|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 19, 2023 16:36:54 GMT
On the review front this is now up to 91 on Metacritic after 7 straight 100’s. Could see this maybe winning NYFCC. This would be DiCaprio's highest rated film on Metacritic.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 19, 2023 16:37:35 GMT
On a lighter note, people on Twitter (I ain't calling it X) seem to be having a bit of a chuckle at the thought of Scorsese and DeNiro being the cool kids/mean girls to DiCaprio, while he was trying to improv .
|
|
|
Post by FallenWarrior on Oct 20, 2023 17:27:48 GMT
I think it might just be that Scorsese simply wanted to restructure the story according to what he thought was most interesting dramatically. Even without further context, your description of Leo’s character as “a conflicted enabler of violence and murder” does make him sound like a logical focal point to shape your movie around since a character’s internal conflict is pretty much always a reliable source of drama to sustain a film (especially one of this length). In this case, that kind of intuitive dramatic choice seems to have involved sacrificing more thorough representation of a marginalized group’s perspective, which is unfortunate. I don’t necessarily blame Scorsese for probably wanting to tell what he thought was the most dramatically interesting version of this story by centering a character’s internal conflict, but it sounds like there could have been more balance in terms of how much emphasis to give to the different perspectives. Obviously Ernest is a more dramatically interesting character because he is riddled with conflict . . . but you know who else would be? A woman caught between love for her people who are being systematically oppressed and murdered, and love for her husband who is complicit in that oppression and murder. It would be a fascinating exploration not just into the woman as an individual, but exploring themes of assimilation and cultural identity. I don't have an issue with them restructuring the story to focus on Ernest. What I do have an issue with is them talking about how the original story paid lip service to the Osage and they reworked it to give them more of a presence in the story. But by the sounds of it, they didn't go nearly so far enough. But they keep advertising like they did this great groundbreaking thing, and that's leaving quite a sour taste in my mouth. Having seen the film, I think Scorsese actually agrees with the consultant.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 21, 2023 0:20:16 GMT
Just saw it, the main three were astonishing. But the ending caught me off guard.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 22, 2023 20:59:06 GMT
3rd A- of Scorsese's career
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 23, 2023 18:15:48 GMT
The fact that DiCaprio opened a three and half hour slow paced movie about an horrifically heavy subject matter at 23 Million with ZERO PROMOTION, and hindered by the strike, is absolutely INSANE.
It's so telling of the volume and magnitude of his star power.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 23, 2023 18:49:07 GMT
The fact that DiCaprio opened a three and half hour slow paced movie about an horrifically heavy subject matter at 23 Million with ZERO PROMOTION, and hindered by the strike, is absolutely INSANE. It's so telling of the volume and magnitude of his star power. He's a singular actor in what he makes, how it's received and its level of success - critically and in commercial openings.............. if you add up the amount of Oscar nominations for his movies overall it has to be a record (or really close atm?) - like I don't just mean BP......... but across the board.........2023 is a metric smashing year for him individually and for his filmography in several ways......... It's almost funny how what he achieves is taken for granted ......
