MovieChat Forums > The Suicide Squad (2021) Discussion > Margot Robbie to be replaced as H Quinn ...

Margot Robbie to be replaced as H Quinn after TSS bombs?

posted 3 years ago by bozo_500 (13151)
24 replies | jump to latest

https://cosmicbook.news/margot-robbie-harley-quinn-hold-recast

Following Birds of Prey and The Suicide Squad bombing at the box office, it's reported Margot Robbie will be taking a break playing Harley Quinn in the DCEU with it even speculated the character could be recast down the road.

Both of the movies have underperformed at the box office, with The Suicide Squad actually doing worse than Birds of Prey at the box office, if you can believe it.

James Gunn's The Suicide Squad is reported to have only opened to around $26 million this weekend, while Birds of Prey opened to $33 million last year.

Excuses are flying as to why no one showed up at the theaters to watch The Suicide Squad, but regardless of the reasons, they didn't, and it's another bomb from Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn.

Regarding the rumor, YouTuber Grace Randolph is stating that WB wanted to see how well The Suicide Squad and Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn were received in the movie, but now they have their answer (meaning not well):

"As for Harley Quinn, we already knew that Warner Bros. and Margot Robbie were planning to take a break with the character. I told you I heard because they wanted to see how she was received here, and well now they are starting to see. If she comes back, I do think there will be changes to how she interprets the character. I would love to see her work with a better director. I think this is a character who would benefit from a female director, to be honest with you, although Patty Jenkins really messed up on Wonder Woman... This all goes back to the choice that it was... even Margot Robbie admitted that she had... Warner Bros. gave her a choice, does she wants to make a Birds of Prey movie or a Gotham City Sirens movie? They never should have given her that choice because she should have made a Gotham City Sirens movie, and she chose poorly! She chose the wrong path, and she is continuing to suffer for it.

While just speculation, Grace continues with mention that the Multiverse could always recast Harley Quinn with a new actress (as The Flash movie is confirmed to be all about the Multiverse):

Now here's the concern, Warner Bros. could use the Multiverse as an excuse to flow it out another live-action Harley Quinn. If they decide to do that, then Margot Robbie will be in real trouble.

Randolph offers her thoughts about what WB should do with the character, which is to give Kaley Cuoco and Lake Bell a shot at playing live-action versions of Harley and Poison Ivy, respectively:

What what you do about Harley Quinn? Personally, I would greenlight a low budget live-action episode of the Harley Quinn animated series Cool World-style because both those actresses in particular can definitely do live-action versions of the characters. I would see how that goes.

Randolph also adds that while there are a lot of Harley fans online, that there isn't enough to support the character in the movies, something I recently said as, IMO, Harley Quinn is a Batman supporting's character supporting character (the 2016 Suicide Squad happened to feature both Batman and Joker).

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

I don't think Margot Robbie is really the problem. I think Harley Quinn is. I don't think anybody really cares that much about Harley Quinn.

[–] elmacho (984) 3 years ago

agreed. having a small cult following doesn't always (usually doesn't) turn into money at the box office. Totally different area, but reminds me when Private Parts came out. they were anticipating $80-100 million based on his ratings. However, there is a difference between getting an audience to listen to you for free (back then) and having them pay. Movie only made around $50 million.

[–] Guitar King (4914) 3 years ago

Margot Robbie has never played Harley Quinn, she played punk rock girl in 3 movies.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

She dressed like Minnie Pearl?

[–] Guitar King (4914) 3 years ago

And ate fudge banana swirl.

[–] spraghetti (33) 3 years ago

if you don't got Mojo Nixon then your store could use some fixin'

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

Junk story to get incels to go in a see the bad advertising.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/suicide_squad/the_suicide_squad/the-suicide-squad-had-hbo-maxs-second-highest-opening-weekend-behind-mortal-kombat-a187080#gs.7ztqmx

[–] HarlemEagle42 (17860) 3 years ago

No. That's a clickbait website anyway.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14202) 3 years ago

I wouldn't be sorry to see Robbie go if it came to it. I've enjoyed some of what she's done, but I never got that 'Margot Robbie IS Harley Quinn!' vibe. I've thought Cuoco would make a good live-action Harley even before she was cast as the voice for the HQ animated series. Personally, I'd be down for that, although I'm not sure how much of a big screen draw Cuoco would be.

