Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Killers is the true competition to Oppenheimer @ the Oscars.

The rest is ... simply put ... second class whiskey. ...Poor Things, Barbie, The Holdovers ... and gang.

It is what it is

So you've written off Napoleon without even seeing it?

Killers is a movie about a very controversial subject. Just like Oppenheimer. That may preclude any Best Picture AA.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Instead, that thread is mostly circle-jerking about how close to a billion this, essentially a comic book movie (it appeals to the same crowd), got at the box office.

This makes no sense. What does Oppenheimer have to do with CBM aside from the fact that Nolan directed some (over 10 years ago at this point)? And in my opinion, his first two are vastly superior to essentially anything Disney's Marvel put out ever. His films are more of an exception and weren't really made in the same way a lot of these other franchise films are made, so it gets a pass in my book. It's still Nolan's vision in a lot of ways.

Oppenheimer is really lightning in a bottle. It isn't just that it's Nolan who is one of the few current directors that can make original films which bring in audiences, but even for him this film's success is unprecedented in recent times. Somehow it made more than Inception which was very anticipated at the time and much less of a serious subject matter. I think the Barbenheimer phenomenon is the most significant factor.

For the Oscars, the only reason I think Oppenheimer is more likely to get a director win is because Scorsese already has one. We know the Oscars work like this... I think Lily Gladstone is very likely to get best actress, though.

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

I personally know around 2 dozen people who ALL went out to see it, the theater and studio got their money, but they ALL say it was "just OK". I haven't heard anyone among co-workers, friends, family, acquaintances, etc. actually rave about it. I haven't heard anyone slam it, either, but I haven't heard those fanboy raves in real life. I've heard from people, "It was pretty good" or it was "alright".

This makes me sad in a way. The hope was that Oppenheimer was an indication that audiences want more adult-oriented films and this would usher in a new dawn of the types of films made. No one film should have that on its shoulders, so I hope that's more to do with its style and less to do with the tone or subject matter. If it really is all down to the meme and hype then that's depressing. Were people generally not genuinely interested in seeing these for the films themselves? I was planning to see both regardless.


This sort of links back to how films box office works these days. It's too much about opening weekend, i.e. the time when almost one else has seen a film yet. Both of these had good legs, but only by today's standards. The longer theatrical windows of the past favoured films that had good word-of-mouth, while the opening weekend focus favours hype and therefore marketing and brands. Not quality.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by t-mel

I think the Barbenheimer phenomenon is the most significant factor.

I think you're probably mostly right there. At the same time, I've argued for years that Nolan has a sort-of built-in audience that other 'serious directors' don't have because he once made 'Batman' movies.

It's not a criticism of his work, itself. It's saying, if this guy had only ever made the likes of "Insomnia" and "Dunkirk" and what-not, and then he made "Oppenheimer", it would most certainly (also combined with "Barbenheimer") would not have made 900 million dollars.

The film is a very good film. I'm more questioning the audience draw. It had a lot of other helpful considerations, that a lot of other serious or historical films don't have.

BTW, the earlier 'John Q. Public' post is satire.

I just had to irritate my favorite poster.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So you've written off Napoleon without even seeing it?

Killers is a movie about a very controversial subject. Just like Oppenheimer. That may preclude any Best Picture AA.

I forgot about Napoleon (my mistake); was it a grave omission? Yes it certainly could.

You can also say that Barbie and Poor Things are somehow controversial as well.
More so in some countries than others.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

You can also say that Barbie and Poor Things are somehow controversial as well.
More so in some countries than others.

Really? You can't honestly believe that BS. Barbie controversial? Poor Things is nothing more than a retelling of Frankenstein - for the 97th time. Both are fiction - made up.

These two are non-fiction. Part of history:

Oppenheimer - we used his invention to kill 500,000+ Japanese civilians.

Killers of the Flower Moon - Whites were killing Native Americans to get their oil rich land.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Really? You can't honestly believe that BS. Barbie controversial? Poor Things is nothing more than a retelling of Frankenstein - for the 97th time. Both are fiction - made up.

These two are non-fiction. Part of history:

Oppenheimer - we used his invention to kill 500,000+ Japanese civilians.

Killers of the Flower Moon - Whites were killing Native Americans to get their oil rich land.

"Poor Things" may only be controversial because it is supposedly quite sexually explicit.

Both films contain a feminist sentiment, if that is controversial in some misogynistic culture, who cares?

I may well agree with the feminist sentiment in "Barbie", but it's just not my thing. I hope a lot of people had a great time with it.

"Poor Things", on the other hand, is on my must-see radar.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Really? You can't honestly believe that BS. Barbie controversial? Poor Things is nothing more than a retelling of Frankenstein - for the 97th time. Both are fiction - made up.

These two are non-fiction. Part of history:

Oppenheimer - we used his invention to kill 500,000+ Japanese civilians.

Killers of the Flower Moon - Whites were killing Native Americans to get their oil rich land.

Yes really; to the most sensitive ones...sex and voodoo taboo stuff from Timbuktu.
You no probemo Lee, you are made tough, durable, from steel.
I, I'm in it for the cinematic ride. The smoother the better.

