Suicide Squad rated 15 by BBFC

[Silver Nemesis]

Suicide Squad is the first live action Batman movie since Batman Returns to receive a 15 certificate in the UK: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/suicide-squad-2016

The BBFC site states it was passed without any cuts. This begs the question of whether the PG-13 US version contains edits, as movies rated 15 in the UK are generally rated R in America.

This is both good and bad news for Suicide Squad. The downside is that a 15 certificate limits the film's earning capacity in the UK, which means it's unlikely to gross as much as Man of Steel or Batman v Superman did. Then again, Deadpool outgrossed both of those films in Britain and that was also rated 15. But I don't think Suicide Squad is necessarily going to pack the same comedic punch as Deadpool (campy movies generally play well with British audiences), so I'm sceptical about it performing as strongly. There's also the fact the DCEU brand has already been established as a 12 certificate franchise here, and lots of kids who enjoyed BvS will now be restricted from seeing SS. That could also throw a spanner in the works in terms of sustaining franchise momentum between now and when Wonder Woman comes out. But ultimately the box office performance will be determined by reviews and word of mouth, so we'll just have to wait and see.

The upside of the 15 certificate relates to artistic factors rather than commercial. It shows that Warner Bros is refusing to compromise Ayer's creative vision and is releasing the film in the condition he wants. This, combined with the fact Ayer is the only writer credited on the film (meaning no studio-mandated rewrites), suggests we're going to get his undiluted vision free of external interference. Ayer is an extremely talented filmmaker. This is the guy who wrote and directed End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014). On the occasions he's faltered – such as with the Schwarzenegger flick Sabotage (2014) – it's often been because of studio interference. But all the signs so far indicate he's been given free rein with Suicide Squad. So the 15 certificate is probably a good thing from a creative standpoint, though perhaps less so from a commercial perspective.

[thecolorsblend]

Is it possible that there are uncredited writers on the movie that tweaked things here and there? That's a pretty common practice in Hollywood. Supposedly the movie Live Free or Die Hard had 20 uncredited writers on it, irrespective of how many writers got official credit with WGA.

[Silver Nemesis]

It's possible. Script doctoring is extremely common in Hollywood and the writers seldom get credit for their work. But if that's happened here, it's unlikely to be anything major. Ayer was an accomplished screenwriter long before he started directing, penning scripts for films such as U-571 and Training Day. I shouldn't think his work would require much doctoring now. And since he's also directing the film, I'd imagine he'd want to maintain as much control over the project as possible. It looks like Warner Bros is content to let him do so.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm coming back to this. I've started wondering lately that this movie could be a relatively low budget film. The stuff we've seen in the trailers doesn't look like it would cost a king's ransom to produce. And if Ayer was given the type of creative latitude you suggest, my guess is it's because WB's future doesn't hinge on this movie making big bucks.

What is "cheap" for a big movie studio these days? I honestly don't know. But if Suicide Squad has a budget near or below $150 million, my guess is WB wants a return on their investment but this movie isn't the priority that a Superman or a Batman or a whatever would be.

I could be wrong. I probably am wrong. But I can't find budget info about this movie, which again makes me think it might not be very high.

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm not sure you are wrong. Early reports indicated Suicide Squad was meant to have a smaller budget to offset the costs of Batman v Superman. It was meant to be a smaller character-driven companion to Snyder's film, much like Ant-Man was to Age of Ultron. A $150 million production cost would tally with those early reports. The emphasis on practical stunts and effects work displayed in the trailers – a major selling point in the movie's favour – would also indicate a smaller budget.

Another thing to take into account is the relatively short preproduction period this movie had compared with certain earlier DC films. With Superman Returns, for example, Warner Bros wasted over a decade on numerous misfires before finally proceeding with Singer's film. And the preproduction expenditure of those aborted projects was added to the final budget. But with Suicide Squad they knew exactly what they were doing from the beginning and just got on with it. No waste, no procrastination. I get the impression Ayer's good with budgets, at least in part because he favours practical effects work over CG extravagance. He managed to bring Fury in on a budget of less than $70 million ($20 million of which was Brad Pitt's salary), and that movie had some truly spectacular action sequences. So $150 million isn't out of the question for SS.

If that was the approximate budget, it would need to gross around half a billion to break even. And for a movie featuring Batman and the Joker, half a billion is a walk in the park. I wish they'd hurry up and confirm the budget though. Then we could start making informed projections regarding Warner Bros expected return on investment.

[thecolorsblend]

If that was the approximate budget, it would need to gross around half a billion to break even. And for a movie featuring Batman and the Joker, half a billion is a walk in the park. I wish they'd hurry up and confirm the budget though. Then we could start making informed projections regarding Warner Bros expected return on investment.

