Home Entertainment Director Cathy Yan on Birds of Prey’s “flop” status, VOD release, fan feedback, and more

Director Cathy Yan on Birds of Prey’s “flop” status, VOD release, fan feedback, and more

9 min read
35

In the run-up to the release of the ridiculously titled Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), I will admit I had zero hype for it. The trailers for Warner Bros’ Margot Robbie-led DC Comics movie really didn’t do much for me. There was just no pop to them, and they weren’t doing a thing to dissuade the anti-woke corner of the internet who were convinced this movie was just going to be about feminism over everything else. Boy, those trailers and those naysayers could not have been more wrong as Birds of Prey ended up being an absolute blast of a film, boasting great characterization, incredibly dedicated performances from the cast, and superb action choreography and cinematography from director Cathy Yan.

Unfortunately, thanks in part to a very late review embargo, by the time Birds of Prey hit cinemas, most people still hadn’t got that message and it opened way below expectations with $33.2 million in the US. International markets helped to bump up the opening weekend total to $81.3 million, but that was still way off course from what Warner Bros. had been expecting. And immediately, the dreaded “F” word started being thrown around by media. Flop. Here’s the thing though: Birds of Prey did underperform, but it actually made 2.4 times its $80 million production budget as it ended its theatrical run on $202 million. Yes, thanks to additional advertising costs, it would still not make a profit, but it wasn’t an unmitigated disaster either, especially considering that it was also an R-rated movie, which limited audiences, and essentially a follow-up to the badly regarded Suicide Squad.

And as Yan told THR in a lengthy and wide-ranging interview about her experiences while making the film, the overwhelmingly negative spin on the film’s performance “disappointed” her.

Yeah, I think that if you actually look at the details of the budget breakdown … I know that the studio had really high expectations for the movie — as we all did. There were also undue expectations on a female-led movie, and what I was most disappointed in was this idea that perhaps it proved that we weren’t ready for this yet. That was an extra burden that, as a woman-of-colour director, I already had on me anyway. So, yes, I think there were certainly different ways you could interpret the success or lack of success of the movie, and everyone has a right to do that. But, I definitely do feel that everyone was pretty quick to jump on a certain angle.

Fortunately though for Yan, who had only ever done the indie film Dead Pigs before this and been personally plucked from small-time obscurity by star/producer/co-writer Robbie, it wasn’t all negative.

What was definitely beyond expectations was some of the positive stuff, such as the real global reach of the film and getting really wonderful notes from people around the world who felt like they were seen for the first time in a movie like this. They felt like they could identify with the characters on screen, even though they were in a heightened world — a world with stocked grocery stores. (Laughs.) It was still a world that was very aspirational. A lot of people — especially a lot of women and younger people — really felt like their voices, their type of people, they themselves … were represented for the first time on the big screen. When we first set off to make the movie, making some of those choices — whether it’s in casting or even in the way the characters look or dress — was somewhat deliberate, but I didn’t really think about the global impact of those decisions. So, that was really nice.

One of the reasons for that global reach was that Birds of Prey got released on VOD much earlier than expected. When the Coronavirus pandemic caused cinemas around the world to be shuttered, Birds of Prey was one of the earliest titles that got pulled from cinemas to be available for rent digitally. And this was something that Yan had actually called for personally via a tweet on 16 March, and it turned out that she and WB had been on the same wavelength the whole time.

So, I heard that Paramount was starting to do it, and I thought that was really wise, especially with the theaters shuttering. People are at home, and I think they’re longing to have entertainment since so much content has been completely shut down. So, the idea that Birds of Prey can just be another option of something to watch in these times just seemed appropriate and really smart. So, I just independently did that, and it seemed to get a lot of responses. Then, I heard from [producer] Sue Kroll and my team that it was already in the works at Warner Bros. So, it worked out really nice.

Know what was more than just “really nice” about Birds of Prey? The bone-breaking action sequences which had a very visceral John Wick feel to them. There’s a very big reason for that, as Yan actually used 87Eleven, the famed action design company run by John Wick creator Chad Stahelski – who even personally came to set to help coordinate some of the stunt sequences. What 87Eleven brought to the table was not just the “grounded, very creative, incredibly practical and character-based” action design that Yan wanted, but they also trained the cast of Robbie, Jurnee Smollet-Bell, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Rosie Perez to most of the stunts themselves, allowing for much better shots.

