Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[slip220]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I think the Scorsese Marvel controversy is blown out of proportion. Scorsese is entitled to his opinion, doesn't change anything does it? It's not like he's causing the down turn in box office of superhero films.

I don't think anyone should feel attacked by his comments. I find them at best benign, at worst informed but in no way malignant.

The publicity this story gets is all just to rile up factions on the internet.

It blew out of proportion because the fanbase of these movies are almost worse than religious fundamentalists that can't take criticisim and the media that live on outrage culture pushed this whole conflict.

Scorsese was right all along, these movies are fast food cinema but the main problem always was that superhero movies were overshadowing others and seemed that there was nothing else for the studios.

Capeshit can co-exist with other movies but there's to much of them and doesn't help that studios were pushing with so much shows that saturated the genre.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by slip220

It blew out of proportion because the fanbase of this movies are almost worse than religious fundamentalists that can't take criticisim and the media that live on outrage culture pushed this whole conflict.

Scorsese was right all along, these movies are fast food cinema but the main problem always was that superhero movies were overshadowing others and seemed that there was nothing else for the studios.

Capeshit can co-exist with other movies but there's to much of them and doesn't help that studios were pushing with so much shows that saturated the genre.

I don't agree with Scorsese's take, but it is pretty obvious at this point they oversaturated the market between MCU and DC stuff. Between poor quality control, painting themselves into a creative wall with all the multiverse crap, D-Tier characters getting films/streaming shows, and mostly hack talent behind the cameras (save for a few examples) superhero films have become stale and mostly forgettable, even to those that used to like them.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I think the Scorsese Marvel controversy is blown out of proportion. Scorsese is entitled to his opinion, doesn't change anything does it? It's not like he's causing the down turn in box office of superhero films.

I don't think anyone should feel attacked by his comments. I find them at best benign, at worst informed but in no way malignant.

The publicity this story gets is all just to rile up factions on the internet.

You, just like everyone else, is entitled to an opinion.

Setting aside the legion of fans of these films, I'm fairly certain until proven otherwise that none of us represent those responsible for creating such films, and all those who benefit, including everyone else in Hollywood and especially theater owners, by the success of CBMs.

That Scorsese, likely blinded by his own self-interest and related biases, failed to acknowledge this fact, is unfortunate.

He's one of the great living directors, if not the greatest, and his accomplishments as a filmmaker are equaled by his efforts to preserve cinematic history and champion the idea of cinema.

Which is a shame, because unlike you, I do believe many took his words to heart and he perhaps delivered a sharper cut than intended, which in turn has diminished his stature in some eyes.

So, no, I don't believe his words have been 'blown out of proportion,' especially from the perspective of Russo & Co.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by NeilZ

Have to be honest, Killers of the Flower Moon was one of my least favorites from the master. Might be my fault for going in with ultra high expectations. It was an interesting story sure but also a bit of pain to sit through, and this despite the amazing cast. Maybe needed some trimming to give it a more reasonable run time.

Give it some time and revisit it, later. Maybe at home.

These things tend to grow on viewers.

"The King of Comedy" was flatly ignored in 1983, and Entertainment Tonight declared it, "The Flop of 1983". It now has a big following, and is regarded very highly.

As I've said before, "Casino" had massive hype before its release, and then was largely despised by critics and audiences alike when it came out. Ignored by awards. Ebert was one of its only high profile champions. It now is a classic, and is generally very highly regarded.

I've already seen the revisionism begin for films like "Gangs of New York", "Shutter Island", and even "Silence".

You should have seen the release of "The Last Temptation of Christ". Oh my God, was that something else.

Kubrick often dealt with that, as well.
"2001" was "a mess", "Clockwork" was controversial, "Barry Lyndon" was "An overlong bore", "The Shining" was "a disaster that should never have been made", and "Full Metal Jacket" got lukearm reception.
ALL of those are classics, now.

The only Scorsese films that really seemed to click at an immediate, mainstream level on their initial release were "The Departed" and "Cape Fear". And even those films have their detractors, and people who think they're 'lesser' films from him.