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

although I'm not sure how much of a big screen draw Cuoco would be

I think that is where it falls. Batman and Spiderman made actors. People go watching those movies not because of actors, but because they want to see Batman and Spiderman.

Harley Quinn does not have the same draw.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14202) 3 years ago

People go watching those movies not because of actors, but because they want to see Batman and Spiderman.

Harley Quinn does not have the same draw.

I'm a Harley fan but I have to agree with that. They've got to absolutely nail the casting. I know a lot of people feel they did with Robbie, but at the same time I feel there's the start of a sense of 'been there, seen that' about her Harley. That's something I never felt with Keaton or Bale as Batman, or Reeve as Superman, or Gadot as Wonder Woman (even after WW84!). Although I do feel it about Cavill's Superman.

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

I think it is also about what they did with Harley Quinn character, which could be summed up in one line from "Birds of Prey":"For all your noise and bluster, you're just a silly little girl with no one around to protect her."

But in comic books Harley Quinn was injected with toxin antidote by Poison Ivy, other than being immune to various forms of chemicals, the injection also gave Harley "enhanced strength and durability, making her a formidable hand-to-hand combatant". Also "Prior to her interaction with any toxins or chemicals, Harley was a peak athlete and a highly trained gymnast with a genius-level IQ—assets occasionally hindered by her mental instability"

So she was basically a super soldier with superior intellect borderline on being crazy.

But in the movies she was a nobody, a junkie kind of girl only important because Joker took an interest in her.

I don't read comic books, I got all the description from web research, so my perception could be wrong. But I think she is more in comic books.

Comic book characters are power symbols. Harley Quinn, at least in the movies, was nothing like that.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14202) 3 years ago

I don't read comic books, I got all the description from web research, so my perception could be wrong. But I think she is more in comic books.

No, your description is bang on 👍 although the IQ thing varies (it's been implied that she slept her way to her medical degree; whether because of laziness or lack of ability isn't really made clear).

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

Hm. Yet somehow Blade, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, etc, etc, and Etc did GREAT business.

Maybe people just want good movies?

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

For most movies I would say that is true, but comic book movies could have exceptions.

For example, Spider-Man: Far from Home, the movie in my view is very average. Tom Holland is also hardly a box office draw, but that movie did over one billion worldwide.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

Not sure how you're defining "box office draw." If headlining a movie that does a Billion dollars doesn't qualify, what on earth does?

It's easy to conflate personal tastes w/some overarching idea of quality. One thing seems certain: major studios do NOT have any of this figured out. Sometimes huge stars' films tank, sometimes bit actors/characters make huge blockbusters.

I haven't been on a Lot of sets, but the main thing I *did* learn is: movies are HIDEOUSLY complicated. It's a little amazing that they even get done, once you see how many moving parts there are, and how Any of them can impact the finished product in ways that are absolutely impossible to plan for.

Shrug. There's a lot to be said for Hitchcock's perspective: “To make a great film you need three things – the script, the script and the script.”

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

Not sure how you're defining "box office draw." If headlining a movie that does a Billion dollars doesn't qualify, what on earth does?

That is you being stubborn again. When I said "Tom Holland is also hardly a box office draw" there were data backing it up. Just have a look of box office results of his other recent movies you will know I am right.

But I doubt you will admit it. Like I said before you have issues.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

Um. . .no. I was honestly asking your opinion. But feel free to feel however you like about it. . .

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

Then what you said were only half true. Studios are not that stupid, and you are right script is important. Just look at the last session of game of thrones, without the real storyteller the script writers failed so miserably. That was the failure of neither director nor actors.

But there are working formulas, such as the common saying in the movie world:"A movie is as good as it's villain". I think the success of Die hard movie is more to do with Hans Gruber portrayed by Alan Rickman than Bruce Willis.

