|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2023 21:09:42 GMT
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. I doubt Marty is just throwing away money. People wouldn’t continue to let him make these if he was. You might not see it but you weren’t on set. You weren’t in the board meetings. Also as I said this movie was delayed due to Covid so I’m sure that ballooned the cost a thing I’m surprised isn’t being talked about.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 23, 2023 21:10:12 GMT
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 Oh, don't get it twisted, I also don't like the streaming model. Pretty sure I was on here last year talking about how Netflix was burning money by not giving Glass Onion a proper theatrical run. The model sets itself for increased spending (they have to go above A-list price points because there are no points or residuals on the backend) while all but eliminating any chance for profit since there is no charge for individual product. It's certainly not sustainable. And that's why Killers of the Flower Moon getting back anything at all is a win for Apple, especially if they do decide to use this as the basis for their model moving forward. If audiences can be re-trained into watching streaming films in theaters, then that opens up an all new (well very old but new for these idiots) revenue stream.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 23, 2023 21:11:47 GMT
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. From how I understand it, Paramount backed out of financing once the genre was changed and is only in as a distributor.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 23, 2023 21:13:51 GMT
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. Oh, I'd personally be stunned if this hits breakeven just in its theatrical run. It'd need to do over $600m worldwide just to get there, requiring insane legs.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 21:15:39 GMT
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. I doubt Marty is just throwing away money. People wouldn’t continue to let him make these if he was. You might not see it but you weren’t on set. You weren’t in the board meetings. Also as I said this movie was delayed due to Covid so I’m sure that ballooned the cost a thing I’m surprised isn’t being talked about. Just throwing up the "you weren't there" criticism doesn't mitigate my concerns because, again, I'm talking about what the end result gave us. I gave examples of films and projects dealing with similar scopes and environments to Killers of the Flower Moon (construction of turn-of-the-century towns/cities/buildings, one of which was helmed by Scorsese) and how this film didn't look that much more expansive or impressive. Hell, Gangs of New York justified itself because the city itself was such a rich and vibrant character and Scorsese insisted on it being practical. A ridiculous notion to those holding the purse-strings to be sure, but at least you saw where that money went at the end of the day. Yeah, sure, COVID was a factor (as every film was affected by it) so I'll give that due consideration, but The Irishman was pre-COVID and we saw how such a huge budget from a screener resulted, so any concerns on cost were justified on this project, especially as rumours on his proposed budget were there at the outset.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,689
Likes: 4,384
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Oct 23, 2023 21:16:42 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 "anti-Art" is exactly what it is. Grace fucking Randolph and John Campea getting name-dropped in a Scorsese thread is horrifying.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 21:16:50 GMT
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. Oh, I'd personally be stunned if this hits breakeven just in its theatrical run. It'd need to do over $600m worldwide just to get there, requiring insane legs. I'd be surprised if it didn't do at least Revenant numbers, but yeah, it's going to depend entirely on its legs. This isn't going to be a Barbenheimer success, though.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 21:18:45 GMT
Ah, but still, the fact that Paramount is involved is likely why we're able to confirm how much this movie actually will make.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 23, 2023 21:25:09 GMT
Oh, I'd personally be stunned if this hits breakeven just in its theatrical run. It'd need to do over $600m worldwide just to get there, requiring insane legs. I'd be surprised if it didn't do at least Revenant numbers, but yeah, it's going to depend entirely on its legs. This isn't going to be a Barbenheimer success, though. iirc, Revenant pulled down an almost $40m opening, so Killers has its work cut out for it. I hope it pulls it off as I think that would be a tremendous show of strength for the film industry and the audience's appetite to these kind of non-franchise adult filmmaking in light of Oppenheimer, but I'm not holding my breath for it. Ah, but still, the fact that Paramount is involved is likely why we're able to confirm how much this movie actually will make. Oh yeah, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Oct 23, 2023 22:12:47 GMT
Interesting to note that once Scorsese has been able to command DiCaprio budgets, his budgets have gotten pretty big consistently, Silence being the only outlier.
When adjusted for inflation:
Gangs of New York: 173 million The Aviator: 182 million The Departed: 140 million Shutter Island: 113 million Hugo: 210 million The Wolf of Wall Street: 133 million The Irishman: 194 million
So technically Killers isn't even his most expensive film, Hugo is (and I even adjusted the lower budget estimate for Hugo).
