theaters. But movies like Sonic the Hedgehog, The Photograph, Downhill, and Blumhouse’s Fantasy Island will also be opening, meaning more new films could knock it from the top box office spot. 

See what others are saying: (Variety) (The Verge) (Entertainment Weekly)

Entertainment

N.Y. State Senate Passes Bill Championed by Jay-Z That Would Restrict Use of Rap Lyrics in Court

Published

on

A companion bill currently sits in the state’s assembly.


“Rap Music on Trial” Passes Senate

The New York State Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would curb prosecutors’ ability to cite rap lyrics and other creative works as evidence in legal battles.

Dubbed “Rap Music on Trial,” the bill aims to “enhance the free speech protections of New Yorkers by banning the use of art created by a defendant as evidence against them in a courtroom,” according to a statement from State Sens. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) and Jamaal Bailey (D-Queens).

“The legislation will protect all artists and content creators, including rappers from having their lyrics wielded against them by prosecutors,” the statement continued. 

Right now, all forms of creative expression, including rap lyrics, can be used as evidence in criminal cases. Rap lyrics, however, are more likely to be weaponized against those who wrote them in trial, experts say. 

The use of rap and hip-hop lyrics in particular is emblematic of the systemic racism that permeates our criminal justice system,” Bailey said in a statement. 

Hoylman agrees that there is a double standard.

“Nobody thinks Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno just to watch him die, or that David Byrne is a psycho killer, but routinely rappers have their lyrics used against them in criminal trials,” he tweeted. 

The bill would not fully ban the use of rap lyrics in court. If made into law, prosecutors would need “clear and convincing proof that there is a literal, factual nexus between creative expression and the facts of the case” in order to use these works as evidence.

Major artists including Jay-Z, Meek Mill, Kelly Rowland, and Robin Thicke previously signed a letter in support of the legislation.

A companion bill currently sits in the New York State Assembly. 

Rap Lyrics in Court

The use of rap lyrics against their artists is not an uncommon tactic. Earlier this month, an indictment charging Young Thug, Gunna, and two dozen others over alleged gang activity and conspiracy to violate racketeering laws used lyrics of the aforementioned artists. 

While the case is in Atlanta and would not be impacted by the New York bill, the use of their lyrics has stirred controversy. In a motion requesting that Gunna be released from jail, his lawyers argued that it was unfair to cite these works.

“It is intensely problematic that the State relies on song lyrics as part of its allegations,” his lawyers said in court documents. “These lyrics are an artist’s creative expression and not a literal recounting of facts and circumstances. Under the State’s theory, any artist with a song referencing violence could find herself the victim of a RICO indictment.”

​​Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis defended the indictment’s use of the lyrics and argued it did not violate the artist’s free speech. 

In the letter signed by numerous recording artists, the authors said this kind of tactic “effectively denies rap music the status of art and, in the process, gives prosecutors a dangerous advantage in the courtroom.”

“Rather than acknowledge rap music as a form of artistic expression, police and prosecutors argue that the lyrics should be interpreted literally — in the words of one prosecutor, as ‘autobiographical journals’ — even though the genre is rooted in a long tradition of storytelling that privileges figurative language, is steeped in hyperbole, and employs all of the same poetic devices we find in more traditional works of poetry,” the letter, which was written by Jay-Z’s lawyer Alex Spiro and University of Richmond Professor Erik Nielson, said.  

See what others are saying: (Billboard) (Pitchfork) (Complex)

Continue Reading

Entertainment

YouTube Touts MrBeast and Mainstream Appeal in First Upfront Presentation

Published

on

According to Nielson, over 230 million people in the United States used the video service in just one month. 


YouTube Presents at Upfronts

During its first Upfront presentation on Tuesday, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said the company said it was joining staple broadcast and entertainment companies “because YouTube is the mainstream.”

“Viewers have more choices than ever about what to watch or where to watch it,” Wojcicki said while speaking at the Imperial Theatre in New York City. “And they continue to use YouTube.”

The company had previously done its Brandcast presentation at the NewFronts. This was the first time its pitch came alongside television competitors during the busy Upfronts season.

Many of YouTube’s primary talking points were highlighted in a company blog post. In its address, it marketed itself not just as the future of media consumption, but as the modern-day leader, too. 

It said that over 135 million people watched YouTube on Connected TVs, representing every age demographic from toddlers to viewers 55-years-old and up. It also cited Nielson data that said YouTube has over 50% of ad-supported streaming watch time on TV screens. 

Nielsen also found that YouTube reached over 230 million people in the United States in just one month. 

YouTube Offers Up Its Talent

MrBeast, one of YouTube’s top creators, attended the presentation. The company boasted that if MrBeast were his own streaming service, he would “would have more subscribers than the next three most popular ad-supported streaming services.” In other words, with 95 million YouTube subscribers, MrBeast is ahead of HBO and HBO Max’s 77 million, Paramount’s 33 million, and Hulu’s 54 million in the United States. 

Or course, subscribing to a YouTube channel is very different from subscribing to a streaming service, as YouTube subscriptions come at no cost. Viewers can subscribe to as many or as few creators as they please for free, while each streaming service has a monthly or annual fee to gain access to its content. 

