Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Money really isn't a problem for Apple. According to Variety, they paid Leo $30M for this role, Pitt is also getting $30M for his upcoming F1 movie and Will Smith got $35M for last year's Emancipation. These obviously include the backend bonus, since Apple can't guarantee a % of theatrical gross, but even so they are absolutely ridiculous salaries.

On the other end of the spectrum you have actors like Adam Driver who took a big pay cut just so Ferrari could get made, and the cast of Oppenheimer all taking pay cuts for the opportunity to work with Nolan and free up as much of the movie's budget. If they had to pay Robert Downey, Jr. his usual $20-25M fee (he did it for $4M), that alone would've eaten 1/4th of the movie's current budget.

It's fascinating how actors think Nolan and Mann are worth taking a paycut for not Scorsese isn't.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

In your opinion, what would a successful (from an artistic standpoint) filmization of Killers of the Flower Moon look like? Please don't just say "shoot what Grann wrote". Would be interested in hearing you elaborate on your vision for the movie adaptation?

For those who haven't read the book, it's not simply a character study specific to the events of the Osage murders, beginning with the subtitle, 'The Osage Murders and the Birth of the F.B.I.' While the story as written is a mystery, it's the impact which cuts deep about something far greater, about the creation of America and who we are as humans, as noted in the NYTs original review of the book:

If this all sounds like the plot of a detective novel, you have fallen under the spell of David Grann’s brilliance. In his previous two books, 'The Lost City of Z,' about the search for the golden Amazonian city of El Dorado, and 'The Devil and Sherlock Holmes,' a varied collection of journalism, Grann has proved himself a master of spinning delicious, many-layered mysteries that also happen to be true. As a reporter he is dogged and exacting, with a singular ability to uncover and incorporate obscure journals, depositions and ledgers without ever letting the plot sag. As a writer he is generous of spirit, willing to give even the most scurrilous of characters the benefit of the doubt.

Thus, when Tom White and his men solve the crime, and the mastermind behind the murders is revealed, you will not see it coming. You will feel that familiar thrill at having been successfully misdirected, but then there are about 70 pages left in the book. And in these last pages, Grann takes what was already a fascinating and disciplined recording of a forgotten chapter in American history, and with the help of contemporary Osage tribe members, he illuminates a sickening conspiracy that goes far deeper than those four years of horror. It will sear your soul.

The overwhelming majority of posts in this thread are about whose 'side' you are on and whether or not you liked the film, when the real question for me is simply did Scorsese do the material justice.

In my opinion, the answer is no.

If you are unwilling to consider that this film is a tremendous missed opportunity and a failure at the box office due to decisions made by Scorsese specific to budget, casting, story, screenplay, editing, runtime and marketing, including his public statements about the film and related decision-making, let's face it, this is a public forum on the internet, and that's not how these differences in opinion typically play out.

While I completely understand that many here love Scorsese, his filmography and eagerly anticipate a new work as I do, if you can't manage the slightest objectivity about a film, there's really not that much to discuss, along with the inconvenient truth of a $150M+ loss and a 40% increase for your AppleTV+ sub.

I can think of at least five directors who would have a brought a very different approach to this story, a story that should have remained as written, i.e., with mis-direction and mystery driving the narrative arc, and Mollie Burkhart and Tom White as the nominal lead characters of a strong ensemble cast. A story that needs no more than two hours to be told and a budget somewhere between $50 - $70M. You really don't need, or want, big stars in this story, but well-respected character actors or perhaps a single star who believes in the script and is willing to take a price cut for the purposes of adding to the mis-direction and or adding $10M to the box office.

As we know, that's wind over the prairie.

Curious to learn what happens with Scorsese's planned project with Grann's latest book, The Wager, which is also planned with DiCaprio. If I understand correctly, Leo will be playing an English sailor about 20 years his junior. Perhaps Scorsese can get De Niro to come aboard to play one of the locals in Patagonia. Get the band back together for a few laughs. $20M should do it.

Sometimes, as Grann writes in KOTFM, "History is a merciless judge."

More often than not, some people never learn.

[Bugg]

Originally Posted by slumcat

It's fascinating how actors think Nolan and Mann are worth taking a paycut for not Scorsese isn't.