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2023 22:27:49 GMT
I doubt Marty is just throwing away money. People wouldn’t continue to let him make these if he was. You might not see it but you weren’t on set. You weren’t in the board meetings. Also as I said this movie was delayed due to Covid so I’m sure that ballooned the cost a thing I’m surprised isn’t being talked about. Just throwing up the "you weren't there" criticism doesn't mitigate my concerns because, again, I'm talking about what the end result gave us. I gave examples of films and projects dealing with similar scopes and environments to Killers of the Flower Moon (construction of turn-of-the-century towns/cities/buildings, one of which was helmed by Scorsese) and how this film didn't look that much more expansive or impressive. Hell, Gangs of New York justified itself because the city itself was such a rich and vibrant character and Scorsese insisted on it being practical. A ridiculous notion to those holding the purse-strings to be sure, but at least you saw where that money went at the end of the day. Yeah, sure, COVID was a factor (as every film was affected by it) so I'll give that due consideration, but The Irishman was pre-COVID and we saw how such a huge budget from a screener resulted, so any concerns on cost were justified on this project, especially as rumours on his proposed budget were there at the outset. While I disagree with the money not being on the screen that is such a weird way to view a film. It’s very anti art to sit there and think “this doesn’t look expensive”. It looked REAL which is 100% the goal.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 22:37:24 GMT
Just throwing up the "you weren't there" criticism doesn't mitigate my concerns because, again, I'm talking about what the end result gave us. I gave examples of films and projects dealing with similar scopes and environments to Killers of the Flower Moon (construction of turn-of-the-century towns/cities/buildings, one of which was helmed by Scorsese) and how this film didn't look that much more expansive or impressive. Hell, Gangs of New York justified itself because the city itself was such a rich and vibrant character and Scorsese insisted on it being practical. A ridiculous notion to those holding the purse-strings to be sure, but at least you saw where that money went at the end of the day. Yeah, sure, COVID was a factor (as every film was affected by it) so I'll give that due consideration, but The Irishman was pre-COVID and we saw how such a huge budget from a screener resulted, so any concerns on cost were justified on this project, especially as rumours on his proposed budget were there at the outset. While I disagree with the money not being on the screen that is such a weird way to view a film. It’s very anti art to sit there and think “this doesn’t look expensive”. It looked REAL which is 100% the goal. I don't think it's weird when you follow the production of a movie and know its budget, and then you see the final result and wonder where the money went. Because, again, I've seen other films with a fraction of this film's budget pull off the same look and scope. To call that "anti art" is ridiculous; might as well just pack up and go home because what the filmmaker put on screen is unimpeachable and to criticize the artist for anything is disrespectful of the art.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 23, 2023 22:50:39 GMT
While I disagree with the money not being on the screen that is such a weird way to view a film. It’s very anti art to sit there and think “this doesn’t look expensive”. It looked REAL which is 100% the goal. I don't think it's weird when you follow the production of a movie and know its budget, and then you see the final result and wonder where the money went. Because, again, I've seen other films with a fraction of this film's budget pull off the same look and scope. To call that "anti art" is ridiculous; might as well just pack up and go home because what the filmmaker put on screen is unimpeachable and to criticize the artist for anything is disrespectful of the art. If that’s what you want to concern yourself with that’s your business I suppose. I would personally rather worry about the quality of the film and not the business practices. I don’t think we will see eye to eye in this and you won’t convince me that not anti art. That should not be the audiences concern in my opinion.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,689
Likes: 4,384
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Oct 23, 2023 22:52:25 GMT
While I disagree with the money not being on the screen that is such a weird way to view a film. It’s very anti art to sit there and think “this doesn’t look expensive”. It looked REAL which is 100% the goal. I don't think it's weird when you follow the production of a movie and know its budget, and then you see the final result and wonder where the money went. I'm very much convinced that we watched two different movies here.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 23, 2023 23:09:10 GMT
I don't think it's weird when you follow the production of a movie and know its budget, and then you see the final result and wonder where the money went. I'm very much convinced that we watched two different movies here. Yeah, you must've watched There Will Be Blood twice.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 24, 2023 0:31:09 GMT
Admittedly, I don't know why this needed to cost 100M more than Oppenheimer. But I don't know why we should care. The movie looks great. That's all that matters.
Paramount has little risk and Apple bought in to show they are serious players in the film industry. That's what this is about. Napoleon also cost 130M and I can't imagine another studio giving Scott that much after The Last Duel made 27 WW on a 100M budget.
I don't understand the business model but streamers have been willing to give huge budgets without any theatrical revenue in the past. This is about the prestige.
If we are going to start doing cost analysis on every streaming decision, we might as well write a book. Netflix is still making 150M movies with no theatrical revenue. Apple might be banking on theaters giving more attention (and importance) to their movies so they don't disappear after a week once they drop on streaming. I prefer this model.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 26, 2023 6:57:58 GMT
Late to the discussion, but I don’t think it’s anti-art to advocate for filmmakers delivering underbudget whenever possible to help studios feel better about keeping adult dramas alive in the future. In fact, that sounds rather pro-art to me. On the other hand, I can certainly understand wanting certain special filmmakers like Scorsese to have unlimited resources on tap in order to help them realize their creative vision uncompromised, especially since he probably doesn’t have many films left in him. So unless you think Marty is singlehandedly killing the industry, give him whatever the fuck he wants and keep everyone else not named Martin Scorsese on a shorter leash.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Nov 3, 2023 21:18:43 GMT
The movie apparently just surpassed 100 Million worldwide.