"GoodFellas" was an enormously critically loved film, but still did slow box office. It's now made many, many millions for Warner, though, and is considered one of their crown jewel titles.

Anyway, this film may never click for you.

But, just stew on it for a while, and watch what might happen...

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by t-mel

You can call it a business all you want but it's something made by real people with real passions.

When you, or anyone else for that matter, set aside the fancy ideas about 'art' and related flowery language about 'real people with real passions,' what is the nature of the film industry?

The answer is simply the exploitation of human emotion for profit.

That's it.

Of course, humans will delude themselves about anything.

That's a given.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

When you, or anyone else for that matter, set aside the fancy ideas about 'art' and related flowery language about 'real people with real passions,' what is the nature of the film industry?

The answer is simply the exploitation of human emotion for profit.

That's it.

Of course, humans will delude themselves about anything.

That's a given.

And I think that's oversimplifying things to an absurd degree. These are still run by people, they aren't robots. Of course a large part of this is the business aspect and the need to generate profit, but there has always been and always will be a tug of war between the creative side and artistic side. As Tarantino puts it, the pendulum has been swinging. It swung to the side of the creators in the 70s and 90s and to the business people in the 60s, 80s, and present day.

They thought they had a hack of making films without risk and guaranteeing success but if there is one thing that 2023 has shown it's that the cracks are starting to show in this approach. Several "sure fire hits" lost big time. Dial of Destiny was probably the biggest money loser of the year, and that's the second biggest franchise of Lucasfilm.

Granted, the top of the box office is still mostly franchises, but they look better than 2019 at least.

Killers of the Flower Moon was not originally meant to get a wide release so we can't judge its production cost like a theatrical film. As I said in a comment above, several of these streaming films have surprisingly large budgets like The Gray Man.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by slip220

Scorsese was right all along, these movies are fast food cinema but the main problem always was that superhero movies were overshadowing others and seemed that there was nothing else for the studios.

Capeshit can co-exist with other movies but there's to much of them and doesn't help that studios were pushing with so much shows that saturated the genre.

Here's the thing about his comments, beginning with the opinion that it's very easy to blame Hollywood for the reliance on CBMs, when in fact, Hollywood has always sought to maximize profitability while entertaining audiences by satisfying base instincts, e.g., sex, violence, patriotism, etc.

Let's be clear, over half of America can't read above the sixth grade level. What type of movies do you believe they want to watch on a weekend night to be entertained?

His films or John Wick, or perhaps Top Gun/MI?

There's a finite audience for his films, just as it is true for Tarantino, PTA, Fincher, Aster and every other critical darling.

Past Lives? Aftersun? Tar? The Eternal Daughter? Hate to break the news to you and everyone else, but these films and above directors aren't going to keep the global theatrical model afloat.

If Disney and everyone else were to exit the CBM business, the global theatrical business would be belly up in a year.

The bottom line here is simply after his comments, Scorsese bought a property, an acclaimed book that is one of the best non-fiction reads of the century, spent well over a quarter of billion dollars in production and marketing, and didn't deliver.

It's a bad look.

Especially in the context of Barbie and Oppenheimer, two non-CBM films which delivered above and beyond all expectations.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by t-mel

And I think that's oversimplifying things to an absurd degree. These are still run by people, they aren't robots.

It's because Hollywood is comprised of humans that I'm confident in regard to distilling the gestalt of Hollywood.

Don't get me wrong, it's okay to have an opinion about which films define cinema, which films you believe Hollywood should be making, and those films that you are willing to pay for at a theater, or on point, films which you believe others are willing to pay for at a theater.

But never allow the above subjectivity to spill over and spoil the balance sheet.

Like someone we know.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Here's the thing about his comments, beginning with the opinion that it's very easy to blame Hollywood for the reliance on CBMs, when in fact, Hollywood has always sought to maximize profitability while entertaining audiences by satisfying base instincts, e.g., sex, violence, patriotism, etc.