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 23, 2023 19:41:12 GMT
The fact that DiCaprio opened a three and half hour slow paced movie about an horrifically heavy subject matter at 23 Million with ZERO PROMOTION, and hindered by the strike, is absolutely INSANE. It's so telling of the volume and magnitude of his star power. It's strange. Some outlets like Deadline are claiming this is a good opening ( for the kind reasons you state), but other pundits ( Grace Randolph, John Campea etc) are saying it's a not good because of the huge production budget (200 million +). I'm kind of in the middle. It's a good opening for the kind of movie it is. But a weak opening for a movie that cost that much to make. A film like this has no reason to cost 200 + million dollars. It's ridiculous. Makes sense why Marty is always attacking comic book movies though. He wants their mega budgets to make films that patently don't justify them
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 19:56:42 GMT
The fact that DiCaprio opened a three and half hour slow paced movie about an horrifically heavy subject matter at 23 Million with ZERO PROMOTION, and hindered by the strike, is absolutely INSANE. It's so telling of the volume and magnitude of his star power. It's strange. Some outlets like Deadline are claiming this is a good opening ( for the kind reasons you state), but other pundits ( Grace Randolph, John Campea etc) are saying it's a not good because of the huge production budget (200 million +). I'm kind of in the middle. It's a good opening for the kind of movie it is. But a weak opening for a movie that cost that much to make. A film like this has no reason to cost 200 + million dollars. It's ridiculous. Makes sense why Marty is always attacking comic book movies though. He wants their mega budgets to make films that patently don't justify them It's a good opening for the type of movie it is (especially with not as much promotion leading up to it), but it is going to need legs to make a profit. I'm sure it will, probably on the level of The Revenant at the very least. I agree that there's no real reason this needed to cost the amount of money it did. As wonderfully rich as the production design was when it was on screen, we've seen Jack Fisk create just as fantastically textured sets on a fraction of that budget. But I've belabored that point so thoroughly since the budget was announced. I don't think Scorsese is attacking comic book films for that reason specifically, but there is a reason he's always got Leo in his back pocket. DiCaprio is guaranteed box office gold, and you don't get rid of the fatted calf (as much as I wish he would sometimes).
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 23, 2023 20:06:25 GMT
The cost of the movie has shit to do with DiCaprio and his ability to open a film like this or actually even gets THIS made and how he uses his start power........ Grace Randolph's review of this movie is astonishingly submental btw........I have said this movie is flawed - everybody gets an opinion, fine - but Jesus this may be her worst review ever.........it may be the dumbst thing I've seen in Pop Culture lately in general ........she's such a dullard.......really not sure how anybody ever compared her to Armnond White......GTFO ...... I dare anyone to watch 5 minutes of this and not have your head explode - I fncking dare you
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 23, 2023 20:12:18 GMT
I can take or leave Grace Randolph as a critic, but her weekly analysis of box office results and streaming numbers is must-watch stuff for anybody interested in buisness side of the industry. She knows her shit on that score. She's got far more value than Armond White (who is just a troll with an opinion, and provides zero analysis or insight into the industry) because she is actually a serious industry analyst.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 20:19:00 GMT
The cost of the movie has shit to do with DiCaprio Uh, yeah, it does. It's a combination of streamers being far too liberal with their money (which is going to massively bite them in the ass at some point) and DiCaprio's A-list status.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 23, 2023 20:21:16 GMT
The cost of the movie has shit to do with DiCaprio Uh, yeah, it does. It's a combination of streamers being far too liberal with their money (which is going to massively bite them in the ass at some point) and DiCaprio's A-list status. Bingo. None of this shit is sustainable. We are already seeing the results with Netflix. Cutting down on password sharing, raising subscription prices every few months....ultimately it's the consumer that will end up paying for these insane "money no object" payouts by streamers for A-listers.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 20:23:16 GMT
Uh, yeah, it does. It's a combination of streamers being far too liberal with their money (which is going to massively bite them in the ass at some point) and DiCaprio's A-list status. Bingo. None of this shit is sustainable. I give Scorsese full credit for gaming the system, but let's be real. Without DiCaprio and the way streamers are designed, this movie gets a Silence-level budget.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 23, 2023 20:30:06 GMT
