SS has had decidedly average reviews from the public. It's RT audience score of 67% is nothing to crow about. A quick comparison to some of the less well received Marvel films show they have all received better audience scores. The lowest I've found was Thor: Dark World with 77%. Hell, BvS has an audience rating of 65% which just shows how average SS has actually been received.

Financially SS has done OK, but nothing brilliant. The fact that a DC film making a profit is being hailed as a great success is telling. The truth is BvS was such a let down on all fronts that what ever followed had to be better in comparison.

Edit: Incredible Hulk - 71% RT Audience Score.
Last edited by Assa2 : 14-09-2016 at 08:55

Shame Diablo won't be in the sequel, or will he? I really liked that character, it would be great if he comes back.

Thank you.

LOL its hardly dc big guns is it,what were you expect to make an ok box office brilliant?

700m is brilliant make no mistake. you have egg on your face.

That's understandable for the first couple of weekends, but when it's still making $5.7M in its 6th weekend that's a lot of repeat traffic. Seems we're seeing a huge gap in the generations here as the overall CinemaScore for the film was B+ but looking into who voted for what

In general those under the age of 35 gave the film an A-, under 18's gave it an A, 25-34 year olds gave is a B, 35-49 year olds gave it a B.

http://deadline.com/2016/08/suicide-...ie-1201799046/

So if you don't think the film was that good maybe you were just too old

A as in the best grade there is? Like this is the perfect film?
Oh dear....

Nope A+ is the best, it's interesting to see some of the CinemaScores *unfortunately one of those crappy more adverts than content)

http://screencrush.com/movies-with-crazy-cinemascores/

But "Lethal Weapon 2" was an A+
"Shrek 4" an "A"
"Pearl Harbour", "Phantom Menace", Bill Crosby;s "Ghost Dad" all got an A-
"Eternal Sunshine" a B-
"Saw" & "Blair Witch" both got a C+
Ryan Gosling's "Drive" a C-

Why do you feel the need to have little digs rather than attempt to give a rational response? Is it perhaps because you have no rational response? Are you capable of explaining why you think $700m is 'brilliant'? I'll happily expand on why I think it's far from brilliant.

The film was heavily marketed with The Joker, one of the iconic super-hero villians portrayed as having a major role. The film features big name stars such as Will Smith, Margot Robbie & Jared Leto. Not to mention the Batman cameo. This is not a small film with little-known characters or actors, this was Warners' big summer blockbuster. At a budget of $175m plus a huge marketing budget the film may only now be starting to turn a profit for Warners. In the wider context of the super-hero genre the bar seperating the great from the average or poor is $1b at the box office. Now I'm sure Warners never imagined in their wildest dreams that SS would get to those sorts of numbers but after the dismal BvS and the early buzz on SS being so terrible as well they have had to spend very heavily on publicity to get any decent sort of box office.

$700m box office off of a $175m production is not great. It's not bad either. It's OK. It's currently 8th highest grosser of the year, but only the 4th highest super-hero film so far. It's not going to catch Deadpool in 7th so by the end of the year it porbably won't even make the top 10. If this is your idea of brilliant then you're very easily pleased.

Self yourself the headache and don't feed the you know what.

700m off 175 budget is brilliant

despite big actors the characters outside the joker were only known to comic book geeks

its been a huge hit for WB, all without china too

Saying it doesn't make it true. Justify your opinion. If every studio who made a film costing $175m thought $700m box office was brilliant they'd all have gone out of business long ago. $700m is just about break-even. There's nothing huge about it.

But I enjoy it! It's interesting to see how some people attempt to justify their position in an argument. At the end of the day I don't really care if he really believes what he types or is just a WUM. It's an interesting topic, what makes a film successful in this day and age?

the rule of thumb has always been budget x2 to break even. in this case thats 350m . thus it has more than broke even.

this has always been the hard and fast rule used on these forums and well everywhere really. we ar enot privy to marketing budgets so really should comment on if high or not. by the popular formula used its been a hit for them.

No, the general rule of thumb is total costs times 2. Total costs are usually double the production budget. SS had a prod. budget of $175m so total costs are likely to be $350m, possibly more given the need to overcome the initial bad press through extra publicity. So it's just about breaking even now.

