Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[Hedrox]

$2.68M on Friday, 72% drop. I know the first thought would be to dismiss this as "Apple doesn't care, it was made as a streaming movie", but giving it a full worldwide theatrical release, a proper marketing campaign and a sizable screen count means they are serious about going into theatrical exhibition and the movie isn't exempt from being judged for it's box office performance.

Regardless of how good the movie is and how well the streaming numbers will be, given the budget and wide release, this is a theatrical flop.

[Modren]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

$2.68M on Friday, 72% drop. I know the first thought would be to dismiss this as "Apple doesn't care, it was made as a streaming movie", but giving it a full worldwide theatrical release, a proper marketing campaign and a sizable screen count means they are serious about going into theatrical exhibition and the movie isn't exempt from being judged for it's box office performance.

Regardless of how good the movie is and how well the streaming numbers will be, given the budget and wide release, this is a theatrical flop.

I genuinely don't think Apple made this with the intent of making a huge profit. Napoleon is more likely to be their big money-maker, but the point is more to establish Apple as a partner for studio productions and a place for auteurs to develop big projects now that Netflix is shifting away from that, and potentially rack up some awards buzz. Even if Apple loses $100+ million on this movie, that's basically a drop in the bucket compared to their annual profits.

[LordoftheRings]

Scorsese ain't in it for the money; he's in it for the cinema of storytelling...the art of the essence.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

$2.68M on Friday, 72% drop. I know the first thought would be to dismiss this as "Apple doesn't care, it was made as a streaming movie", but giving it a full worldwide theatrical release, a proper marketing campaign and a sizable screen count means they are serious about going into theatrical exhibition and the movie isn't exempt from being judged for it's box office performance.

Regardless of how good the movie is and how well the streaming numbers will be, given the budget and wide release, this is a theatrical flop.

Yes, but other than Oppenheimer, all dramas for adults have flopped recently, even when backed by good reviews and A-list directors (it is doing much better than The Fablemans, Nightmare Alley, and The Last Duel for instance). And the 3 hour 26 minute runtime (I do think that the extra 26 minutes is a big deal for some vs Oppenheimer) was always going to limit theatrical prospects.

The major question to me is why did it cost $200 million? I kinda got it with The Irishman cause of the CGI needed, but this did not look that expensive.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

$2.68M on Friday, 72% drop. I know the first thought would be to dismiss this as "Apple doesn't care, it was made as a streaming movie", but giving it a full worldwide theatrical release, a proper marketing campaign and a sizable screen count means they are serious about going into theatrical exhibition and the movie isn't exempt from being judged for it's box office performance.

Regardless of how good the movie is and how well the streaming numbers will be, given the budget and wide release, this is a theatrical flop.

So, a 3 1/2 hour, serious and dark historical drama (with fewer showings), with nothing to offer the Marvel nerds or Disney-philes, should be at around 85 million worldwide by Monday morning (85 million in 9 days). Not really the flop you're making it out ot be, but OK.

And before anyone says, "Oppenheimer", it got a massive push from that 'Barbenheimer' social media nonsense. People today really do follow trends and packs. (In the end, "Barbie" still made way, way more, though).

Other than that, serious adult dramas don't make money like that, often.

This ain't the latest Marvel or DC nonsense.

"Five Night at Freddy's" is a huge hit this weekend, and it's absolutely awful, and it will die quickly after this weekend.

And, again, no, Apple wasn't even gonna put this in theaters, originally. They aren't concerned.

[spanky87]

BB sneaking in there with that low rating.

[Jay Mammoth]

Originally Posted by spanky87

BB sneaking in there with that low rating.

At least he isn’t posting. That’s a blessing, we all know his crap taste in movies.

[Dave Bannion]

Oppenheimer benefited from repeat business. KOTFM is likely going to whiff on that front.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by Modren

I genuinely don't think Apple made this with the intent of making a huge profit. Napoleon is more likely to be their big money-maker, but the point is more to establish Apple as a partner for studio productions and a place for auteurs to develop big projects now that Netflix is shifting away from that, and potentially rack up some awards buzz. Even if Apple loses $100+ million on this movie, that's basically a drop in the bucket compared to their annual profits.

Of course they didn't make it with the intent to make money, that's why the budget is so big because it includes backend deals for the people involved. This obviously isn't a failure as it achieved it's purpose of garnering great reviews, potentially many awards and interest in Apple's streaming service. But as far as a theatrical release goes, it is a flop and reason for Apple to be a bit disappointed. It may also hurt some of its Oscar chances.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Of course they didn't make it with the intent to make money, that's why the budget is so big because it includes backend deals for the people involved. This obviously isn't a failure as it achieved it's purpose of garnering great reviews, potentially many awards and interest in Apple's streaming service. But as far as a theatrical release goes, it is a flop and reason for Apple to be a bit disappointed. It may also hurt some of its Oscar chances.

The only reason why it showed in theaters is so it can be eligible for awards according to the new rule set forth by the Academy. Apple knew it was never going to make any money. That's not their intent.

[slumcat]

Streaming is a ponzi scheme. Is there any other business where you invest 250 million dollars in production and another 100-200 million in marketing and get back 40 million and do joyous celebration of cartwheels, euphoria and call it a massive success?

Sure Apple can afford anything but does it make a lick of sense? My MBA degree says no.