What I didn’t realize [87Eleven] did so well — only until I started working with them — was they really train them, and of course, if you really think about it, you’re like “duh.” Our actors did the majority of their own stunts, which I think is super impressive, and the way that we shot it made it so that it would be very difficult for them not to. The entirety of the fun house sequence was all done by the actors themselves. That amount of training and investment in the actors themselves — not to belittle stunt people because they’re amazing — but our stunt actors were actually more like trainers in a way. They developed these really close relationships with each actor, and I just really love that.

That element — beyond just their amazing choreography and the way that they just know how to create these fluid and very creative sequences with camera — was an element that I really appreciated about 87eleven. And I don’t think every action company does that; I think that’s a very, very special thing that they teach. All of our actors walked away with these lifelong skills which is pretty cool.

With that level of visceral action combined with Harley Quinn’s wacky Fourth Wall-breaking and subversive storytelling and being R-rated, there were a number of disparaging comparisons made between Birds of Prey and Deadpool. However, writer Christina Hodson already had these elements in her script as far back as 2015, way before Deadpool was released, which made the comparisons a bit unfair. Not that they bothered Yan though.

It didn’t disgust me that people were comparing us to Deadpool. (Laughs.) I love Deadpool; I think it’s a great movie, but we were very much trying to do our own thing. I can’t underline enough how it was a risk. I do have to thank the studio for supporting a movie that was never going to be four-quadrant. It was R-rated the entire time, and we never talked about changing the rating to get more people into the theater. It was a risk in many ways, and it was not an exact sequel to Suicide Squad, which would’ve probably been the less-risky version of how we could’ve worked with the Harley Quinn character. It was something that came from a real place of intent and what Margot and Christina wanted to do with the movie.

Birds of Prey definitely had more dramatic oomph than Deadpool did. In particular, one incredibly unnerving scene involving Ewan McGregor’s villainous Roman Sionis – who, up until that point had been a hilarious riot – grossly humiliating a woman in a nightclub. It’s massively uncomfortable to watch and that’s precisely why Yan and co insisted on keeping it in.

I’ll be honest: We had to fight to keep that scene because it was uncomfortable. It was risky, and we had to fight to keep it at all. There are cuts of the movie without it. I’m really glad that we kept it because I think it’s important. I think that a lot of people have been very impacted by that scene. I think it’s a huge turning point for Roman; it’s a huge turning point for Canary, and the way that we shot it was hopefully not about the sexual violence upon the woman. It was more about Roman, what he’s capable of and Canary seeing him for who he really is for the first time. Now, she can fully cut herself off from him, and I thought it was a really important scene. So, we fought for it.

As rough as it is, I’m glad it was kept in. It cemented what was already a brilliant performance from McGregor to make him, in my opinion, the best villain of the entire modern DC Comics cinematic universe so far. It’s a pity that with how Birds of Prey ended that we won’t get to see him in a sequel. And yes, Yan and her team still have aspirations for a sequel, as she told TheWrap. And for a potential follow-up film, she wants to include a character dynamic that fans had been calling for on-screen for years.

I think people aren’t ready to let go of Harley Quinn quite yet, and you know, Margot I don’t think is ready to let go of Harley Quinn yet either, so… hopefully.

I would love to see Poison Ivy and would certainly love to see the relationship between Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy.

At this moment in time, sequel aspirations for Birds of Prey is still very much up in the air, but I can guarantee that adding Poison Ivy into the mix will definitely not hurt its chances. I would most certainly be there for it. How about you folks?

Last Updated: April 7, 2020

35 Comments

  1. The limited “success” of this movie has nothing to do with it being directed by female of colour or that it had female led cast
    The plot is boring and predictable with characters very few people actually care about.
    Choreography was mediocre at best with actions scenes hardly deserving of an R rating

    Reply

    • Ant Visagie

      April 7, 2020 at 18:17

      It sucked. Bloodshot is a much better movie with a better plot and acting.

      Reply

      • Stoompot

        April 7, 2020 at 19:24

        Bloodshot was dumb as mud, but it had a twist and awesome action. As well as South African police vans in London for some reason

        Reply

        • Son of Banana Jim

          April 8, 2020 at 01:19

          It’s almost like they couldn’t give a damn towards the end with all the CA license plates. Lol. But, what a genuinely fun movie. I hope they continue with the cinematic universe or even a sequel.