We don't know that though. If Scorsese was given only a $100m budget to work with, those actors may have very well taken a lot less to work with him. The budget however was $200m, so there was no need for the actors to take a paycut.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by EvaDK

I agree that Killers could lose 30 mins and no one would be the wiser. Some scenes with Leo and Robert could be cut entirely. A solid film, but the narrative focus sometimes feels misplaced. A significant improvement over The Irishman, which I just didn't care for at all.

I think Irishman is a much better film than Killers. In fact Irishman is one of the only 2 Scorsese films this century that i think will stand the test of time - infact i think even Irishman might date a bit poorly due to the terrible VFX.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

when the real question for me is simply did Scorsese do the material justice.

In my opinion, the answer is no.

I deliberately didn't read the book when I found out a film was being made. Instead, I am reading it now. More often than not the film disappoints if one reads the book first, regardless of how good the film is. The same does not tend to happen the other way round.

So the question I ask is do I think it works as a film, and my answer is yes, as it seems many people's answer is.

Complaining about what the budget is almost makes as little sense as referring to the box office. Yes, we can praise smart use of budget, like in the case of The Creator (although how much of that was lower actor salaries and the wages given to a crew in Asia vs the US?), but at the end of the day I am going to judge the film as is. As long as the film is visually pleasing, which Killers was, then I am fine. I only complain when Marvel movies cost $250m and yet still look like trash.

Originally Posted by cgpublic

along with the inconvenient truth of a $150M+ loss and a 40% increase for your AppleTV+ sub.

The price increase has approximately zero to do with this film's budget. It was going to happen regardless. Apple set the initial price low to attract subs, as did every other streamer. And it is increasing prices, as is every other streamer.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Bugg

We don't know that though. If Scorsese was given only a $100m budget to work with, those actors may have very well taken a lot less to work with him. The budget however was $200m, so there was no need for the actors to take a paycut.

Scorsese has shown unwillingness or an inability to curb his budgets. This is why he has been banished to being a web streaming director even though he rails about the theatrical experience and "cinema".

Killers was set-up to be an exclusively theatrical production at Paramount.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200410...lm-11586484037

After budgets escalated north of $200 million, Paramount REJECTED the project, DISCARDED it and threw it out. This shows the DiCaprio and DeNiro who were attached were clearly unwilling to take pay cuts to bring the budget down to get the film properly set-up at a real theatrical studio like Paramount. That means they did not think Scorsese was worth taking a pay cut for.

Apple stepped in and rescued the film and gave it the $200 million dollar push it needed because they were chasing Oscars. Scorsese and team then negotiated a wide theatrical release as part of the package even though it was a streaming film.

But here is the irony, Scorsese again got lucky! Nobody even dreamed or imagined that Apple's Coda was going to win Best Picture. So Apple signed this over $200 million deal with Scorsese BEFORE they had won best picture. Think of how Apple might have reacted if the project had come to them after they were already best picture winners. I daresay they would have asked Scorsese to cut this budget or they would have thrown out the project too.

Fact of the matter is, we have at least one comparable example from earlier this year. I am most definitely not a fan of Oppenheimer but that film was made for a 100 million and looks it. Scorsese has made Killers for 250 million dollars or something and the money simply isn't on the screen - it is totally ridiculous.

Something fishy is going on with the budgets or clearly people don't want to take pay cuts for working with Scorsese because they don't think he is worth it.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Apple aren't really chasing blockbusters or "big" movies. They want to be known as the prestige/director driven streaming service and Emancipation was conceived (rather poorly) as a big awards contender.

As with any streaming service that's just starting, they need to put down big money to convince the popular actors/directors to come work with them.

Sure I get these points but then all these streaming services are paying stupid money to lure "talent". I guess the argument here is it's not The Grey Man but actually a "good" movie we're getting lol. So that certainly holds up better than the forgettable stuff that Netflix has been churning out when they started playing Hollywood. It still seems mad to me what they spend but that's true of the whole studio system anyway and is obviously an argument far bigger than this movie.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Bugg

We don't know that though. If Scorsese was given only a $100m budget to work with, those actors may have very well taken a lot less to work with him. The budget however was $200m, so there was no need for the actors to take a paycut.

People have taken pay cuts when they had to.