What black widow and this movie have in common? There aren't that much about villains. Black widow has a old, fat, egotistic man. This movie, what, an alien? And it was neither scary nor brilliant, and it is a colorful star fish. My first impression was that is a Disney villain.

I think the problem is there ain't that many great scripts. And I think that is one of the reasons why there are so many "woke" movies. I think if the movie failed they could always say, that is because we were trying to do some good, not because we were incompetent.

And a good script is only the start, you need a good director to deliver it, with actors of right chemistry. Sheldon in "The big bang theory" is a prime example. Sheldon is written as one of the worst and most annoying characters, but Jim Parsons is so suitable, made it one of the most beloved characters of the show. But I doubt Jim Parsons could deliver a different character as successfully, since the chemistry between actors and roles are the most unpredictable.

Who thought Ryan Reynolds could deliver Deadpool, not me.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

"Studios are not that stupid, and you are right script is important."
The idea that "studios" are singular entities is another misconception. There are many, Many people in the decision chain; this is especially true of the larger studios. Even the most top-heavy ones have people that run from extremely bright to dumb as a post. And it is NOT a meritocracy, trust. As an aggregate, it's really a crapshoot. Again, if you haven't spent any time in the industry, there's no way to know this. Bottom line: those aggregate decisions run the gamut, and (from the outside, with hindsight) can appear equally brilliant or inept.

"But there are working formulas, such as the common saying in the movie world:"A movie is as good as it's villain". I think the success of Die hard movie is more to do with Hans Gruber portrayed by Alan Rickman than Bruce Willis."
One of my favorite films of all time, and the incomparable Rickman is indeed a HUGE part of why. It's a good illustration of you initial point, tho: Bruce was coming off a great run on Moonlighting, was not at all a movie star, and knocked it out of the park. He was somewhat of a draw already, and instantly became a Mega draw. But this did Not translate into the same effect, in later movies. Does that mean he's sometimes a draw? Once was? Never was? Still is? The reason a given movie succeeds? Fails? Depends who you ask.

"What black widow and this movie have in common? There aren't that much about villains. Black widow has a old, fat, egotistic man. This movie, what, an alien? And it was neither scary not brilliant, and it is a colorful star fish."
One thing's for Sure: better villains would have elevated both of these movies.

"Who thought Ryan Reynolds could deliver Deadpool, not me."
Talk to some comic book geeks. We ALL knew Reynolds would knock it out the park. . .he lobbied for YEARS to make that film a reality. (It became a running joke, in the comics) Definitely the reason it got made, and succeeded.

[–] fc31 (5509) 3 years ago

We ALL knew Reynolds would knock it out the park

You guys really have a lot faith in him, especially after green lantern, that is somewhat remarkable.

But this did Not translate into the same effect, in later movies. Does that mean he's sometimes a draw? Once was? Never was? Still is?

I think he was, to some effect Alan Rickman as well, but much less so, since he was the bad guy in the movie. I went to watch some of the movies because of Bruce Willis, all the die hard sequels, the fifth element, the jackel, etc. That means at least to me he was a draw. But it was Alan Rickman's Hans Gruber elevated John McClane, beating Hans Gruber makes him a great detective in the movie. Otherwise he was just a cop with a temper.

[–] Goliard (1421) 3 years ago

"You guys really have a lot faith in him, especially after green lantern, that is somewhat remarkable."

Again, only the existing fans and/or movie geeks knew the intricacies, but it was clear for Years that this project had HUGE potential. Comic geeks knew about the Reynolds connection because it was referenced in the books; movie geeks knew Reynolds loved the character and *really* wanted to make the movie.
The production ticks most of the boxes you've mentioned: Reynolds was Not a huge star, the villain was Not particularly memorable, the studio interfered from soup to nuts, there was a fight to keep the R rating, etc, etc, etc. But everything (somehow) came together in the best possible way, with the result that a film with a 58 million budget generated three quarters of a Billion in sales.

Same with Die Hard. Everything just came together beautifully; to some extent in Spite of the studio, rather than because of some brilliant plan the studio execs achieved.

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 3 years ago

Got some kind of hateboner for this movie or something?

[–] bozo_500 (13151) 3 years ago

no that was just an article not my own opinions.