          Reply

    • Cathal

      April 7, 2020 at 18:23

      Agree with most of it, though I’d argue that the choreography and fighting, especially in the Harley scenes were pretty great.

      The film majorly fell flat for being advertised as a Birds of Prey film, a relatively unknown group, and then basically being a Harley one.

      Really blame a lot of the failure on advertising and marketing. It’s an average super-“hero” movie. Found it better than Captain Marvel, even though it was misrepresented.

      Reply

    • Stoompot

      April 7, 2020 at 19:24

      Staring Harley Quinn and these people who looks nothing like their comic books version because empowerment or something. Yeah, this movie was a flop… sorry “flop” because people that don’t care about about Harley Quinn would not even bat an eye about the rest of the cast.

      Fighting was okay, I’d say unrealistic for someone that’s supposedly 140 pounds but it’s a comic book movies. Suspend all belief.

      As for the director, yeah, some people just can’t accept their movie wasn’t as good as they perceived it to be so blame other people like Elizabeth Banks did with Charlies Angels.

      Reply

      • Kervyn Cloete

        April 8, 2020 at 08:23

        I agree with the way characters did not like their comic book counterpart, and how it was more a Harley movie than a Birds of Prey movie. But as I explained above, the director is not looking for somebody to blame. She was kinda actually agreeing with what you said.

        Reply

        • Stoompot

          April 8, 2020 at 11:24

          She speaks of a burden she had because she’s a director of color, what burden?
          I do agree with adding Poison Ivy and maybe even Catwoman. If they take on the Joker they’ll have a hit.

          Reply

          • Kervyn Cloete

            April 8, 2020 at 12:17

            The prejudice towards female filmmakers of colour is a well-established fact in Hollywood. They just don’t get these opportunities often and have to generally fighter harder than anybody else to keep them. That’s not even opinion or conjecture. There’s tons of material on this. So being a female director of colour making a movie like this comes with additional pressures to just the normal ones of doing the job.

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 14:25

            Yeah,I’m going to call BS on that. You’re going to have to provide evidence of that “discrimination”. She has TWO movie credits to her name, and only one before Birds of Prey. She’s a newbie who got to direct a big budget film purely because she was a POC. Who else gets those kind of opportunities?

          • Kervyn Cloete

            April 8, 2020 at 15:07

            In her case, she got the opportunity purely because Margot Robbie loved her first film, Dead Pigs. Nothing to do with her being a POC. Robbie – who is a producer on Birds of Prey and whose production company co-financed it – personally picked her and essentially went to bat on her behalf to Warner Bros. The fact that Yan’s pitch was also apparently what WB wanted to hear was also great of course.

            But what Yan did here, by jumping from a tiny indie film (or TV series) to a major studio film, almost never happens for women, but happens quite a bit for men directors. See Colin Trevorrow going from Safety Not Guaranteed to Jurassic World, Gareth Edwards going from Monsters to Godzilla, Alan Taylor going from Game of Thrones to Thor: The Dark World, Jon Watts from Cop Car to Spider-Man: Homecoming, Gavin Hood from Tsotsi to X-Men Origins: Wolverine, etc. It’s something that happens a lot, and even taking the gender issue out of it, is kinda dumb and very risky in my opinion. But it keeps happening.

            As for the widespread discrimination throughout Hollywood itself… Well, this is a widely known situation for years now. And the stats are shocking. Women directors (irrespective of race) make up a tiny fraction of filmmakers on big budget productions, but its worse for women of colour.

            There are a lot of major entertainment publications that have written far more in-depth pieces than I can manage in a comment, so I’m just going to link you:

            https://www.indiewire.com/2017/02/major-hollywood-studios-discriminated-female-directors-eeoc-1201783475/

            https://www.thewrap.com/11-women-directors-hollywood-sexism-gender-bias-female-discrimination/

            http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20191129-why-arent-there-more-women-film-directors

            https://www.vulture.com/2015/07/how-hollywood-discriminates-female-filmmakers.html

            https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/27/women-directors-hollywood-female-filmmakers-gender-bias

            https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/women-directors-of-hollywood-this-discrimination-is-real/

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 15:33

            So basically you’re saying a newbie director with only one movie behind her name was chosen by the lead actress. Literally jumped to the front of the line. Sounds to me that it shows the complete opposite. There is no discrimination against FOCs.

