Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[By_His_Strypes]

It's likely that People that curse at a movie screen are beyond help...

[DukeTogo84]

Originally Posted by Poya

2 hours in, one guy walked out, struck his middle fingers out and said "f this movie!". It's a damn shame.

Something similar happened when I watched Silence in theaters. It was the scene where Andrew Garfield was looking in the water and saw Jesus. Guy next to me said "F*ck this" and got up and left after telling his much older parents that he couldn't stand the film anymore. Scorsese going to strike some cords.

[Pieter V]

Theatrical Performance
Domestic Box Office $9,400,000

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

$9,400,000

Forecasted to tally $23M for the opening weekend, it's mind-boggling that this film cost upwards of $250M to produce/market, yet stands a good chance of not clearing $100M at the box office.

The Wolf debuted with an $18M opening weekend and went on to clear $116M, but that was one hell of a ride with Leo as Leo with Margo, plenty of f*cks, spoken, given, performed, and to best of my knowledge, no reports of 'f*uck this.'

[BluRayTim]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Forecasted to tally $23M for the opening weekend, it's mind-boggling that this film cost upwards of $250M to produce/market, yet stands a good chance of not clearing $100M at the box office.

The Wolf debuted with an $18M opening weekend and went on to clear $116M, but that was one hell of a ride with Leo as Leo with Margo, plenty of f*cks, spoken, given, performed, and to best of my knowledge, no reports of 'f*uck this.'

Yes, it is mind boggling. Madea’s Witness Protection, Tyler Perry’s worst movie by far and, by far, one of the worst movies ever overall, cost $20,000,000 to make and made $67,000,000. That’s a hit, even if it’s only by a small amount.

Outside of Eugene Levy, Madea’s Witness Protection has the absolute worst cast, especially that pig Denise Richards.

Yet Killers Of The Flower Moon, which has an indescribably better cast, will probably be neutral at best at the box office. That’s the ultimate d*mn shame!

[russweiss1]

The 3 1/2 hour runtime is a huge detriment to getting people to the theater. Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro don't change that.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Theatrical Performance
Domestic Box Office $9,400,000

A million less than Taylor Swift

[slip220]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

The 3 1/2 hour runtime is a huge detriment to getting people to the theater. Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro don't change that.

Also people are expecting it to drop on the apple streaming service.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Forecasted to tally $23M for the opening weekend, it's mind-boggling that this film cost upwards of $250M to produce/market, yet stands a good chance of not clearing $100M at the box office.

The Wolf debuted with an $18M opening weekend and went on to clear $116M, but that was one hell of a ride with Leo as Leo with Margo, plenty of f*cks, spoken, given, performed, and to best of my knowledge, no reports of 'f*uck this.'

And, as you've said yourself before, Apple doesn't need it to make big box office.


They were orignally making this just for their streaming service, exclusively.


The theatrical release is a bonus. So was Cannes.

Still, 23 mil for an opening weekend for a 3 1/2 hour R-rated movie not aimed at the kids isn't that bad.

[AnthonyGG]

Saw this last night. Very well done, really no complaints other than the length. At 3 and a half hours, I definitely felt the running time a little bit after the feds showed up.

Apparently there are some people unhappy with the content of the film. All I can say is this is based on true events and isn't Scorsese pushing some kind of agenda to attract attention and kudos. We've all seen films that wave their flag in order to signal it's on board with the latest political hot topic and we roll our eyes when we know it's all for show and pathetic. This isn't one of those films as far as I'm concerned.

[Captain Keen]

This movie doesn’t have to make a single cent.

Apple actually gave Scorsese and company MORE money than they asked for, just because.

Same was true for The Irishman. It’s one of the good things about streaming (and there are many, many bad things about it too), movies like this couldn’t be made at this scope or runtime if they needed to break even at the box office. This movie does not have to make money.