Let's be clear, over half of America can't read above the sixth grade level. What type of movies do you believe they want to watch on a weekend night to be entertained?

His films or John Wick, or perhaps Top Gun/MI?

There's a finite audience for his films, just as it is true for Tarantino, PTA, Fincher, Aster and every other critical darling.

Past Lives? Aftersun? Tar? The Eternal Daughter? Hate to break the news to you and everyone else, but these films and above directors aren't going to keep the global theatrical model afloat.

If Disney and everyone else were to exit the CBM business, the global theatrical business would be belly up in a year.

The bottom line here is simply after his comments, Scorsese bought a property, an acclaimed book that is one of the best non-fiction reads of the century, spent well over a quarter of billion dollars in production and marketing, and didn't deliver.

It's a bad look.

Especially in the context of Barbie and Oppenheimer, two non-CBM films which delivered above and beyond all expectations.

No one is saying that the only options are Tar and Endgame. Audiences in the past saw a much larger variety of films than in the present day. The franchise obsession has only been a thing since 2000, with the number steadily taking the spots of the highest grossing films of the year.

In the 1990s you had films like The Lion King, Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, Jurassic Park, Men in Black, Ghost, Saving Private Ryan, The Matrix, Pretty Women, Mission: Impossible, Dances With Wolves, The Mummy, Toy Story, The Fugitive, True Lies, American Beauty, Apollo 13, Seven, etc. be box office hits. None of these films are particularly challenging, and I like them to varying degrees, but would be vastly preferable to what is offered today. And the 90s also had many other smaller and more interesting films too.

Something has changed since then; a combination of things. Streaming is probably the primary cause of many people abandoning the theatre for all but the franchise blockbusters.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Here's the thing about his comments, beginning with the opinion that it's very easy to blame Hollywood for the reliance on CBMs, when in fact, Hollywood has always sought to maximize profitability while entertaining audiences by satisfying base instincts, e.g., sex, violence, patriotism, etc.

Let's be clear, over half of America can't read above the sixth grade level. What type of movies do you believe they want to watch on a weekend night to be entertained?

His films or John Wick, or perhaps Top Gun/MI?

There's a finite audience for his films, just as it is true for Tarantino, PTA, Fincher, Aster and every other critical darling.

Past Lives? Aftersun? Tar? The Eternal Daughter? Hate to break the news to you and everyone else, but these films and above directors aren't going to keep the global theatrical model afloat.

If Disney and everyone else were to exit the CBM business, the global theatrical business would be belly up in a year.

The bottom line here is simply after his comments, Scorsese bought a property, an acclaimed book that is one of the best non-fiction reads of the century, spent well over a quarter of billion dollars in production and marketing, and didn't deliver.


It's a bad look.

Especially in the context of Barbie and Oppenheimer, two non-CBM films which delivered above and beyond all expectations.

Let's be clear, the problem isn't solely CBM movies but the whole greedy mentality they have cultivated from the studios. The main goal is to built franchises, cinematic universes, multi-verses or whatever to milk as much as possible. They are rebooting, remaking and building as much sequels as possible because it means few risks and easy money.

Of course its a business, it always has been, but we came to a point that it's a checking boxes business, fanservice bussiness, check the temperature from social media business.

Of course guys like Scorsese that care about the medium don't want this kind of dissecration and creative bankrupcy.


And one more thing, cinema survived for more than a century without CBM movies, the idea that they are needed to save cinema is just pathetic. We vare finnally having a great year without CBM dominance and could be much better if it wasn't for the strike which again show how gready these studios are.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

You, just like everyone else, is entitled to an opinion.

Setting aside the legion of fans of these films, I'm fairly certain until proven otherwise that none of us represent those responsible for creating such films, and all those who benefit, including everyone else in Hollywood and especially theater owners, by the success of CBMs.

That Scorsese, likely blinded by his own self-interest and related biases, failed to acknowledge this fact, is unfortunate.