            And if we’re looking at numbers how many FOC directors do you think are out there? 10%? 12%? Percentage-wise compared to white directors? In a country like the US, how many FOCs do you think are trying to become directors? Do you think maybe the lack of FOCs isn’t because of discrimination and rather that FOCs work in different industries? Maybe what you’re talking about is a problem that doesn’t exist, and that if you are the ONE FOC who wants to be a director you will get noticed and then get to jump the queue.

          • Kervyn Cloete

            April 8, 2020 at 15:59

            Yes, Yan hopped to the front of the queue and I have stated publicly in the past – before watching the movie – that I was unsure of whether she deserved it. Just like I’ve done with male filmmakers. But she’s one of the few female exceptions where this has happened. And it was purely because of Robbie’s star power.

            I feel like you’re intentionally ignoring even the examples I’ve given of how often this happens for men, and the fact that this was the exception.

            Did you read any of the links I posted though? Specifically the ones where they recount how male producers/studio heads tend to give male directors jobs, which in turn has resulted in females in the industry being dissuaded from trying for those jobs. And those female filmmakers who are working in the industry explain how they got sidelined and marginalized all the time to the point where a lot of them never ever get to make a film. There are a few sites dedicated to nothing else but recording incidents like these.The small percentage that make it are in spite of these adversities, and then they still need to fight to be recognized more widely.

            Do you think it’s just pure coincidence that only five women in the entire history of the industry have ever been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar?

            But based on your comments below, it’s clear that no matter how much historical data I’m going to give you – not even official studies, it seems – or how much I’m going to debate this with examples, this is not going to change your mind. I would still recommend you go read those studies and the many testimonials from people in the industry.

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 17:04

            Your links prove nothing, it just shows that there was an EOCC investigation. Do you know who else get investigated by the EOCC? Every single American company where a complaint is filed.

            3 years later, and nothing came from the Hollywood investigation and since the EOCC never releases their documents or reports you can’t even assume that there was some sort of settlement.

            Thanks for making me read articles that had nothing worthwhile to say. I think my point still stands. There is no evidence of discrimination. Yan and other FOCs may have actually benefited from what amounts to scaremongering from the EOCC.

          • Stoompot

            April 8, 2020 at 16:42

            That’s a pity, but then again I think few studios would entrust a massive budgeted project to just anyone .

    • Kervyn Cloete

      April 8, 2020 at 08:23

      You guys are completely reading it wrong. Nowhere did she say the failure of the movie was due to being female led or being directing by a women of colour. Just the opposite. She said that she was afraid that because of the lack of success of this movie, those things were going to be blamed as if the world didn’t want them.

      Reply

      • Ant Visagie

        April 8, 2020 at 15:38

        I don’t believe for a second what you’re telling me. It’s a made up problem. The lack of FOC directors is because FOC film students are few and far between. If you make up less than 10% of the student population in the US, how can you make up more than 10% in the workforce? The fact that someone like Yan can get a big budget movie after only one movie shows you that there isn’t discrimination. It actually shows you that FOC film directors might actually have more privileges.

        Reply

        • Kervyn Cloete

          April 8, 2020 at 15:59

          Fortunately, I’ve got some evidence to back up my claims.

          http://www.mtv.com/news/2159771/female-directors-college/

          Reply

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 17:09

            That was from 2015 (only 5 years ago). So when you’re fresh out of university, you should just be given a director position at a major hollywood studio? Do you know the average age of a Hollywood director is? It’s closer to 45 than 24. In other words, bring this argument up again in 20 years. Rather look at what the demographics were for film school in the mid 90s to explain who is in the top positions now.

            Logic, son! Those female and male graduates would eventually find themselves in positions of power, but for now, they’re probably working on indie movies or not. Or maybe they’re serving coffee or writing for websites like this.

          • Kervyn Cloete

            April 8, 2020 at 18:24

            You do realize your argument is continuously shifting now? First these female filmmakers didn’t exist. Now they exist but they’re still too young. And still you don’t list any actual evidence to support your claims. Instead, you attacked the legitimacy of the EOCC (which you’re certainly entitled to do) but ignored the other findings, as well as the testimonials of actual filmmakers who experienced this discrimination by fixating on a single exception.