The fact that DiCaprio opened a three and half hour slow paced movie about an horrifically heavy subject matter at 23 Million with ZERO PROMOTION, and hindered by the strike, is absolutely INSANE. It's so telling of the volume and magnitude of his star power. It's strange. Some outlets like Deadline are claiming this is a good opening ( for the kind reasons you state), but other pundits ( Grace Randolph, John Campea etc) are saying it's a not good because of the huge production budget (200 million +). I'm kind of in the middle. It's a good opening for the kind of movie it is. But a weak opening for a movie that cost that much to make. A film like this has no reason to cost 200 + million dollars. It's ridiculous. Makes sense why Marty is always attacking comic book movies though. He wants their mega budgets to make films that patently don't justify them It's an Apple TV+ movie. Streaming movies usually make a grand total of $0 theatrically or have limited runs just to serve as advertising for getting dumped to streaming a week later. Over $20m for a streaming movie, especially a 3.5 hour one that is not part of nor could even conceivably start a franchise, is great. Especially when you consider the other streaming movies that get $200m budgets are shit like Red Notice that never have a theatrical window and have none of the prestige or awards prospects.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2023 20:31:50 GMT
I will NEVER complain about about serious filmmakers like Marty getting huge budgets. We, as a society should allow Marty to burn $200 every few years if it means he gets to put his vision on screen.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 20:34:15 GMT
It's strange. Some outlets like Deadline are claiming this is a good opening ( for the kind reasons you state), but other pundits ( Grace Randolph, John Campea etc) are saying it's a not good because of the huge production budget (200 million +). I'm kind of in the middle. It's a good opening for the kind of movie it is. But a weak opening for a movie that cost that much to make. A film like this has no reason to cost 200 + million dollars. It's ridiculous. Makes sense why Marty is always attacking comic book movies though. He wants their mega budgets to make films that patently don't justify them It's an Apple TV+ movie. Streaming movies usually make a grand total of $0 theatrically or have limited runs just to serve as advertising for getting dumped to streaming a week later. Over $20m for a streaming movie, especially a 3.5 hour one that is not part of nor could even conceivably start a franchise, is great. Especially when you consider the other streaming movies that get $200m budgets are shit like Red Notice that never have a theatrical window and have none of the prestige or awards prospects. It should also be noted this movie was also co-funded by Paramount, so it's not a straight streamer like the last Scorsese release was, which is why we're getting hard and solid numbers, whereas it will be impossible to quantify The Irishman because its box office was so piddly and Netflix never releases their in-house figures.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 20:40:20 GMT
I will NEVER complain about about serious filmmakers like Marty getting huge budgets. We, as a society should allow Marty to burn $200 every few years if it means he gets to put his vision on screen. I'd agree if the resulting movie had a scope and spectacle that justified it, and I don't think this one did. There's nothing Scorsese pulled off here with $200 million that PTA didn't do just as well with There Will Be Blood on a $25 million budget, or Boardwalk Empire's pilot (which built the entire Atlantic City set practically) for $18 million. I love Scorsese, but no director needs $200 million for a single project. In practice, this sort of budget-dumping is only going to backfire down the line. Directors can and should be trying to get as underbudget as possible in order to make sure they minimize the risk of tanking on the back end. Obviously, any artist wants unlimited resources on tap so you can't blame Scorsese for it, but this sort of wastrel budgeting is contributing to the death of the mid-budget movie because any risky project either has to have a guaranteed safeguard (like DiCaprio) or potential to start a franchise.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 23, 2023 20:40:59 GMT
The cost of the movie has shit to do with DiCaprio Uh, yeah, it does. It's a combination of streamers being far too liberal with their money (which is going to massively bite them in the ass at some point) and DiCaprio's A-list status. Um, nah, it doesn't. ........DiCaprio's A list status means he invests his time in this and not Marvel .....and this movie, in this form exists because of it. ...........and since he is the sole actor who could star in this movie - in this way - for this director who wanted to spend that streamer money (Good for him)..........oh well it's not his fault and I don't even think there is fault anyway......... I just said in response to Franklin that it's "ridiculous" about how he's taken for granted ........DiCaprio doesn't do Marvel...he's not iintersted in his own John Wick series........the movie costs what the movie costs - for Scorsese - and since there is 1 person in the world who can justify this singular director's vision of the film - not Ryan Gosling......not Bradley Cooper.........it has shit to do with his star power in that way - only in getting this Art made.........the rest is his reward for making it I dont care if streamers are being "far too liberal"with their money - I'll just be here assessing that Art with DiCap in it and be thankful - and waiting for it to bite them in the ass...... until then........it's just another day until then .......