On "Silence", which he couldn't get funding for for decades, everyone took cuts. The money was finally raised independently from 22 different sources around the world. Scorsese waived all his fees up front, and just took a back-end percentage, which is why he made Dolce and Gabbana and Chinese Casino commercials the year before, to subsidize not getting income for two years working on "Silence". Thelma Schoonmaker is on a year-round retainer salary from Scorsese's production company, but gets a fee when she actually edits a film. She waived her fee. Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver, who'd just come off of "Spiderman" and "Star Wars" movies, each worked for basically SAG scale. Liam Neeson, who was making 12 to 15 million a movie then (Taken, Taken 2, Run All Night, etc.), worked on "Silence" for eight days, and was paid 3.5 million. The government of Taiwan gave them all sorts of tax breaks and accomodations. They used local workers and worked at Taipei Film Studios for the interiors and such. The government let them shoot the exterior scenes in a national preserve area, under strict supervision.

The film wound up a very tight production, but the money is all there, onscreen.

After its completion, Paramount distributed. They launched only a very modest marketing campaign for the film, mostly using social media channels to promote it.

It flopped financially in theaters.

Brad Grey, Scorsese's friend and who had been very accomodating to Scorsese, was head of Paramount Pictures. He had greenlit "The Irishman" and "The Devil in the White City" at Paramount as a multi-picture deal for Scorsese (Paramount had also been behind "Shutter Island", "Hugo", and "The Wolf of Wall Street", and had distributed "Shine a Light"). Scorsese had been heavily involved with Paramount during the same time that the studio was also doing all those earlier Marvel movies. Shortly after the release of "Silence", Grey stepped down as head of Paramount, and was revealed to be terminally ill from cancer, and then he died.

After his death, the new guys who took over at Paramount basically had the multi-picture deal with Scorsese settled and ended, basically their sentiment was, "Paramount doesn't want to pursue these projects with Martin Scorsese".

"The Irishman" was cancelled.

After several other companies declined, Netflix finally came on board, pretty much giving Scorsese all the time, money, and final cut he could muster. BUT, it was going to be a streaming movie, for their streaming service.

Meanwhile, the comic book movies were practically completely taking over the Hollywood studios and theater multiplexes at the time.

Thus began his resentment, I'm sure.

Anyway, first Netflix and then AppleTV have given him enormous leeway since, so there was no reason to have a cheap, compromised production if the money is THERE. As I've stated in an earlier post, on "Killers", Imperative paid around 74 million upfront to secure the book rights, develop the script, and pay huge salaries to Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro. Imperative then charged AppleTV 120 million to acquire the project, thus making all of their money back and profiting by 46 million. Apple then gave Scorsese between 80 and 90 million to actually make the film. So, those who say they don't see 200 (actually around 207) million up there, you're quite right. You see around 90 million up there (which is totally believable), and the rest went to the top of the line talent and Imperative.

I don't know that, in the 2000s, Leo has ever taken a paycut. Anything he works on, he makes tremendous money.

Again, though, these streaming movies aren't made with the same model in mind as a regular studio movie. They are building a prestige CATALOG.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

People have taken pay cuts when they had to.

On "Silence", which he couldn't get funding for for decades, everyone took cuts. The money was finally raised independently from 22 different sources around the world. Scorsese waived all his fees up front, and just took a back-end percentage, which is why he made Dolce and Gabbana and Chinese Casino commercials the year before, to subsidize not getting income for two years working on "Silence". Thelma Schoonmaker is on a year-round retainer salary from Scorsese's production company, but gets a fee when she actually edits a film. She waived her fee. Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver, who'd just come off of "Spiderman" and "Star Wars" movies, each worked for basically SAG scale. Liam Neeson, who was making 12 to 15 million a movie then (Taken, Taken 2, Run All Night, etc.), worked on "Silence" for eight days, and was paid 3.5 million. The government of Taiwan gave them all sorts of tax breaks and accomodations. They used local workers and worked at Taipei Film Studios for the interiors and such. The government let them shoot the exterior scenes in a national preserve area, under strict supervision.

The film wound up a very tight production, but the money is all there, onscreen.

After its completion, Paramount distributed. They launched only a very modest marketing campaign for the film, mostly using social media channels to promote it.

It flopped financially in theaters.

Brad Grey, Scorsese's friend and who had been very accomodating to Scorsese, was head of Paramount Pictures. He had greenlit "The Irishman" and "The Devil in the White City" at Paramount as a multi-picture deal for Scorsese (Paramount had also been behind "Shutter Island", "Hugo", and "The Wolf of Wall Street", and had distributed "Shine a Light"). Scorsese had been heavily involved with Paramount during the same time that the studio was also doing all those earlier Marvel movies. Shortly after the release of "Silence", Grey stepped down as head of Paramount, and was revealed to be terminally ill from cancer, and then he died.