Honestly it sounds like the film is over performing if anything. It’s a depressing, mostly dialogue driven movie about a difficult historical subject that is 3 and a half hours long. Of course we saw a similar thing with Oppenheimer, except that one actually made a huge profit and nearly hit a billion, but again that was a different release strategy too. Regardless, grosses are essentially irrelevant for Killers of the Flower Moon.

For the record I really liked the film, though if anything I kinda wish it had been a miniseries rather than a feature. I would have liked to see more of the Osage Nation both before and after the events of the film, and could have spent more time with the characters once the BOI starts investigating too. With that said, the ending scenes were very moving. It’s a very good movie and Scorsese continues to push himself as a filmmaker. Lily Gladstone was fantastic, as was De Niro, but I kinda think Leo may have been a little bit miscast. He IS a good actor though.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

When history becomes uncomfortable, we simply excise the truth from the narrative arc and cower from the threat of modern sensibility.

Exactly. It’s what our culture has been doing for the past hundred years and even longer. We’re well overdue for not only an honest “warts and all” perspective of history, but especially one that challenges our own conceits that atrocities such as those depicted in Killers of the Flower Moon are merely distant relics of the past and isolated communities, instead of being wholly organic to our nation’s ongoing heritage of exploiting and marginalizing disfavored groups in our society.

While Martin Scorsese is almost certainly not the ideal creative artist to be at the vanguard of any such movement, he at least doesn’t make the common, fatal mistake here of providing us an easy escape route, compelling us to

[Show spoiler]accompany DiCaprio’s complicit Ernest Burkhart right to the bitter end

.

[format916]

I actually kinda liked it. Not perfect. And not as much as a slog as I was expecting. When Jesse Plemons shows up is when I really felt the movie come to a halt. Brendan Fraser is terrible. The movie is slow, but incredibly and freakishly QUIET. I almost think the sound mix is off? Soft dialogue. Be prepared to hear a pin drop and maybe even Taylor Swift playing in the next theater.

I think it’s better than The Irishman in that I would actually sit through it again. Also

[Show spoiler] I’m glad they did not include the piece of dialogue from the trailer “What color is your skin” because I thought that was truly awful writing!

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

And, as you've said yourself before, Apple doesn't need it to make big box office... Still, 23 mil for an opening weekend for a 3 1/2 hour R-rated movie not aimed at the kids isn't that bad.

While it is true that Apple is unconcerned if the film fails to show a profit, as opposed to providing a solid ROI demonstrated by award nominations and Apple TV+ subscriptions, Hollywood loves success.

A $23M opening weekend doesn't smell like success to me.

Originally Posted by Captain Keen

Honestly it sounds like the film is over performing if anything. It’s a depressing, mostly dialogue driven movie about a difficult historical subject that is 3 and a half hours long. Of course we saw a similar thing with Oppenheimer, except that one actually made a huge profit and nearly hit a billion, but again that was a different release strategy too. Regardless, grosses are essentially irrelevant for Killers of the Flower Moon.

Not sure if I'm following you here, but assuming that you are referring to Oppenheimer as a theatrical-first release as opposed to KOTFM as a streaming-centric release with a theatrical open, I would say Oppenheimer over-performed by blowing past expectations with $80M in the US, international adding another $93.7M for a global tally of $174M.

So, no, I don't believe KOTFM over-performed, and while I never expected the film to come anywhere close to Oppenheimer, it seems to me that the box office has validated Paramount's decision to cut Scorsese & Co. loose, and has made Apple appear foolish by simply writing him a blank check.

The bottom line here is simply KOTFM is not a film deserving a $250M+ budget.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Exactly. It’s what our culture has been doing for the past hundred years and even longer. We’re well overdue for not only an honest “warts and all” perspective of history, but especially one that challenges our own conceits that atrocities such as those depicted in Killers of the Flower Moon are merely distant relics of the past and isolated communities, instead of being wholly organic to our nation’s ongoing heritage of exploiting and marginalizing disfavored groups in our society.