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 23, 2023 20:41:12 GMT
It's strange. Some outlets like Deadline are claiming this is a good opening ( for the kind reasons you state), but other pundits ( Grace Randolph, John Campea etc) are saying it's a not good because of the huge production budget (200 million +). I'm kind of in the middle. It's a good opening for the kind of movie it is. But a weak opening for a movie that cost that much to make. A film like this has no reason to cost 200 + million dollars. It's ridiculous. Makes sense why Marty is always attacking comic book movies though. He wants their mega budgets to make films that patently don't justify them It's an Apple TV+ movie. Streaming movies usually make a grand total of $0 theatrically or have limited runs just to serve as advertising for getting dumped to streaming a week later. Over $20m for a streaming movie, especially a 3.5 hour one that is not part of nor could even conceivably start a franchise, is great. Especially when you consider the other streaming movies that get $200m budgets are shit like Red Notice that never have a theatrical window and have none of the prestige or awards prospects. Streamers are the nouveau riche of the industry. They have been paying waaaaaay over the odds for A-listers with money borrowed from banks and endless hedge funds, because they want to cut into the traditional studio model. But the streaming model isn't sustainable....It's all smoke and mirrors, and the boom is about to go bust. It's close to being a giant Ponzi Scheme. Just because they've been paying stupid money for A-list talent, doesn't make it a financially viable way to operate. Streaming or not, they are losing money on these payouts. As I said, Netflix used to act like the pot of money was endless, now they are getting desperate for cash surplus and threatening to get the Feds on their customers for sharing passwords and raising subscription prices every month . Reality is hitting hard now. None of it is or was sustainable
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2023 20:47:09 GMT
I will NEVER complain about about serious filmmakers like Marty getting huge budgets. We, as a society should allow Marty to burn $200 every few years if it means he gets to put his vision on screen. I'd agree if the resulting movie had a scope and spectacle that justified it, and I don't think this one did. There's nothing Scorsese pulled off here with $200 million that PTA didn't do just as well with There Will Be Blood on a $25 million budget, or Boardwalk Empire's pilot (which built the entire Atlantic City set practically) for $18 million. I love Scorsese, but no director needs $200 million for a single project. In practice, this sort of budget-dumping is only going to backfire down the line. Directors can and should be trying to get as underbudget as possible in order to make sure they minimize the risk of tanking on the back end. Obviously, any artist wants unlimited resources on tap so you can't blame Scorsese for it, but this sort of wastrel budgeting is contributing to the death of the mid-budget movie because any risky project either has to have a guaranteed safeguard (like DiCaprio) or potential to start a franchise. I just can’t bring myself to care about the studios money. Marty has only a few left in him and even if people don’t think the money was on the screen (which I don’t agree with.) That’s not my problem. I don’t care about the budget and I will be forever grateful this film got made and this story told, regardless of the cost. Also why are we not talking about the fact this movie was delayed by Covid and that ballooned the budget?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 20:52:45 GMT
I'd agree if the resulting movie had a scope and spectacle that justified it, and I don't think this one did. There's nothing Scorsese pulled off here with $200 million that PTA didn't do just as well with There Will Be Blood on a $25 million budget, or Boardwalk Empire's pilot (which built the entire Atlantic City set practically) for $18 million. I love Scorsese, but no director needs $200 million for a single project. In practice, this sort of budget-dumping is only going to backfire down the line. Directors can and should be trying to get as underbudget as possible in order to make sure they minimize the risk of tanking on the back end. Obviously, any artist wants unlimited resources on tap so you can't blame Scorsese for it, but this sort of wastrel budgeting is contributing to the death of the mid-budget movie because any risky project either has to have a guaranteed safeguard (like DiCaprio) or potential to start a franchise. I just can’t bring myself to care about the studios money. Marty has only a few left in him and even if people don’t think the money was on the screen (which I don’t agree with.) That’s not my problem. I don’t care about the budget and I will be forever grateful this film got made and this story told, regardless of the cost. And