Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[Bugg]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Why the hell does this movie cost $200M?!?! Christ, Wind River, a similar film about a murder on a Native American reservation, cost $11M! Not saying this is that film, but there's no reason for a drama/thriller like this to cost as much as a CGI laden superhero film. Similarly, The Irishman shouldn't have cost nearly $200M either. Calm down, Scorsese. You made Taxi Driver for an adjusted figure of roughly $6M!

It's crazy. Especially now with movie studios not even knowing how many theaters will still be around to play their movies in a year from now.

[Cremildo]

Can anyone with actual production and financing knowledge please explain why this film (basically a western, even if an epic one) would cost almost as much as a Marvel blockbuster? I suppose it'd be hard to be exact without reading the script, but I'm curious. Costly stars, costly locations, costly sets, protracted shooting schedule etc?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Can anyone with actual production and financing knowledge please explain why this film (basically a western, even if an epic one) would cost almost as much as a Marvel blockbuster? I suppose it'd be hard to be exact without reading the script, but I'm curious. Costly stars, costly locations, costly sets, protracted shooting schedule etc?

If they are building sets that could get pricey. Everyone is probably getting their full amount. There could be any number of reasons.

[CreasyBear]

Scorsese's probably doing more de-aging bullshit.

[Hoke Moseley]

Who cares about budgets?

Just hope it gets made.

[McCrutchy]

I can't fathom why this film needs $225 million, but then, The Irishman didn't exact show much of its $159* million on screen, either. If I were Netflix, I would pass, especially given the awards shut out, but then the Netflix people are an interesting breed and seem quite spend-happy right now.

Having said that, I guess if they give him the budget it will mean they've scored huge viewership and subscription returns on The Irishman, so I suppose this will be some kind of referendum on whether Netflix (or Apple) considers that film a blockbuster success or not.

*I thought the budget was much higher, significantly over $200 million, but in looking it up, apparently it was only $159 million.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Can anyone with actual production and financing knowledge please explain why this film (basically a western, even if an epic one) would cost almost as much as a Marvel blockbuster? I suppose it'd be hard to be exact without reading the script, but I'm curious. Costly stars, costly locations, costly sets, protracted shooting schedule etc?

If you want some idea, it's based on a book.

Originally Posted by Hoke Moseley

Who cares about budgets?

Just hope it gets made.

yeah I don't care how much it costs, I just wanna see the damn thing.

Hopefully all this gets smoothed over by the time the pandemic passes, so production can hit the ground running.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

*I thought the budget was much higher, significantly over $200 million, but in looking it up, apparently it was only $159 million.

Pretty ridicuous for a three hour movie largely consisting of people sitting around talking. Scorsese is out of his mind. Peter Jackson made the entire Lord of the Rings Trilogy for $300M. Lucas made each Star Wars Prequel for roughly $100M. The money is on the screen there. The Irishman is a good looking movie, but look like it cost $160M, it does not.

[slimdude]

The theaters are closed, so it really doesn't matter one way or the other. They'll just may cancel the production entirely. What's the use of making movies, when the theaters are closed, nobody can go and see the movies for the studios to make any money? It wouldn't make sense.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Pretty ridicuous for a three hour movie largely consisting of people sitting around talking.

There's a lot more CGI in The Irishman than just the de-aging, plus Netflix mandating an entirely 4K workflow. And when nearly every scene requires three cameras per angle, the costs add up.

And "people sitting around talking" has gotta be the worst over-simplification of that movie.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

There's a lot more CGI in The Irishman than just the de-aging, plus Netflix mandating an entirely 4K workflow. And when nearly every scene requires three cameras per angle, the costs add up.

And "people sitting around talking" has gotta be the worst over-simplification of that movie.

Oh, I know there's a shitload of CGI in that film, not just in the de-aging, but "invisible" effects. Is it necessary? Not really, but Scorsese pushed for the budget and got it. I don't think it'll happen again.