Great news.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 8, 2023 17:10:21 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 wasn'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 Well ......... Variety is now reporting that not only did Apple/Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” cost $200 million to make, but so did Matthew Vaughn’s “Argyle” and Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon.” This means that Apple spent $600 million on just these three movies.
www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/11/7/6lc86tnmpr7t52f2oyam00cqjj29qy
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,819
|
Post by dazed on Nov 11, 2023 0:19:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Nov 22, 2023 6:16:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 7, 2023 4:48:26 GMT
- Leonardo DiCaprio - 1:49:59 (53.38%) - Lily Gladstone - 56:13 (27.29%) - Robert De Niro - 47:38 (23.12%) - Jesse Plemons - 16:40 (8.09%) - Scott Shepherd - 11:30 (5.58%) - Cara Jade Myers - 8:55 (4.33%) - JaNae Collins - 6:51 (3.32%) - William Belleau - 6:45 (3.28%) - Jason Isbell - 6:36 (3.20%) - Louis Cancelmi - 6:03 (2.94%) - John Lithgow - 4:58 (2.41%) - Tantoo Cardinal - 4:33 (2.21%) - Jillian Dion - 3:31 (1.71%) - Brendan Fraser - 2:48 (1.36%)
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Dec 7, 2023 5:03:21 GMT
- Leonardo DiCaprio - 1:49:59 (53.38%) - Lily Gladstone - 56:13 (27.29%) - Robert De Niro - 47:38 (23.12%) - Jesse Plemons - 16:40 (8.09%) - Scott Shepherd - 11:30 (5.58%) - Cara Jade Myers - 8:55 (4.33%) - JaNae Collins - 6:51 (3.32%) - William Belleau - 6:45 (3.28%) - Jason Isbell - 6:36 (3.20%) - Louis Cancelmi - 6:03 (2.94%) - John Lithgow - 4:58 (2.41%) - Tantoo Cardinal - 4:33 (2.21%) - Jillian Dion - 3:31 (1.71%) - Brendan Fraser - 2:48 (1.36%) About what I expected. Biggest surprise is honestly Plemons for me, I wouldn't have guessed he had more than 10 minutes of screentime. Where is everyone putting Gladstone in their personal lineups? Obviously she's running lead, but I myself always thought of her as supporting and this bolsters that for me. I just don't think we go through her perspective enough to validate lead.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Dec 7, 2023 5:12:39 GMT
- Leonardo DiCaprio - 1:49:59 (53.38%) - Lily Gladstone - 56:13 (27.29%) - Robert De Niro - 47:38 (23.12%) - Jesse Plemons - 16:40 (8.09%) - Scott Shepherd - 11:30 (5.58%) - Cara Jade Myers - 8:55 (4.33%) - JaNae Collins - 6:51 (3.32%) - William Belleau - 6:45 (3.28%) - Jason Isbell - 6:36 (3.20%) - Louis Cancelmi - 6:03 (2.94%) - John Lithgow - 4:58 (2.41%) - Tantoo Cardinal - 4:33 (2.21%) - Jillian Dion - 3:31 (1.71%) - Brendan Fraser - 2:48 (1.36%) About what I expected. Biggest surprise is honestly Plemons for me, I wouldn't have guessed he had more than 10 minutes of screentime. Where is everyone putting Gladstone in their personal lineups? Obviously she's running lead, but I myself always thought of her as supporting and this bolsters that for me. I just don't think we go through her perspective enough to validate lead. I have her in supporting too.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 7, 2023 11:01:18 GMT
- Leonardo DiCaprio - 1:49:59 (53.38%) - Lily Gladstone - 56:13 (27.29%) - Robert De Niro - 47:38 (23.12%) - Jesse Plemons - 16:40 (8.09%) - Scott Shepherd - 11:30 (5.58%) - Cara Jade Myers - 8:55 (4.33%) - JaNae Collins - 6:51 (3.32%) - William Belleau - 6:45 (3.28%) - Jason Isbell - 6:36 (3.20%) - Louis Cancelmi - 6:03 (2.94%) - John Lithgow - 4:58 (2.41%) - Tantoo Cardinal - 4:33 (2.21%) - Jillian Dion - 3:31 (1.71%) - Brendan Fraser - 2:48 (1.36%) About what I expected. Biggest surprise is honestly Plemons for me, I wouldn't have guessed he had more than 10 minutes of screentime. Where is everyone putting Gladstone in their personal lineups? Obviously she's running lead, but I myself always thought of her as supporting and this bolsters that for me. I just don't think we go through her perspective enough to validate lead. I was torn on her, kinda being reminded of the Michelle Williams situation last year. But this time percentage thing actually convinced me to put her in Supporting.
|
|