            I’m willing to debate and happily concede my point, but not when just being greeted by a stubborn wall of vehement denials. I put in the effort to not just throw out my opinion, to find substantiating evidence. I can’t do any more than that.

            So thanks for the talk. If you want to take me backing out of this as win for yourself, go ahead. Doesn’t bother me.

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 18:42

            Nope, you brought up the EOCC.

            Testimonials would be linked to the EOCC findings which as we both agree came to naught, since there’s no lawsuit or ongoing lawsuit, you must agree that the EOCC must have found the testimonials to be without merit.

            A bit like how Amber Heard’s testimonials are now being questioned, and it seems she might even serve jail time for falsely accusing and manufacturing evidence against Johnny Depp.

          • New Age Films

            April 14, 2020 at 14:20

            Testimonials aren’t proof of anything. They’re not the “truth”. Laying a charge or being investigated is not proof of guilt. That’s why you have to allow for these things to run through the court system. Just because people want there to be a conspiracy against women of colour doesn’t mean it actually exists.

            BTW It’s interesting that the reporting on this died just as quickly as all those articles came out. And then when nothing came from it, everyone forgot about it.

        • Brad Lang

          April 8, 2020 at 16:23

          Kervyn’s provided some solid links to evidence backing up his argument. Could you supply any evidence to your side? Genuinely asking.

          Reply

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 17:09

            yeah, if you think an EOCC investigation means more than it does.

          • Brad Lang

            April 8, 2020 at 17:24

            Could you provide sources though? Proof is important than hearsay. Kervyn has provided a lot of sources and I just want to know where you’re getting your info.

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 17:24

            Go to the EOCC website, nothing came from it. That’s not hearsay. Maybe you should provide evidence as to why you think Cloete’s links meant more than they do. There was an investigation. They wrote a report, apparently they contacted the studios, and life went on. Nothing happened. There’s no lawsuit pending, maybe there was a settlement, but then paid to whom?

          • Brad Lang

            April 8, 2020 at 17:59

            Nothing came of it because all the charges were settled. The EOCC completed their investigation and handed out charges of discrimination to several production studios. “Nothing came of it” because the “EEOC doesn’t comment on its investigations, and charges only are made public when it files a lawsuit, which the EEOC says is ‘typically a last resort.’

            The EOCC isn’t allowed to make the charges and settlements public as they deal with individuals within the production company. So again, proof is needed to justify the claim that “nothing came from it” because several sources all point to numerous charges being lain and settlements being reached.

            To your below point, you can find other sources that corroborate that it wasn’t just the EOCC that were looking into this but the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (Confirmed in a statement to the Washington Post, link below).

            If you want a more primary source that’s independent from the EOCC, take a look at this study conducted by the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Thet found that “In the 414 studied films and series, only a third of speaking characters were female, and only 28.3 percent were from minority groups.” To elaborate on the behind-the-scenes work, “Just 15.2 percent of directors, 28.9 percent of writers and 22.6 percent of series creators were female. In film, the gender gap is greatest: Only 3.4 percent of the films studied were directed by women, and only two directors out of the 109 were black women: Ava DuVernay (“Selma”) and Amma Asante (“Belle”).” I’ve linked the study below.

            I always came across a great piece of academia that talks to the still existing pay gap in Hollywood. There’s plenty of great journal articles listed in the references and provided data. It’s focused on the pay gap but it still speaks to the existence and prevalence of discrimination against women. Linked it below, it’s a genuinely interesting chapter.

            So I don’t know man. If we’re basing this all on proof, I’m prone to believe the articles sourced from statements and peer-reviewed academic journal articles. There are sources that prove that this all took place and that discrimination against women and women of colour exists in Hollywood, but none that disprove it. So I’m gonna lean towards the evidence available. Have a good evening, dude.

            https://deadline.com/2017/02/hollywood-studios-female-directors-eeoc-investigation-1201912590/

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/12/feds-investigating-gender-discrimination-in-hollywood-aclu-says/

            https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017/04/07/MDSCI_CARD_Report_FINAL_Exec_Summary.pdf

            http://tesi.cab.unipd.it/64034/1/Capezzuto_Benedetta.pdf

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 18:48

            Yeah, you’re not adding anything useful to the discussion.

            We’ve already covered all of that, and just for your information, when the EOCC investigates, their findings are made available to FUTURE and ONGOING cases. The fact that nothing came from this has to be proof that the EOCC’s investigation into Hollywood wasn’t enough to spark a lawsuit – As was claimed in the articles you and Kervyn posted.