I mean, I liked the movie. I really did. But it's a largely dialogue driven film about an aging mobster. It ain't exactly Ben-Hur. I feel like the movie actually would have benefited from a smaller budget with less of the wonky de-aging and obvious digital trickery. It detracts instead of adding to the film, at least for me.

[Koller70]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I read an interview with a self-quarantined Robbie Robertson a few days ago where he talked about working on some music for the film, "Even though everything is delayed, now", and that article said the film's shoot has been pushed back an entire YEAR, until March 2021! Robbie didn't actually say that, just said it was delayed. The writer of the article said that, so I don't know if it's true or not.

I don't think that's true.
Just speculation from the writer who doesn't know anything about the production dates.
Anyway, Apple should pick it up, or Universal collaborating with Paramount, so we can have a traditional release.

If a distribution deal works out, I can see shooting starting around late summer this year, when everything hopefully goes back to normal.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Can anyone with actual production and financing knowledge please explain why this film (basically a western, even if an epic one) would cost almost as much as a Marvel blockbuster? I suppose it'd be hard to be exact without reading the script, but I'm curious. Costly stars, costly locations, costly sets, protracted shooting schedule etc?

Maybe Scorsese got the bug for de-ageing on Irishman and wants to do it again. Haven't read the source material so can't say, but maybe they're going for some serious immersive expanse and need either lots of sets or complicated CGI (with interactive performance elements) too.

[Bugg]

$200+ million is insanity. I don't want to hear him griping about how studios don't support "cinema" if he is looking to make a 2nd straight period piece with a Star Wars budget. Surely a director as talented as Scorsese knows how to trim a work down and cut some corners while still making a great film.

I also wonder how Irishman went for Netflix. I did not hear any boasts from them about how many millions of views it got, like they did with Bright and Birdbox.

[sawdustandtinsel]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Can anyone with actual production and financing knowledge please explain why this film (basically a western, even if an epic one) would cost almost as much as a Marvel blockbuster? I suppose it'd be hard to be exact without reading the script, but I'm curious. Costly stars, costly locations, costly sets, protracted shooting schedule etc?

I believe this is fairly accurate and based on union rates for a large production.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnTF3guz7EQ

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Bugg

$200+ million is insanity. I don't want to hear him griping about how studios don't support "cinema" if he is looking to make a 2nd straight period piece with a Star Wars budget. Surely a director as talented as Scorsese knows how to trim a work down and cut some corners while still making a great film.

I also wonder how Irishman went for Netflix. I did not hear any boasts from them about how many millions of views it got, like they did with Bright and Birdbox.

They did.

They said that over Thanksgiving weekend, it boasted their second most streams for an original, narrative feature film by Netflix, second only to "Birdbox". They said it also remained a strong streamer for the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They were also impressed with the box office numbers from its limited theatrical release. They loved the critical response it got, as well. Reportedly the higher ups at Netflix were 'proud' of the film, and said they'd financed it to have made their own, original masterpiece.

The film did well enough, and was certainly well received by critics.

It was a lot of the Twitter crowd that didn't like it. Twitter obsessed people posting it was 'boring af' and shutting it off after 20 minutes, or disgruntled Marvel fans trolling like hell for weeks because Scorsese insulted their beloved church of comic book movies.

It never became the water-cooler/social media phenomenon for Netflix that a "Birdbox", "Stranger Things", or a "Tiger King" did. With the general PUBLIC.

But industry wise, Netflix themselves were reportedly happy with it overall.

[CyberpunkCentral]

Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro#ALLINCHALLENGE to help and support all the Family in difficulty - YouTube

[Cremildo]

Apple to Co-Finance

After months of figuring out budget concerns over Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon” adaptation, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Paramount has enlisted Apple to get the film over the hump.

Sources tell Variety, Paramount will still distribute the murder mystery drama with Apple coming on to finance the pic.

[tcripe]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

Apple to Co-Finance

Soooo does this mean its going to be a Apple TV+ exclusive?

[imsounoriginal]

Paramount will distribute theatrically worldwide, and then release on Apple TV+ -- https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/s...933047298?s=20