Half a billion? Not saying you're wrong or that the number is unattainable. But my understanding was a movie generally needs to double its production budget. After that point, it's profitable. In Suicide Squad's case, that might be $300 million... which, as you say, is a piece of cake for a movie like this. It's tracking for an opening weekend between $100 and $125 million. If it's "only" $150 million, it seems safe to say it'll not only be quite profitable, it'll beat the tar out of Girlbusters... which is icing on the cake.

[The Dark Knight]

I think the movie will do well. Firstly, I think it looks good and will interest the general public - the concept of bad guys taking centre stage as the 'heroes'. And secondly, it's two hours long. I like my films at least two and a half hours long these days. But a two hour film is going to equal an improved box office in my mind. But honestly, I'd take 100 Dawn of Justices with poor reviews and 'disappointing' box-office returns any day of the week, because man, that was one brave epic. But profit and good word of mouth is obviously needed for long term output. So it's a push. Either way, I've heard Suicide Squad maintains the dark DC feel that Dawn of Justice presented, albeit a tad lighter. Which pleases me.

[Silver Nemesis]

Half a billion? Not saying you're wrong or that the number is unattainable. But my understanding was a movie generally needs to double its production budget. After that point, it's profitable. In Suicide Squad's case, that might be $300 million... which, as you say, is a piece of cake for a movie like this. It's tracking for an opening weekend between $100 and $125 million. If it's "only" $150 million, it seems safe to say it'll not only be quite profitable, it'll beat the tar out of Girlbusters... which is icing on the cake.

Box office analysis is an insanely complicated business. I just recently did an online course about it in my spare time, and it left me more confused than ever. I'm certainly no expert, but I find it a fascinating if somewhat murky subject. My half-a-billion estimate for Suicide Squad might not be accurate, but I'll try and explain how I'm arriving at it. Apologies in advance for this longwinded post.

The idea of a movie needing to gross double its production budget is based on the assumption that ancillary revenue will recoup global print and advertising costs. So you remove the marketing budget from the equation and just focus on making back the production budget. This isn't a million miles from how the studios themselves view the situation. They don't look at a film's profitability in terms of box office alone, but rather in terms of how much return they'll get on the dollar over a ten year period. Theatrical release is merely the first of several exploitation windows. The next window is usually airlines and VOD, followed by Blu-ray and DVD, followed by subscription TV services, followed by network TV, and so on. Because of new technology and advancements in streaming services, the way studios make money off films is constantly changing. The fact marketing is becoming increasingly expensive as time goes by also complicates matters further. But if we're talking purely in terms of theatrical box office then we must also take into account global p & a costs. Reimbursement of distributor investment (distributors often pay for marketing, particularly when dealing with low budget films from small production companies) takes precedence over studio reimbursement. In the case of many big studio films, the studio itself will handle p & a. For example, here are the distributors for Batman v Superman as listed on the IMDb:

•   NOS Audiovisuais (2016) (Portugal) (theatrical)
•   Panorama Studios (2016) (India) (theatrical)
•   Tanweer Alliances (2016) (Greece) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. F.E. (2016) (Philippines) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Argentina) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Austria) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Belgium) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Brazil) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Canada) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Chile) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Germany) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (France) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (UK) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Indonesia) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Italy) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Japan) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Mexico) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Netherlands) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Singapore) (theatrical)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (USA) (theatrical)
•   Westec Media Limited (2016) (Cambodia) (theatrical)
•   White Tusk Movies (2016) (India) (theatrical)
•   KVH Media Group (2016) (World-wide) (all media) (Ships)
•   Warner Bros. (2016) (Spain) (all media)
•   Warner Home Video (2016) (Netherlands) (DVD)
•   Warner Home Video (2016) (Netherlands) (Blu-ray) (DVD)
•   Warner Home Video (2016) (USA) (Blu-ray) (DVD)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/companycredits

As you can see, Warner Bros themselves handled distribution in most of the major territories. Batman v Superman had a marketing budget of around $165 million, and most of that came from WB. I find a good general rule for calculating breakeven points for films of this scale is to add the production budget to worldwide p & a and multiply by two. Or alternatively, 300% of production budget. If we apply that to Batman v Superman (production budget of $250 million and WW p & a of $165 million) that gives us a breakeven point of around $830 million or $750 million. I suspect the higher number is more accurate, though it could be somewhere between the two. Either way, the film has very likely broken even (it grossed $872.7 million) and is into profit territory. But even if it hadn't, that wouldn't be a disaster for WB. A shockingly high number of blockbuster films no longer make a profit in theatres these days due to the rising cost of marketing. But studios are in it for the long haul. I'm fairly sure Man of Steel didn't make a profit in theatres, but WB had already made $160 million from promotional tie-ins before the film even came out. That, combined with strong DVD sales, put the film into profit territory a while back. And WB is still making money off it even as I write this. Movies are long-term investments and theatrical box office is no longer the be all and end all it once was.

