Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

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.

If someone wants to believe that KOTFM is the greatest film in the history of cinema, well, that's their perogative, and all power to them.

But when a film underperforms to the tune of $150M+, let's not lose touch with reality and state it's "NOT bad business."

It's not good business, that's for sure, and if it was anyone other than Scorsese, trust me when I tell you, they would be lucky to make another film with a major Hollywood studio.

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

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

You keep making this statement, and I'm not sure where you are getting this attitude and or information, so why not fill us in?

In my opinion, the book, in the right hands and with the right cast, provided a slam dunk opportunity to be highly profitable, perhaps as big as Barbie and Oppenheimer, as the last time I checked Yellowstone was a TV powerhouse, with an 100M+ strong audience which Scorsese basically told to take a hike with his comments well before KOTFM premiered. Which leads me to...

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

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.

Good luck with that argument anywhere in Hollywood. My advice is to keep that nugget to yourself, as anything else you may state will most likely be met with zero credibility.

As I've already stated, in my opinion Scorsese is one of the greatest directors of any era, and certainly one of the best directors still active.

That said, a Scorsese film hasn't hit me with the same impact as Casino did nearly 30 years ago. Not that his films over the interim have been bad, just running the gamut from good to very good to great. But nothing that I would classify as a masterpiece, and that is a statement from someone who has screened the original theatrical runs of all his films since 1980's Raging Bull.

Raging Bull, After Hours, Goodfellas, The Age Of Innocence and Casino? Every one a masterpiece.

But all the accolades in the world along with some of the greatest films of the last 50 years plus $150M+ loss still adds up to a $150M loss.

That's NOT Entertainment, never mind "NOT bad business," that's Hollywood, Business 101!

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

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

That’s great! But it’s sad that people determine whether a movie is “good” or not based purely on how much money it makes. In my day people used to be fans of movies not online cosplaying as Hollywood Accountants.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

What is happening!

Attachment 296374

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!

The internet created Barbenheimer, the internet created Gentleminions. A certain subset of the internet really loves FNAF, and they're coming out in force for their boy?

Similar to Dune 1984, FNAF has lore so deep that theaters could pass out primers to the audience. Or run them before the film, instead of the usual movie trivia "noovie" clips...think they'd ever do that?

Unlike Dune, FNAF can still be watched without needing to be familiar with the lore.


Since Marty's editor is outspoken on the social media, I'd like to know where the extra tens of millions for this film went, and why they're not showing up on screen in a year when Gareth Edwards proved that they ought to be.

Would it be too much to say that the writing in Edwards' The Creator was "mehdiocre" but this film's was on par? I'm not sure.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

That’s great! But it’s sad that people determine whether a movie is “good” or not based purely on how much money it makes. In my day people used to be fans of movies not online cosplaying as Hollywood Accountants.

Except no one is making that argument, and likewise no one is pretending to be an accountant.

It's basic math, and as far as how things used to be, box office and related profitability has always been at the core of the film industry since Georges Méliès, and Hollywood has always been about the Art of the Deal.

KOTFM is just a bad deal, and everything else is just an opinion about a movie, and frankly not that interesting unless you have some insight to share why it worked, or in this case, why it didn't.

All I've heard to date is a mix of 'it was too long,' or 'it was long but it wasn't an issue.'

Guess what that means?

Other than a $150M+ loss, of course.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

If someone wants to believe that KOTFM is the greatest film in the history of cinema, well, that's their perogative, and all power to them.

But when a film underperforms to the tune of $150M+, let's not lose touch with reality and state it's "NOT bad business."

It's not good business, that's for sure, and if it was anyone other than Scorsese, trust me when I tell you, they would be lucky to make another film with a major Hollywood studio.

[Show spoiler]

You keep making this statement, and I'm not sure where you are getting this attitude and or information, so why not fill us in?

In my opinion, the book, in the right hands and with the right cast, provided a slam dunk opportunity to be highly profitable, perhaps as big as Barbie and Oppenheimer, as the last time I checked Yellowstone was a TV powerhouse, with an 100M+ strong audience which Scorsese basically told to take a hike with his comments well before KOTFM premiered. Which leads me to...

Good luck with that argument anywhere in Hollywood. My advice is to keep that nugget to yourself, as anything else you may state will most likely be met with zero credibility.

As I've already stated, in my opinion Scorsese is one of the greatest directors of any era, and certainly one of the best directors still active.

That said, a Scorsese film hasn't hit me with the same impact as Casino did nearly 30 years ago. Not that his films over the interim have been bad, just running the gamut from good to very good to great. But nothing that I would classify as a masterpiece, and that is a statement from someone who has screened the original theatrical runs of all his films since 1980's Raging Bull.

Raging Bull, After Hours, Goodfellas, The Age Of Innocence and Casino? Every one a masterpiece.

But all the accolades in the world along with some of the greatest films of the last 50 years plus $150M+ loss still adds up to a $150M loss.