that's fine, but you can't separate art from commerce at the end of the day, and while Marty might be able to get away with all of this before the bottom inevitably falls out, this line of thinking kinda fucks over the coming generations. Because studios won't run the risks of going for adult dramas like this unless they can guarantee a massive return, and with very few actors having the capacity to open to guaranteed huge numbers like DiCaprio, the likelihood that this sort of thing has any sort of staying power is low. And I think just saying "well, Scorsese only has a few left in him so give him all the money" is such a reductive way to look at what is a very real problem in the industry, especially when other directors don't get to enjoy that luxury, and this could wind up screwing them over in the long run. In short, make art like Scorsese, but run the business like Ridley Scott: deliver underbudget whenever possible.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2023 21:02:10 GMT
I just can’t bring myself to care about the studios money. Marty has only a few left in him and even if people don’t think the money was on the screen (which I don’t agree with.) That’s not my problem. I don’t care about the budget and I will be forever grateful this film got made and this story told, regardless of the cost. And that's fine, but you can't separate art from commerce at the end of the day, and while Marty might be able to get away with all of this before the bottom inevitably falls out, this line of thinking kinda fucks over the coming generations. Because studios won't run the risks of going for adult dramas like this unless they can guarantee a massive return, and with very few actors having the capacity to open to guaranteed huge numbers like DiCaprio, the likelihood that this sort of thing has any sort of staying power is low. And I think just saying "well, Scorsese only has a few left in him so give him all the money" is such a reductive way to look at what is a very real problem in the industry, especially when other directors don't get to enjoy that luxury, and this could wind up screwing them over in the long run. In short, make art like Scorsese, but run the business like Ridley Scott: deliver underbudget whenever possible. It’s not Marty’s fault that mid budget adult dramas don’t get made. It’s not his fault the other directors don’t have a Leo. Ridley still gets to Ridley. I don’t think Marty getting another $100 million here is killing the industry like you think. We don’t even know yet if this will lose money.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 21:03:50 GMT
And that's fine, but you can't separate art from commerce at the end of the day, and while Marty might be able to get away with all of this before the bottom inevitably falls out, this line of thinking kinda fucks over the coming generations. Because studios won't run the risks of going for adult dramas like this unless they can guarantee a massive return, and with very few actors having the capacity to open to guaranteed huge numbers like DiCaprio, the likelihood that this sort of thing has any sort of staying power is low. And I think just saying "well, Scorsese only has a few left in him so give him all the money" is such a reductive way to look at what is a very real problem in the industry, especially when other directors don't get to enjoy that luxury, and this could wind up screwing them over in the long run. In short, make art like Scorsese, but run the business like Ridley Scott: deliver underbudget whenever possible. It’s not Marty’s fault that mid budget adult dramas don’t get made. It’s not his fault the other directors don’t have a Leo. Ridley still gets to Ridley. I don’t think Marty getting another $100 million here is killing the industry like you think. We don’t even know yet if this will lose money. I don't even think this will lose money. I'm just saying that I don't think the end result justified its cost, and there are very few movies with that budget that do.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 23, 2023 21:09:05 GMT
"In short, make art like Scorsese, but run the business like Ridley Scott: deliver underbudget whenever possible." This reminds me of a quote from the baseball player Richie Allen's brother - who was asked how many home runs could Richie would have hit if he wasn't hungover everyday - 50? 55? 60? (He actually hit 40 and missed 2 games) .........and his brother said if he wasm't hungover he may not have hit any I always take this stuff like that like how great could Westeberg be if he wasn't drunk.......wouldn't it be nice if Scorsese was more like Scott.......artists (and um , athletes / people) are who they are ....I can tell you right now, I don't want Francis Coppola to not be throwing every dime he can get his hands on for Megalopolis because he wouldn't be Francis Coppola...... I'm sure Grace Randolph will have a lot to say when she assess "business" then .......the anti-Art shrew that she is
|
|