            So no, you have not proven your case. In fact, you’ve proven that my assessment is correct.

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 18:58

            You could argue that it was “settled”, but then the obvious question is settled by whom and on whose behalf? Another way you settle it, is by admitting to the party that you’re investigating that the case is without merit and that it won’t be continued. Which seems to be the most plausible scenario.

            This is a federal matter and not a civil one so it wouldn’t have been settled with one of the aggrieved parties. That’s not how it works when you deal with federal entities like the EOCC.

          • Brad Lang

            April 8, 2020 at 17:59

            Nothing came of it because all the charges were settled. The EOCC completed their investigation and handed out charges of discrimination to several production studios. “Nothing came of it” because the “EEOC doesn’t comment on its investigations, and charges only are made public when it files a lawsuit, which the EEOC says is ‘typically a last resort.’

            The EOCC isn’t allowed to make the charges and settlements public as they deal with individuals within the production company. So again, proof is needed to justify the claim that “nothing came from it” because several sources all point to numerous charges being lain and settlements being reached.

            To your below point, you can find other sources that corroborate that it wasn’t just the EOCC that were looking into this but the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (Confirmed in a statement to the Washington Post, link below).

            If you want a more primary source that’s independent from the EOCC, take a look at this study conducted by the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. Thet found that “In the 414 studied films and series, only a third of speaking characters were female, and only 28.3 percent were from minority groups.” To elaborate on the behind-the-scenes work, “Just 15.2 percent of directors, 28.9 percent of writers and 22.6 percent of series creators were female. In film, the gender gap is greatest: Only 3.4 percent of the films studied were directed by women, and only two directors out of the 109 were black women: Ava DuVernay (“Selma”) and Amma Asante (“Belle”).” I’ve linked the study below.

            I always came across a great piece of academia that talks to the still existing pay gap in Hollywood. There’s plenty of great journal articles listed in the references and provided data. It’s focused on the pay gap but it still speaks to the existence and prevalence of discrimination against women. Linked it below, it’s a genuinely interesting chapter.

            So I don’t know man. If we’re basing this all on proof, I’m prone to believe the articles sourced from statements and peer-reviewed academic journal articles. There are sources that prove that this all took place and that discrimination against women and women of colour exists in Hollywood, but none that disprove it. So I’m gonna lean towards the evidence available. Have a good evening, dude.

            https://deadline.com/2017/02/hollywood-studios-female-directors-eeoc-investigation-1201912590/

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/12/feds-investigating-gender-discrimination-in-hollywood-aclu-says/

            https://annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/2017/04/07/MDSCI_CARD_Report_FINAL_Exec_Summary.pdf

            http://tesi.cab.unipd.it/64034/1/Capezzuto_Benedetta.pdf

          • Ant Visagie

            April 8, 2020 at 17:26

            If you can find a source that’s more original/primary than the EOCC,be my guest.

            Point is, since nothing came from it, the case must not have been as strong to suggest that discrimination was a real thing, which means all the op-eds on the Guardian won’t make it true. Therefore we’re back to the simple fact that FOCs are not discriminated against, and may now be in a much more privileged position because of the EOCCs attempt at scaremongering. Which studio is not going to throw projects at them in the hopes that the EOCC do not bother them again.

            Lekka!

  2. Rafael Almanzar

    April 8, 2020 at 01:32

    There’s usually a lot that goes into the success or failure of a movie from good script writing, to good character development, to how the movie is edited (you would be surprised how far apart two different edits of a movie can be). Then of course there is how the movie is marketed and distributed and depending on demographics this also can make or break the whole project.

    Reply

  3. CrAiGiSh

    April 8, 2020 at 08:51

    Movie was good.

    Reply

    • Kervyn Cloete

      April 8, 2020 at 12:17

      We had a packed house for both our screenings and people loved it. I really didn’t expect to enjoy it as much as I did.

      Reply

  4. For the Emperor!

    April 8, 2020 at 11:24

    Didn’t prioritise it due to the marketing, but when I decided I was bored and would go see it the whole Covid-19 thing happened. Will watch it sometime in future though.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Rocksteady’s Suicide Squad has Been Delayed Until 2023

According to a Bloomberg report, various sources familiar with the development have said t…