I think you're stretching here. I didn't rate Suicide Squad very highly myself, but it seems contrary and perverse not to admit it's been a big hit. You may not like it - and I might be sympathetic to your opinion - but it's clearly made a shed-load of money. Although what with Hollywood accounting being so opaque - Warner Bros may never admit to that fact.

The number you need to determine just how successful it was, is not what it made but what it was expected to make and only WB knows that.

It also depends on where the money is made:

http://moviepilot.com/posts/4071060

Once all box office receipts are in, physical sales/rentals/tv licencing income are collected and merc sales are included then SS will clearly make a more than acceptable profit for the studio. So from that perspective it will be a success. The critical panning will be worrying for them though as it undermines goodwill for a follow up - personally I think Star Trek Beyond under-performed largely because Into Darkness was hated so much by the Trek fans.

Oh, absolutely. I posted on another thread that Warners are probably not that worried about the performance of the films as the DCEU is really just one big marketing tool and they'll make huge profits from other associated sources. SS suffered greatly from the fall-out from BvS and the critical panning it received early on. Warners would have expected BvS to be a mega-success and for SS to be able to benefit from the good-will a successful BvS would have left. Instead it was an up-hill battle from the start and in that respect the marketting campaign has been a huge success even if it's cost the studio the chance of a healthy profit from the theatrical release. That said Warners has had a decent summer over-all so again they aren't going to worry too much.

The danger though is that this sort of mediocre performance at the box-office (in the context of summer blockbusters and super-hero films over-all) becomes the norm for DC films. What's a reasonable expection for WW right now? What about Justice League? Surely JL has to be viewed in similar terms to the Avengers films so has to be well north of $1b? If that underperforms then the following character films for Flash & Aquaman will look shakey. I suspct JL will do rather well, though.

I don't think I'm streatching at all. Studios rarely, if ever, disclose their marketing budgets but for the big films it's regularly the same or even higher than the production budget. Given SS's starting point it wouldn't be any kind of a suprise if Warners had spent anywhere between $150m - $200m on marketing. If Warners were making a healthy profit from SS they'd make damn sure everyone knew about it.

Well, none of us know, do we? Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. But $700m (and counting) looks pretty good to me for a property that wasn't that well known, with a load of D-list characters. If they're not making some serious dough by now, something's incredibly wrong with the movie business.

Margot Robbie will return as Harley Quinn in a spin off movie featuring DC female villains and heroes:

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/sui...uinn-spin-off/

Brilliant news and I'm hoping we get a Poison Ivy appearance.

I love Poison Ivy but I don't want a Snyder inspired Poison Ivy, so I hope the director (whoever it'll be) stays way clear of that direction and does the character justice.

One can hope.

I always thought that a movie had to make three times it's total cost,including advertising, before it would make any profit. So by that reckoning, it's 175,000,000 in profit. Depends on your point of view if that's good or bad.

I wonder if Margot Robbie being in the Harley Quinn spin off film will affect the possibility of a Suicide Squad sequel in the future?

Although Affleck, Cavill etc all are planned to appear in different films so it's not unlikely I guess but WB/DC plans for the future seem full of films at the moment!

3X is a good guide, twice the cost usually pays for Production Costs, though that's not exact as US theatres produce a better return (50%) then Offshore (40%) But China only delivers about 25%-30% so a film that does great in China but not so well in the rest of the world has to to work a bit harder

But in addition to Production Cost you have to consider fees for Distributors (esp. if it's not being handled by the Studio (eg Dreamworks used to have Paramount, Then Fox and now Universal)

Then P&P which used to means Prints and Publicity as the cost of producing Prints of the film was a substantial cost but no-so-much these days with Digital Distribution but is still an issue with Directors who insist on film such as Nolan, Tarantino

So the the big post production cost these days is Publicity, the cost of advertising, jetting artists and their entourages around the world ...etc usually Publicity for a Tentpole is around $100m-$150M. Don't forget the theatres still take their cut so $100M in P&P still needs to take around $200M so $175M + $100M needs to gross about $550M, $150M P&P means the film needs to take $650M