Historic films made from true events are important for the knowledge of not repeating violence twice. That, we've never learned. That's our downside.

Killers is an important American historic film. Same for Oppenheimer.
There's a film right now that is being played out based on true real events.

[slumcat]

None of the films mentioned above are remotely daring or subversive enough to be even remotely controversial. Barbie and Oppenheimer controversial? Their sub billion dollar gross says otherwise.

I long for the days when you had to be Salo to be called controversial.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by slumcat

None of the films mentioned above are remotely daring or subversive enough to be even remotely controversial. Barbie and Oppenheimer controversial? Their sub billion dollar gross says otherwise.

I long for the days when you had to be Salo to be called controversial.

Say that to the Japanese people.

Barbie is in another league, morality and a multitude of other reasons.
Different countries different reasons.
Just Google Barbie vs controversies

▪︎ https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movi...sm-1234792205/

Killers of Oklahoma are a bunch of greedy uptonogood killers of the peaceful moon.
They were not humans, they were carnivores from the prehistoric stone age.
Some of that blood still exists to the present day.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by slumcat

None of the films mentioned above are remotely daring or subversive enough to be even remotely controversial. Barbie and Oppenheimer controversial? Their sub billion dollar gross says otherwise.

I long for the days when you had to be Salo to be called controversial.

Box Office success and winning the Best Picture AA are two totally different events. One does not equal the other.

Winner of Best Picture AA for 2023 = Everything Everywhere All at Once ($141.13 million USD)

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Box Office success and winning the Best Picture AA are two totally different events. One does not equal the other.

Winner of Best Picture AA for 2023 = Everything Everywhere All at Once ($141.13 million USD)

Everything Everywhere cost 14.3 million which means it made 10X boxoffice.

Oppenheimer cost 100 million which means it made 9.5X boxoffice.

Barbie cost 100 million which means it made 14.5X boxoffice.

They aren't that far apart percentage wise.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Say that to the Japanese people.

Barbie is in another league, morality and a multitude of other reasons.
Different countries different reasons.
Just Google Barbie vs controversies

▪︎ https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movi...sm-1234792205/

Killers of Oklahoma are a bunch of greedy uptonogood killers of the peaceful moon.
They were not humans, they were carnivores from the prehistoric stone age.
Some of that blood still exists to the present day.

Nolan didn't glamorize the atomic bomb, i don't get the controversial part...it is an anti war movie like any other

[Cremildo]

A 25% drop this weekend. It has stabilized nicely. Won't turn a profit theatrically due to the humongous budget, but it's not a bomb with audiences.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Box Office success and winning the Best Picture AA are two totally different events. One does not equal the other.

Winner of Best Picture AA for 2023 = Everything Everywhere All at Once ($141.13 million USD)

There is absolutely nothing preventing Barbie or Oppenheimer on Killers from winning best picture. Zilch. To say otherwise is to invent a fiction for the sake of it.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by slumcat

There is absolutely nothing preventing Barbie or Oppenheimer on Killers from winning best picture. Zilch. To say otherwise is to invent a fiction for the sake of it.

Gentleman's wager - none of the three will win it.

[sanriel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Gentleman's wager - none of the three will win it.

We live in an illogical and unfair world so you are probably right

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by slip220

Nolan didn't glamorize the atomic bomb, i don't get the controversial part...it is an anti war movie like any other

I know. It still remains a sensitive matter in American history; for the entire world, especially for the Japanese people.

War sucks, bombs suck, atomic bombs suck. Killing innocent people is against the fundamental right of life. The human race is the most dangerous race on planet Earth.
▪︎ The Most Dangerous Animals in the World

I hate rats. Mosquitoes are bad. Humans are the worst of the worst.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Gentleman's wager - none of the three will win it.

I actually think one of them has a very good chance. right now i'd bet money on Oppenheimer. The only other films besides these 3 i see with a winning chance are American Fiction or Poor Things. But Oppenheimer probably takes it.

Which is a tragedy.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by slumcat

I actually think one of them has a very good chance. right now i'd bet money on Oppenheimer. The only other films besides these 3 i see with a winning chance are American Fiction or Poor Things. But Oppenheimer probably takes it.

Which is a tragedy.

How about Napoleon?

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by slumcat

There is absolutely nothing preventing Barbie or Oppenheimer or Killers from winning best picture. Zilch. To say otherwise is to invent a fiction for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Gentleman's wager - none of the three will win it.

Originally Posted by sanriel

We live in an illogical and unfair world so you are probably right

Originally Posted by slumcat

I actually think one of them has a very good chance. right now i'd bet money on Oppenheimer. The only other films besides these 3 i see with a winning chance are American Fiction or Poor Things. But Oppenheimer probably takes it.

Which is a tragedy.

Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer have equal chance of winning Best Picture @ the next Oscars. But there's still Napoléon to make its entrance on the stage.

And we all know that in Hollywood anything and everything can happen ... Barbie, Poor Things, The Holdovers, ...

It's going to be a killer Oscars this year. Pink will be aplenty, that's fo shure.