He's one of the great living directors, if not the greatest, and his accomplishments as a filmmaker are equaled by his efforts to preserve cinematic history and champion the idea of cinema.

Which is a shame, because unlike you, I do believe many took his words to heart and he perhaps delivered a sharper cut than intended, which in turn has diminished his stature in some eyes.

So, no, I don't believe his words have been 'blown out of proportion,' especially from the perspective of Russo & Co.

To me Scorsese is not even one of the Top 10 working directors today - let alone all time. So that is why his words carry little value for me to be honest.

I am in the third camp. I don't care for superhero films. But I don't care for Scorsese films either.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by t-mel

Something has changed since then...

Originally Posted by slip220

Let's be clear, the problem...

Well, things change, and there's always a problem somewhere, so what's new? You and everyone else preferred things when you were younger and or wish things were the same like they used to be, there's a given.

If there were those who believed CBM were preventing Scorsese, and others, from finding box office gold, well, it appears Russo's dog had the last word on that topic.

The next thing you know, everyone will move on from CBMs and start dumping on Tay Swizzle for preventing Marty from a getting a least a single week on top, but let's face it, there's a limited audience willing to sit through three and half grim hours of KOTFM as opposed to those who prefer to enjoy every Era, another non-CBM film.

It's highly unlikely Marty will ever get another crack at a big budget Oscar contender.

On balance, he will always have the clout to continue to make the films he wants to make, with reasonable budgets and then some, just as many of his peers have when adjusting to the reality of present-day Hollywood.

Needless to say, there's always an opportunity to win some gold with the right film.

I'm just not getting the feels about this one, it having lost so much money, the concerns about the runtime, the muted praise, but I'm sure there will be a consolation Oscar or two. After all, it's Marty.

[Invid Ninja]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the U.S. box office/Oscar nonsense or Russos slinging lame barbs Scorsese's way as I thought this was another belter in his oeuvre. While I still haven't made time for The Irishman (will do before long now) I thought this was pretty much as good as the last of his films I saw theatrically Silence; easy Top 5 of the year material.

[OnlyJapantown]

If Scorsese is forced to work on a lower budget for his next movie, that will be for the better. $200m on Killers was silly money for a drama of that kind. I would love to see the version of Killers that would have cost $60-80m... it would have been shorter, leaner and far more economical in what made it to the editing room, even more so what left the editing room.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I didn't realize Goodfellas didn't do well with attendance in theaters back then versus its budget. Thankfully it didn't ruin Scorsese's career despite not being profitable to big studios right away.

Budget $25 million
Box office $47.1 million

This is why a little bit of film history is important and applying modern stats regarding box office can be misleading. Back in 1990, any film hitting $100 million was considered a major hit, $200 million was a runaway blockbuster. Nobody considered GoodFellas a disappointment at $47 million. That's almost six times the gross of Scorsese's The Last Temptation in 1988.

Go look at films from 1990...Misery at $56 million, Kindergarten Cop in the $90 million range, Born on the 4th of July at $70 million, Red October at $122, House Party at $26, Pretty Woman at $178, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at $135, Bird on a Wire at $72, Back to the Future Part III at $87, Total Recall at $119, Dick Tracy at $103, Days of Thunder at $82, Die Hard 2 at $117, Ghost at $217, Arachnophobia at $53, Presumed Innocent at $86, Young Guns II at $44, Flatliners at $61, Postcards from the Edge at $39, Wild at Heart at $14, Miller's Crossing at $5, Dances With Wolves at $184, Home Alone at $285, Predator 2 at $30, Edward Scissorhands at $56, Look Who's Talking Too at $47, Awakenings at $52, The Godfather Part III at $66.

GoodFellas also had a screen count of around 1000-1100 theaters...compared to today when some films open on 4,000 screens. Ticket prices were lower in 1990, fewer screens, smaller overall population...GoodFellas did fine, for the kind of film it was and the times, and not a film likely to find footing in foreign markets. It was never going to be a mass-market runaway smash like Pretty Woman or Ghost or Home Alone.