The thing is, if we're looking at a 'warts and all' perspective of history, we must remember the Osage were a feared, war-centric tribe who dominated their region supported by considerable acts of violence against their fellow indigenous tribes, and also that the Osage received some measure of justice from the very same government, and people, which sought to conquer and control their people and resources.

That's the history of humanity right there, conquer or be conquered, and the race, region, ethnicity, country of origin, and every other label one seeks to apply to serve their self-interest, or 'side,' is simply window dressing.

Our capacity to commit acts of violence to serve our self-interest, often extreme, is who we are as humans, and how we know that we are all equals.

It's also true that we are capable of great compassion and a desire to seek the truth, and if possible, do what is right, even for those we may not hold as equals or perhaps enemies, past or present.

These lessons are the centerpiece of the book, Killers Of The Flower Moon by David Grann, and while may have to wait until I see the film for myself to find these lessons, something tells me I may have to look very hard to find it.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

While it is true that Apple is unconcerned if the film fails to show a profit, as opposed to providing a solid ROI demonstrated by award nominations and Apple TV+ subscriptions, Hollywood loves success.

A $23M opening weekend doesn't smell like success to me.

Not sure if I'm following you here, but assuming that you are referring to Oppenheimer as a theatrical-first release as opposed to KOTFM as a streaming-centric release with a theatrical open, I would say Oppenheimer over-performed by blowing past expectations with $80M in the US, international adding another $93.7M for a global tally of $174M.

So, no, I don't believe KOTFM over-performed, and while I never expected the film to come anywhere close to Oppenheimer, it seems to me that the box office has validated Paramount's decision to cut Scorsese & Co. loose, and has made Apple appear foolish by simply writing him a blank check.

The bottom line here is simply KOTFM is not a film deserving a $250M+ budget.

We can all see the film. There is absolutely zero reason for the film to have a 250 million dollar price tag. Zero, zilch.

There are periods sets and costumes but nothing out of the way or nothing that you don't see on TV or even indie films. There's some minor action scenes. And there's some VFX work.

I literally don't even like Oppenheimer and it cost less than half and comparatively looks like a more expensive movie.

So where's the 250 million dollars? it sure isn't up on the screen. I know Dicaprio cost 30 mil. Maybe Deniro 20 mil. Maybe Scorsese 20 mil.

But besides that? Not a single "name" in the cast whereas Oppenheimer is FILLED with huge make actors.

So yes color me perplexed, where on earth did the 250 million go?

[UltraMario9]

"Are you real?"

"I could be real."


Haunting.

[eledoremassis02]

Originally Posted by Poya

2 hours in, one guy walked out, struck his middle fingers out and said "f this movie!". It's a damn shame.

I read the book, can you spoiler at what point he walked out (his breaking point). I am interested to see what broke him

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

The 3 1/2 hour runtime is a huge detriment to getting people to the theater. Scorsese, DiCaprio, and De Niro don't change that.

That's a tough one. How long was Endgame? I was absolutely needing to use the restroom by the last act and my ability to focus on the finale was impacted for sure.

Love having a pause button and nearby plumbing at home.

[Zivouhr]

The Lord of the Rings films were each 3 hours about, so that was an investment of time too, but they did really well theatrically along with Avatar 2's 3 hours and 12 minute runtime. So it's possible this can do well also.

For the movie, I am interested to see how it plays out based on the trailers. It looks promising.
Hopefully it'll arrive on disc format if I don't get a good chance to see it. The Irishman thankfully made it on DVD, blu ray instead of only the pay streaming service. Or let us rent it digitally if not on disc at least.

If this cost $250m to make, that reminds me of Dances with Wolves. Nevermind, that cost $22m to make, but made $424m in theaters. The lower they can get the budget, the potentially better. I wonder if the racingcars in this film were CGI? I'm not sure as it was a short clip but that would cost a lot for CGI.