Netflix is the only company that's made streaming as a model work. Disney has tried to chart a path of strategic retreat. Streaming as a business - on paper - just doesn't make sense.

But hey it got 90% on rotten tomatoes. I guess that makes it worth it.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The only reason why it showed in theaters is so it can be eligible for awards according to the new rule set forth by the Academy. Apple knew it was never going to make any money. That's not their intent.

You don't need a wide release for that. you can dump in an obscure theater for 7 days in LA, or 6 other cities and it still works. That is how most Netflix movies and obscure international films qualify.

By going this wide theatrical run, Apple has dumped an additional 200 mil apart from the 250 mil production budget.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by slumcat

You don't need a wide release for that. you can dump in an obscure theater for 7 days in LA, or 6 other cities and it still works. That is how most Netflix movies and obscure international films qualify.

By going this wide theatrical run, Apple has dumped an additional 200 mil apart from the 250 mil production budget.

Oscars: Academy Approves Major Change To Best Picture Eligibility Rules Requiring More Extensive Theatrical Runs

https://deadline.com/2023/06/oscars-...es-1235314790/

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

The major question to me is why did it cost $200 million?

I was blown away when I saw that budget. From what I saw on screen I would have guessed less than half that (unless it was mostly for the cast).

[dkelly26666]

The book rights were 5 million alone. Eric Roth was paid to write a screenplay adaptation.

Scorsese, DiCaprio each received advances as producers.

Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro (De Niro was only an actor this time, not a producer) each got their massive salaries.

Imperative Entertainment paid all of this up front to the tune of over 70 million.

Apple came on board (after Paramount, 21st Century, and Netflix apparently passed) and paid Imperative around 120 million to buy the project, basically.

This was before any crew was hired, any locations scouted, anything.

The final budget overall was around 207 million.

So, in other words, the movie itself cost around 87 million.

The rest were the book rights, the script development, and the salaries of Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro. And Imperative profited this way.

Apple, a company worth many hundreds of billions, set aside a bit over one billion to develop major feature films. This was to build a prestigious, original film library to raise visibility and subscriptions on their streaming service, to compete with the likes of Netflix and DisneyPlus.

Out of that more than 1 billion, they spent 207 million on this project, which they'd originally intended to put exclusively onto their streaming service.

The theatrical release was decided on later.

Paramount accepted being only the theatrical distributor, just as they had done on "Silence".

They have only the marketing costs at stake, which they'll likely make back for sure, and then they and Apple will share in theatrical revenue otherwise.

In other words, Scorsese, DiCaprio, De Niro, Imperative, and Paramount have all already made a lot of money on the film.

The only ones still on the hook for around 170 million are Apple, who aren't as concerned with that.

And, again, 85 million worldwide in 9 days for this particular film isn't really that bad, so far.

[Scott in UK]

Originally Posted by slumcat

"He consulted Osage people" is as limp a fig leaf as "I have black friends".

I've thought in recent years that I find it abit ridiculous to claim that apparently it's racist if someone was to say they have a black friend. I get the point it's making, but it also seems like a contradiction within itself, because if you have got a black friend well that means you arnt racist else they wouldn't be ya friend would they.

Surely it's about wether it's warrented to need to mention their colour or not. Obviously if you was talking about a friend in general, you wouldn't have to mention their colour. But if someone's gonna accuse you of being racist, well that's where it's warrented to be able to mention it.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Scott in UK

I've thought in recent years that I find it abit ridiculous to claim that apparently it's racist if someone was to say they have a black friend. I get the point it's making, but it also seems like a contradiction within itself, because if you have got a black friend well that means you arnt racist else they wouldn't be ya friend would they.

Surely it's about wether it's warrented to need to mention their colour or not. Obviously if you was talking about a friend in general, you wouldn't have to mention their colour. But if someone's gonna accuse you of being racist, well that's where it's warrented to be able to mention it.

That you don't understand "I have a black friend" is problematic as hell is part of the problem. The ignorance among large populations about the experience of others is astounding. It's the difference of seeing things in dvd vs uhd. It's the realization you were literally blind before.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by spanky87

BB sneaking in there with that low rating.

[Show spoiler]

That's when you know the movie is good.

[jonmoz]

Originally Posted by Jay Mammoth

At least he isn’t posting. That’s a blessing, we all know his crap taste in movies.

Still no posts as yet, just a covert drive by low review.

[Scott in UK]

Originally Posted by slumcat

That you don't understand "I have a black friend" is problematic as hell is part of the problem.

As I said in my original post it depends on the context or circumstance. It is ok you know to sometimes be in scenarios to describe someone as black. It's not a case of you are never allowed to mention someone's colour.

If I was to describe a friend just in general as being black when I didn't need to then yeah I'd agree with you, because their wasn't any reason to mention their colour. But if someone is gonna accuse me of having a dislike of black people, and having a black friend would prove I don't (because if I was racist I wouldn't want them as a friend would i) well then how the hell would I be able communicate that if I'm not allowed to mention their colour. Bearing in mind I wouldn't actually be mentioning their colour out of wanting to be racist, i would actually be saying it to prove I'm not.

Example:
If a person visited my house, and I was gonna describe that visit to someone, is it warrented that I would I need to say wether the person that visited was black or white? No!! It's irrelevant!

If a person robbed my house, and I had to give a description of the person to the police, is it warrented that I would i need to say wether they was black or white ? Yes!! (and doing so would not be being racist)