Today, we consider certain films disappointments when they don't hit $300 million -- call them flops, even. Today's $1 billion has become yesterday's $200 million.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Invid Ninja

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the U.S. box office/Oscar nonsense or Russos slinging lame barbs Scorsese's way as I thought this was another belter in his oeuvre. While I still haven't made time for The Irishman (will do before long now) I thought this was pretty much as good as the last of his films I saw theatrically Silence; easy Top 5 of the year material.

Precisely.

As I said earlier in the thread, "Five Nights at Freddy's" did major box office this past weekend. It's a sorry excuse for a "movie", and will be completely forgotten in no time, flat.

This film will still be studied by film historians and film buffs alike 20 years from now.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

This is why a little bit of film history is important and applying modern stats regarding box office can be misleading. Back in 1990, any film hitting $100 million was considered a major hit, $200 million was a runaway blockbuster. Nobody considered GoodFellas a disappointment at $47 million. That's almost six times the gross of Scorsese's The Last Temptation in 1988.

Go look at hit films from 1990...Misery at $56 million, Kindergarten Cop in the $90 million range, Born on the 4th of July at $70 million, Red October at $122, House Party at $26, Pretty Woman at $178, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles at $135, Bird on a Wire at $72, Back to the Future Part III at $87, Total Recall at $119, Dick Tracy at $103, Days of Thunder at $82, Die Hard 2 at $117, Ghost at $217, Arachnophobia at $53, Presumed Innocent at $86, Young Guns II at $44, Flatliners at $61, Postcards from the Edge at $39, Wild at Heart at $14, Miller's Crossing at $5, Dances With Wolves at $184, Home Alone at $285, Predator 2 at $30, Edward Scissorhands at $56, Look Who's Talking Too at $47, Awakenings at $52, The Godfather Part III at $66.

GoodFellas also had a screen count of around 1000-1100 theaters...compared to today when some films open on 4,000 screens. Ticket prices were lower in 1990, fewer screens, smaller overall population...GoodFellas did fine, for the kind of film it was and the times, and not a film likely to find footing in foreign markets. It was never going to be a mass-market runaway smash like Pretty Woman or Ghost or Home Alone.

Today, we consider certain films disappointments when they don't hit $300 million -- call them flops, even. Today's $1 billion has become yesterday's $200 million.

And, as I've stated, this film nearing 100 million worldwide by the end of this week (if not more) is NOT bad business for a film like this.

This was not designed to be, nor was it ever going to be, a billion dollar franchise blockbuster.

And for the "Oppenheimer" obsessives in here, it wouldn't be that big either, except it got a massive push from that "Barbenheimer" conformity nonsense, and the fact that the guy who made it made 'Batman' movies these guys still fawn over. If it wasn't for his 'Batman' pedigree, and the 'Barbie' social media push, it wouldn't have done well, either. Oliver Stone once was going to make it, and had he made it the exact same way, it would have flopped.

[Ernest Rister]

I'm a big fan of Inception, Interstellar, and Dunkirk...and the Dark Knight trilogy. I'm caregiving for a parent with dementia, it's impossible to leave here for any chunk of time, let alone a film running three hours plus, so I'll have to wait for physical for both Oppenheimer and Flower Moon, but I'm looking forward to both...even though they're going to lose that big-screen magic, especially Oppenheimer's IMAX run.

[LordoftheRings]

What is happening!

Screenshot_20231031_114221_Chrome.jpg

The numbers don't lie; people vote with their wallets in masses.
And, budget of $200M versus $20M!

After only five days Five Nights @ Freddy's is @ over $150M worldwide!
It's a flick based on a survivor horror game for jesus christopher colombus sake!
Compared it with one of the top cinema grand masters of all time, Marty Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon which is based on one of the most troubling american true stories of all time ... the book.

What is happening in the world of cinema!
Is it because it's Halloween 🎃 time or what!

[dkelly26666]

"Killers" is at 94 million worldwide after Monday. By week's end, it will be over 100.