YouTube didn’t only show off its homegrown talent. Popstar Lizzo also took the stage to sing her praises of the company, along with a few of her biggest hits. 

But the company’s most important appeals came from the strengths it offered to advertisers. It claimed that 2020 Nielson analysis showed that YouTube on average had a 1.2 times greater return on investment than television.

It also announced a frequency optimization tool for advertisers that would allow companies to control how many times viewers see their spots in one week. In its blog post, YouTube said this allows for “more efficient” spending and “a better experience for viewers.”
It touted this optimization as “a solution only YouTube can provide.”

See what others are saying: (Deadline) (TubeFilter) (Variety)

Continue Reading

Entertainment

“Saturday Night Live” Faces Backlash for Sketch Mocking the Johnny Depp Amber Heard Trial

Published

on

Many fear that jokes about the case could hurt the everyday domestic abuse survivors that see them.


SNL Mocks Trial

After “Saturday Night Light” parodied the ongoing defamation trial between actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard in its cold open this weekend, many are criticizing the show — and media at large — for making a mockery of the case. 

Ever since the trial began in April, there has been an onslaught of TikToks, tweets, videos, and other posts turning the happenings in the courtroom into clickbait content. Most of the posts use Heard as a punchline as the #JusticeForJohnnyDepp narrative prevails online. 

Depp sued Heard for $50 million over a 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post titled “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” While she never mentioned Depp by name, many believed the piece referred to previous abuse allegations she had made about him. Depp, however, alleges that Heard was actually the abuser and concocted the claims to ruin his career. She countersued for $100 million. 

In its most recent episode, “Saturday Night Live” aired a sketch starring Kyle Mooney as Depp, Cecily Strong as the judge, and Aidy Bryant and Heidi Gardner as lawyers in the case. The sketch took place in the courtroom as the involved parties discussed allegations that Heard defecated in her and Depp’s bed. They then watched “video evidence” of house staffers, played by Kenan Thompson, Ego Nwodim, Melissa Villaseñor, and Chris Redd, finding the fecal matter. 

At various points, Strong’s judge said they should continue watching the video “because it’s funny” and she and Mooney’s Depp both said they find the trial “amusing.”

“This trial is for fun,” the judge proclaimed at one point.

Many online did not see the humor in SNL’s parody, arguing that a case involving domestic abuse accusations should not be a punchline. Some said the sketch was “disgusting and desperate.”

“Domestic violence is not a joke. Rape is not a joke,” writer Ella Dawson tweeted. “Abusers using the legal system to continue to terrorize their victims is not a joke. Abusers using accusations of defamation to silence their victims is not a joke.” 

“In twenty years people are going to look back at this trial and all of the media coverage and be disgusted,” Dawson continued. 

You’re free to have absolutely no opinion on the Depp/Heard trial, but thinking it’s ‘for fun’ is for someone with a diseased heart and brain,” Meredith Haggerty, the senior culture editor at Vox, wrote.

Many felt that regardless of how someone feels or who they support in this case, those making fun of Heard are “making a joke of victims everywhere.”

Criticism of Media’s Trial Coverage

Others argued this sketch was part of an overall disturbing trend in the media’s coverage of this case where serious allegations were being played up for laughs. 

The hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp has trended on Twitter several times throughout the trial as fans defend the actor. Many also use it to mock Heard, share clips of her crying, and in some cases, spread misinformation about her courtroom claims. The tag is also popular on TikTok, where it has been viewed over 11 billion times as of Monday morning. 

Many of the videos involve jokes about the case, memes, fan cams, and other content meant to belittle Heard. On TikTok, the tag #AmberTurd has raked in over 1.6 billion views. Some videos involve animated renderings of courtroom videos meant to make Heard look careless or dumb. Others use audio of Heard alleging that Depp hit her along with silly imagery to make those claims look like a farce. Many involve people making fun of the way Heard has cried on the stand.

Experts have told numerous media outlets that by ridiculing Heard, Depp’s supporters are potentially harming abuse victims that may come across these posts. 

“I can’t imagine what this might be doing to someone who may eventually want to seek safety and support,” Ruth M. Glenn, the chief executive officer of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, told NBC News. “Whether it’s Amber Heard or Johnny Depp, how dare us make fun and make light of someone who is sharing something very personal — no matter how we feel about that person.”

The trial is being broadcast live so interested parties can watch it unfold in real-time. The viral clips have allowed the case to become a massive entertainment spectacle.

Public discourse of the trial has sorted people into either “Team Depp” or “Team Heard,” and just a quick glance online will show that Depp has so far won a good portion of public favor. Still, no matter how one views the trial, many think jokes at the expense of Heard’s claims are a bridge too far.

“In the commentary, it’s almost as if people are forgetting that this is real life, that this is not a show that we’re all watching,” Laura Palumbo, communications director at the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, told USA Today. “Many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault will go into a courtroom at some point and have an experience that is largely outside of their control, in a setting like this.”

“There’s such a strong desire in the public discourse for [Heard] to be the villain, for her to be the example of the fact that there are victims who have ulterior motives, that there are victims who are not telling the full truth,” Palumbo continued. “It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of folks thinking critically or wanting to understand the nuances of abuse or of unhealthy relationships.”

See what others are saying: (NBC News) (USA Today) (Rolling Stone)

Continue Reading