After his death, the new guys who took over at Paramount basically had the multi-picture deal with Scorsese settled and ended, basically their sentiment was, "Paramount doesn't want to pursue these projects with Martin Scorsese".

"The Irishman" was cancelled.

After several other companies declined, Netflix finally came on board, pretty much giving Scorsese all the time, money, and final cut he could muster. BUT, it was going to be a streaming movie, for their streaming service.

Meanwhile, the comic book movies were practically completely taking over the Hollywood studios and theater multiplexes at the time.

Thus began his resentment, I'm sure.

Anyway, first Netflix and then AppleTV have given him enormous leeway since, so there was no reason to have a cheap, compromised production if the money is THERE. As I've stated in an earlier post, on "Killers", Imperative paid around 74 million upfront to secure the book rights, develop the script, and pay huge salaries to Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro. Imperative then charged AppleTV 120 million to acquire the project, thus making all of their money back and profiting by 46 million. Apple then gave Scorsese between 80 and 90 million to actually make the film. So, those who say they don't see 200 (actually around 207) million up there, you're quite right. You see around 90 million up there (which is totally believable), and the rest went to the top of the line talent and Imperative.

I don't know that, in the 2000s, Leo has ever taken a paycut. Anything he works on, he makes tremendous money.

Again, though, these streaming movies aren't made with the same model in mind as a regular studio movie. They are building a prestige CATALOG.

Thanks dkelly26666. This is helpful, in that identifies as to where the gap lies. Because the film is handsome in terms of production design and costumes but it isn't anything out of the ordinary compared to similar movies or even TV shows.

I'd venture Silence is an exception and Scorsese has definitely tended towards higher budgets - maybe it is salary, maybe it is rights, but the budgets are definitely just generally on the higher side.

Hugo cost $150 million but that I can understand since it is a CGI heavy film.

The Departed cost $90 million which is absolutely insane to me. It is a contemporary film with no need for expensive set dressing or costumes or even VFX - it is a police thriller and cost that much.

Gangs of New York, Aviator cost over $100 million each 20 years ago, I bet they would be at $200 million today.

I compare to other American greats and the difference is night and day to me. I think The Fablemans, Licorice Pizza, The French Dispatch are all masterpieces - some of the greatest films of recent times. All are period pieces and have elaborate period creations and costumes. The most expensive among them is $40 million.

Lincoln from Spielberg is an epic historical drama with extremely extensive period recreation. It cost $65 million. And Spielberg is - no offense to Scorsese - and infinitely infinitely infinitely infinitely infinitely infinitely more successful box office director - yet he's making his awards-friendly historical dramas sometimes at 20% of budget that Scorsese is using.

I honestly don't see why Killers couldn't be made for $40 million. Like honest to goodness. There's one VFX shot - that of the oil rigs. Rest is modest period and costume design.

It kinda goes back to the point - one hand we bemoan the death of the adult drama - Scorsese leading the charge. Saying drama films for adults are not being made theatrically. On other other hand my man Scorsese, you are making them for freaking 200 million dollars!

Something's gotta give, right?

Scorsese seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to decry blockbusters. Yet wants a blockbuster budget for his films which should be made for a fifth of the cost.

If we wants to tell a human story about people, it should not need a 200 million dollar budget - however he got there.

Once again, something like The Fabelmans - by a towering American director - so personal, so moving, so beautifully and elegantly made - pulled off for $40 million.

You can see the bafflement from audiences then.

I'd like for Scorsese to make more movies and more movies more often - why not make 5 of them for 200 million rather than 1. That way he will see a wider release, he will see profits, and he will advance the cause of the adult drama that he wants to see in theaters.

[DrWally]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Apple aren't really chasing blockbusters or "big" movies. They want to be known as the prestige/director driven streaming service and Emancipation was conceived (rather poorly) as a big awards contender.

As with any streaming service that's just starting, they need to put down big money to convince the popular actors/directors to come work with them.

Well to be fair they're the only streaming platform with a Best Picture Oscar win under their belt to date.

[klauswhereareyou]

I'm finding the weird fascination/obsessing with this film's budget on here hilarious. It cost the same as the Russo Bros. Film The Gray Man which made less than half a million in theaters and by all accounts not a very good film and probably got zero people to sign up for Netflix.