That said, a studio ideally still wants their film to make a profit while it's in theatres. For one thing, it means they can pay off the banks, investors, distributors, etc, while the film's still screening, and most of what they make after that they get to keep for themselves (barring percentage deals with cast or crewmembers). Box office performance also gives some indication of how well the film will do when it reaches the other exploitation windows. A movie that tanks in theatres (for example F4ntastic Flop) is unlikely to top the DVD sales charts. And sometimes selling well on DVD isn't enough to offset losses from a box office bomb (for example, Dredd sold extremely well on DVD, but that still wasn't enough to make a sequel commercially viable after the dreadful theatrical takings).

A few other things that need to be taken into account when analysing box office:

•   Studios very often lie about the budget. The production costs released to the public are usually vague estimates from someone who worked on the film, rather than accurate figures audited from the studio accounting department. And these estimates are often calibrated towards the expected box office cume. For instance, if a film is tracking poorly, the studio might downplay the amount of money they spent on it in an effort to save face. A perfect example of this is the Ghostbusters remake. Months ago, we were told the production budget was $180 million and that it was tracking for a $75-80 million opening weekend gross. More recently, after the backlash following the release of the trailer, the budget was lowered to $156 million after rebates and the OW projections lowered to around $60 million. Just prior to the release, we were told the $156 production cost was before rebates and that the actual post-rebates cost was only $144 million. And the OW prediction was lowered to $50 million. Paul Feig claimed the movie needed to gross at least $500 million to break even. Then a few days later someone at Sony claimed it only needed to make $400 million. Now some of the film's defenders are claiming it only needs $300 million, which is utterly absurd. The moral of the story is don't trust studio estimates, particularly if the film's underperforming.

•   Exhibitors often have contractual stipulations to protect themselves against flops. These can affect what percentage of box office returns to the studio. So if a movie does really well in its opening week, the studio might take home 60% of that gross. But if the film does badly in its opening week, failing to reach certain parameters outlined in the contract, then the exhibitor might keep a larger percentage to cover their losses, and the studio might only take home 40%. This is the kind of information the public never hears about, so it's impossible for us to accurately factor it into our calculations. But it's something to be aware of when analysing the takings of films that have underperformed.

As far as Suicide Squad goes, if we assume the production cost is $150 million, and the marketing at least $100 million, then that gives us a total of $250 million. Going by the production cost + marketing x2 formula, we get a breakeven point of around $500 million. If we use the 300% of production cost formula, we get $450 million. However Warner Bros will very likely lowball their own budget estimates to avoid some of the bad press they got from BvS going over budget. So if they do claim it cost $150 million, there's a high probability it actually cost more. So I'd say half a billion is a reasonable breakeven point for those numbers. It would help if we had some information on pre-release revenue from promotional tie-ins. The higher age certificate in the UK would suggest the film will be merchandised differently from BvS; with less emphasis on toys targeting kids and more emphasis on Harley Quinn and Joker merchandise targeting adults. This could lead to lower tie-in revenue, which in turn could place more pressure on the box office. So again, I'd say half a billion is a safe bet for the breakeven point. But I could be wrong. And the budget might turn out to be higher or lower than what we've estimated anyway, in which case we'll have to calculate fresh predictions.

Information we need to have in order to estimate the studio's target gross:

•   The production budget
•   Global p & a costs
•   The age certificate
•   Is the studio distributing the film itself, or is there a separate distributor involved?
•   How many theatres is it opening in?
•   Are there any major overseas territories where it's not getting released?

Information we need to be conscious of when predicting the likelihood of success:

•   Presales
•   Reviews and audience word of mouth
•   Social media buzz
•   Is it getting 3D and IMAX releases?
•   Real life incidents that might impact box office (a tragedy similar to something depicted in the film might deter people from seeing it, while the untimely death of a cast member might have the opposite effect)
•   The attitude of the fans (this is where geeks like us are much better informed than the studios, because we understand the appeal of these properties and can see if the movie is heading in the right direction or not)

Anyway, sorry for droning on. Hopefully some of the factors I've outlined here will help contextualise the projections I've made. And of course I'm talking about big budget CBMs here. The situation would be very different if we were discussing a low budget horror film or prestige drama.

[Catwoman]

Cliff notes, please.

[Silver Nemesis]

Ghostbusters flopped.

Batman v Superman didn't.

Suicide Squad probably won't.

Sony sucks.