[Shin sam]

Originally Posted by t-mel

I think the film was very well paced. I was constantly engaged and the scenes transitioned between each other flawlessly. Perhaps too flawlessly because I lost sense of the track of time in the story, with only references to their children helping me orient myself.

Which 30 mins would you cut? People always make vague statements like this but are never specific. And I am always suspicious of people who rile against films being longer. Recently, for example, Dune is a film I wish were longer. Surely someone who enjoys films would enjoy watching longer ones? I understand that the discussion here is about this specific film as opposed to films in general, but I don't see why this film deserves that criticism.

As for Oppenheimer, it was very fast paced and in jumping between multiple time periods made it exhausting, but I'm glad it was as long as it was. Watching it the second time I was able to keep up and enjoy it more.


Again, strawman. When did anyone say something is immune to criticism?



Nitpicks at best in my opinion. I wonder how many people noticed or cared about these things. I found the dialogue levels fine; missed a few lines but that's standard for me.

Also, if it were more suited as a miniseries, where would the episodes end and new ones start? An episode should be somewhat self contained but part of a large narrative.

Oh I agree. The QC process lets things like this go, just flag them with the client. Most of the time it's signed off. Nothing major. My issue is the amount of minor issues. You having no issue does not mean it not there. You didn't notice. That's fine. For the main public, it's fine. For others like me, for a Scorsese film, it's disappointing. I'm leaving it now. Some of the posts here in this thread are simply passive aggressive and toxic. Shutting down the conversation. Branding Marvel films "kids film". Quoting box office numbers etc. Snobbery / elitism at it's finest.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by slumcat

It's fascinating how actors think Nolan and Mann are worth taking a paycut for not Scorsese isn't.

The thing that’s not mentioned, and doesn’t fit the narrative you’re pushing. Is for streaming movies actors and directors get full pay upfront. Driver and the other actors probably have it so they get backend pay after the movie comes out and makes a certain amount. That’s why movies made for streamers have a higher price tag.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by t-mel

I deliberately didn't read the book when I found out a film was being made. Instead, I am reading it now. More often than not the film disappoints if one reads the book first, regardless of how good the film is. The same does not tend to happen the other way round.

So the question I ask is do I think it works as a film, and my answer is yes, as it seems many people's answer is.

As I've shared, if you enjoyed the film, all power to you, as I'm not here trying to change your mind.

As I've also shared before, the film is not the book, and that's okay as well.

The issue that I have, as do some others who have read KOTFM, is not only does the film eliminate half the book and minimize one of the lead characters to an afterthought, it buries the essence of the book, so for me it's not even the story.

The perception I have of Scorsese's behavior is simply he wanted the title and everything that comes with of one of the best non-fiction reads of this century, but determined that altering the story would play better from a Hollywood reception and awards perspective.

Which is all fine and good, except now we don't get a film of the book that those who read the book wanted, we don't get a film that is equal in stature to the book as an artistic accomplishment, and it's very unlikely that Apple and Scorsese get the dominant awards winner that they were seeking when they decided to spend all this money.

Three strikes? You're out, and by the way, here's the bill and stigma for a $150M+ loss.

Originally Posted by t-mel

Complaining about what the budget is almost makes as little sense as referring to the box office.

Are you saying that money, in all of its permutations and trickle-down consequences, is irrelevant?

Never mind the world, in Hollywood? Are you sure about that?

Originally Posted by t-mel

The price increase has approximately zero to do with this film's budget. It was going to happen regardless. Apple set the initial price low to attract subs, as did every other streamer. And it is increasing prices, as is every other streamer.

I'm sorry, but much like many of the posts here, all of the above seems to be a great deal of wishful thinking and reverse logic.

Now, you could argue that Apple decided to throw a boat load of money around to maintain sub growth and or prevent sub churn, and believed that having the halo effect of an award-winning Scorsese film would be big part of the strategy, but what we can't do here is suggest as you have above, that money and box office, and the prestige that comes with it, doesn't matter, especially when Apple is increasing the price by 40%. Apple is clearly of the opinion that they can justify nearly doubling the cost because they are spending big on award-winning, successful content.

The problem is the internet has already dubbed the price increase The Scorsese Tax, and true or not, perception precedes reality, and that is a big problem for obvious reasons, for Apple, Scorsese and for the film.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I'm finding the weird fascination/obsessing with this film's budget on here hilarious. It cost the same as the Russo Bros. Film The Gray Man which made less than half a million in theaters and by all accounts not a very good film and probably got zero people to sign up for Netflix.

Perhaps this fellow, who happens to actually work in Hollywood, can help you understand why budget and box matter with his post from over three years ago when the deal with Apple was first announced:

Originally Posted by craigbarr2003

This is one of my favorite books of the last decade, but if Scorsese doesn't bring that budget down, I'd prefer it just not get made. And who should care about budgets? All of us who work in entertainment or depend on it for our livelihoods should care. Because at a $200M+ budget, DiCaprio or no DiCaprio, this film isn't going to turn a profit. Paramount just alleviated some of their risk with Apple coming in to basically pre-finance content for their service, but still. Studios are not smart and proactive. They're dumb and reactive. If this film fails to turn a profit, the reaction won't be to just make these types of films for smaller budgets, it'll be to not do them at all. Those are jobs and opportunities that will be lost. And if anyone else has read Grann's book, it's a $60M-$75M concept.

Spot on, and I'll tell you something else. These streamers are only blowing past the STOP sign because it's survival of the fittest RIGHT NOW. Once the dust settles with Netflix, Disney and perhaps one other streamer left standing, all of the studios priced out of the picture or bankrupt, what's left of the theatrical model finished for good, what happens then?

If you believe for one moment that anyone, never mind Scorsese, is going to sniff anywhere near that type of money, or that these pictures will even be made at any price, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn straight outta Mean Streets to sell ya.

Originally Posted by Gacivory

The thing that’s not mentioned, and doesn’t fit the narrative you’re pushing. Is for streaming movies actors and directors get full pay upfront. Driver and the other actors probably have it so they get backend pay after the movie comes out and makes a certain amount. That’s why movies made for streamers have a higher price tag.

I hope you're not implying that simply because a film is streaming that it needs to double or triple its budget, because that's simply not true, it's because Scorsese insisted on it.

You, and others, must have missed the memo about how this deal went down from THR, and how Scorsese has lost money with all of his partners for well over a decade, if not to the extent of KOTFM debacle:

At this point, it's hard to imagine even a more powerful old-school studio risking tens of millions on a Scorsese period piece. But what do petty money worries mean to Apple, which agreed to ante up for the version Scorsese and DiCaprio are determined to make?

While Scorsese has had his deal at Paramount since 2006, the studio has not financed any of his movies in full or in part since the 2010 film Shutter Island. That mountain logo may appear on the screen, but Paramount merely distributed Hugo, Wolf of Wall Street and Silence, all of which were financed by others. The backers of Hugo and Silence lost a bundle, and the scandal and court action swirling around the source of that Wolf of Wall Street financing is still playing out.

The Irishman was so expensive that the late Brad Grey passed despite his love of his association with Marty. After all, says a knowledgeable source, Scorsese had gone more than 100 percent over budget on Silence. Only Netflix would take on The Irishman, and whether the streamer thinks it got its money's worth is known only within its secretive walls. (Netflix supposedly was in the mix for Killers, but it's hard to say whether the streamer's heart was really in that battle.)

Once Scorsese and DiCaprio revised Killers of the Flower Moon, Paramount empowered DiCaprio's longtime manager, Rick Yorn, to shop the project. No doubt the studio hoped no one would tackle it, which might persuade Scorsese to come back to the original idea and the hoped-for budget. (And Paramount likely would have sought a financing partner.)

So you see, money and box office, they're not a little thing, they're the only thing if you want movies like this to be made, because this film would have never been made if Apple didn't experience a moment of temporary insanity given Scorsese's box office over the past decade, and now it's not only a really big problem, it's the problem, singular.

[LordoftheRings]

November 1st (after 13 days)

Theatrical Performance
Domestic Box Office: $44,327,085
International Box Office: $43,996,028
Worldwide Box Office: $88,323,113

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I'm finding the weird fascination/obsessing with this film's budget on here hilarious. It cost the same as the Russo Bros. Film The Gray Man which made less than half a million in theaters and by all accounts not a very good film and probably got zero people to sign up for Netflix.

The Gray Man was mocked for this as well, as it deserved. This flick is getting more traction because it's current, Scorsese's name + comments, and because it's history--The Irishman repeating itself.

Scorsese basically conned two big streaming services with the same shtick, that's an accomplishment right there. Alas, an accomplishment in the vein of "if only he had used his powers for good."

Frankly, I suspect there is all kinds of The Producers*(Uwe Boll's alleged tax scheme) going on with these made-for-streaming "halo" films.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Are you saying that money, in all of its permutations and trickle-down consequences, is irrelevant?

Never mind the world, in Hollywood? Are you sure about that?

Nope. I don't understand why you aren't getting my position. Of course budget and box office matters in Hollywood, but for the purposes of judging a film on its artistic merits, it doesn't matter in my opinion, or I am not going to hold it against the film. And there has been plenty said about why you cannot judge the budget of this film by the same metrics as you judge a normal theatrical release, even though this ended up having a wide release.

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I'm sorry, but much like many of the posts here, all of the above seems to be a great deal of wishful thinking and reverse logic.

Now, you could argue that Apple decided to throw a boat load of money around to maintain sub growth and or prevent sub churn, and believed that having the halo effect of an award-winning Scorsese film would be big part of the strategy, but what we can't do here is suggest as you have above, that money and box office, and the prestige that comes with it, doesn't matter, especially when Apple is increasing the price by 40%. Apple is clearly of the opinion that they can justify nearly doubling the cost because they are spending big on award-winning, successful content.

The problem is the internet has already dubbed the price increase The Scorsese Tax, and true or not, perception precedes reality, and that is a big problem for obvious reasons, for Apple, Scorsese and for the film.

Do you honestly think apple TV would remain at $4.99 indefinitely, with or without KOTFM? I actually made that joke somewhere else on this forum, didn't realise that it was a thing on the internet. But, like me, other people are probably joking.

Disney is another streamer that is raising costs. What are they doing to "justify" it? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they've removed things. That's what you have to do when you have lost $11bn and you have to be profitable by the end of 2024 to appease investors.

[t-mel]

Those on this thread seem to be almost blaming Scorsese's budgets as part of the reason Hollywood is so risk averse right now. Strange reasoning. I agree that, like Netflix, once Apple funds a few of these "prestige" films then they will stop doing it. Netflix did the Irishman and hasn't done anything similar since.

But should Scorsese not have taken these opportunities, or should he have worked with a smaller budget even though more was available to him?

The actual mid budget films that people have spoken positively about on this thread didn't do so well either. The Fabelmans barely went over its production budget, which we know probably means a loss for the studio. It's one of the lowest grossers for Spielberg, if not the lowest. Licorice pizza did not make back its budget even, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt that we still had the lingering effects of Covid at the time. One of the best films of 2022, Tár, also barely made back its measly $25m.

It seems like unless you micro budget films made for adults, they are going to struggle at the box office these days. Why are we even putting any of the blame on Scorsese? Taking the budget of KOTFM at face value, even a more reasonable $50-$100m, which would be difficult, it would still barely gross its production budget. As has been said above, Oppenheimer at $100m (a comparable film) relied on massive actor cuts for Downey Jr, Damon, and Blunt. Without this a further $45m could have been added to the budget.

These are dire times and it's hard to see how we will get out of it.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by t-mel

The actual mid budget films that people have spoken positively about on this thread didn't do so well either. The Fabelmans barely went over its production budget, which we know probably means a loss for the studio. It's one of the lowest grossers for Spielberg, if not the lowest. Licorice pizza did not make back its budget even, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt that we still had the lingering effects of Covid at the time. One of the best films of 2022, Tár, also barely made back its measly $25m.

Therein lies the rub, sure those films weren't very successful.

Guess what, they all yet lost less money than Killers or even the Irishman. Why? Because they cost a fraction of what Killers cost, less than a fifth of it in fact.

If we as cinephiles are worried about the death of the adult dramas - movies like Killers and Irishman will hasten their demise. If studios think to make an adult drama it takes freaking 250 million dollars a pop - literally Superhero team-up level budgets, we aren't going to get many more of that.

Instead we need silver linings - modest budget films that manage to make their money back so that studios get some confidence and invest in these films again.

Scorsese rails against the death of adult dramas. And then helps cause that death. He rails against blockbusters. Yet wants their budgets and their excesses. There is an inherent contradiction here.

Scorsese next wants to make Wager - another 250 million dollar film. Will Apple be still willing to move ahead? Who knows.

Scorsese has conned Netflix once and Apple once - we know for a fact theatrical studios are not going to make his movies. So Scorsese is literally imperiling his own ability to make films.

EDIT: Scorsese has bankrupt other producers before. Read his article about Graham King - producer on Hugo who literally lost the shirt off his back.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/blo...s-been-painful

Eventually Scorsese's excesses harm the entire business.