That's NOT Entertainment, never mind "NOT bad business," that's Hollywood, Business 101!

And this is exactly why the movie business has been dumbed down to the point of the lowest common denominator.

A great film is considered a disappointment and a failure if the Barbie-loving, Marvel Comic obsessed cretins don't go to see it.

...it's beyond depressing that this is the world we live in.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

And this is exactly why the movie business has been dumbed down to the point of the lowest common denominator.

A great film is considered a disappointment and a failure if the Barbie-loving, Marvel Comic obsessed cretins don't go to see it.

...it's beyond depressing that this is the world we live in.

If you want to see the movie business in that light, that's your business, and you obviously have lots of company.

From my perspective, your statement, and those like it, basically dumping on everyone, CBMs and their fans, Barbie, Nolan, audiences in general, streaming, blah blah blah, holding everyone and everything with a slew of excuses accountable, except the one person that is responsible, Scorsese, doesn't hold any water.

Why? Nolan basically did the same as Scorsese, adapting a phenomenal book, in his case American Prometheus, and blew expectations up with $1B box office for a $100M film, accelerating the shoot to keep the film under budget.

Unlike Scorsese, he didn't dump all over the source material and try to make a $100M film a $200M film for the prestige, and instead put his money where his mouth was by directing a film that stands as an equal in achievement that appeals to everyone.

Where in this thread is anyone stating the film KOTFM holds a candle to the book?

Nobody.

That's right, nobody.

And not to put too fine a point on it, the people who are stating KOTFM is a great film, a masterpiece in instances, aren't making a very convincing argument when they state the film is a grim guilt trip, far too long and the Bobby & Leo Show not up to snuff. It's no wonder the film is underperforming. Who in their right mind wants that BS on a Saturday night?

C'mon. I enjoy cinematic craft as much as the next guy, but if that is the primary driver, to state 'this is cinema,' count me out. Do you believe for one moment that's how the greatest films in cinema were made?

And I'll tell you something else. Scorsese took a dump all over Marvel, their fans and all of Hollywood, but the Russo Brothers directed not one, but two films where no one was crying about a 3-hour run time, but instead laughed out loud, stood up, cheered, and everyone walked out feeling great.

In fact, they went back to the theater in droves, to the tune of nearly $5B, as in billions, of dollars.

KOTFM?

$100M back on a $200M film, not including marketing and promotion, and a bunch of people croaking, 'thaaaaaattttttt's cinnnnnnema,' as they stumble silently out of their seats, desperately trying to get their circulation back, the guilty weight of the American Experience dragging them down into a depression so deep all they want to do at that moment is crawl up into a ball of BS and die of shame.

That's not business. That's bankruptcy.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

What is happening!

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!

Five Nights has the younger audience who mostly don't care to see a 3 1/2 hour drama.

[Flash3000]

My head hurts.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

That’s great! But it’s sad that people determine whether a movie is “good” or not based purely on how much money it makes. In my day people used to be fans of movies not online cosplaying as Hollywood Accountants.

Precisely. I'm afraid I've fallen far too often to responding to these 'industry insiders', LOL, in these threads, who use yardsticks to measure penis size based on box office performance, as if it's ever been any indication of a film's quality. But of course, tell them that, and they have a field day mocking you about how their crap made tons more, just like that bonehead 'Avengers' guy just did to Scorsese.

Honestly, you should really only care about the box office if you've personally got a stake in the film. otherwise, it should be immaterial to you.

And the, "The people have spoken with their wallets" argument is actually quite laughable, as we all should know the masses are asses.

I concede to falling prey to fighting back at them, LOL. This thread is looking more and more though like just a series of ignored posts for me. Heaven help me. Maybe they'll all move over to the "Napoleon" thread in a couple of weeks, LOL.


PS: I just love the "I work in the industry" guy who claimed Thelma Schoonmaker's editing was bad, LOL.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

[/SPOILER]

And this is exactly why the movie business has been dumbed down to the point of the lowest common denominator.

A great film is considered a disappointment and a failure if the Barbie-loving, Marvel Comic obsessed cretins don't go to see it.

...it's beyond depressing that this is the world we live in.

Finally, my reinforcements have shown up, LOL.

Been fighting the good fight for days, LOL.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

How much of the ennui for the film is due to the title? It sounds vaguely poetic and Oscar-bait. More importantly, it's not descriptive or catchy, at least not unless you know the source material (who does?).

Shades of when Clint Eastwood went Oscar-fishing with "Gran Torino" instead of catering to his base by calling it, oh, "Get Off My Lawn"

Or Clint's "Cry Macho"

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

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

Yeah, it's gaining momentum.

Originally Posted by russweiss1

Five Nights has the younger audience who mostly don't care to see a 3 1/2 hour drama.

Two very good points indeed. It's Halloween time...kids time.

3½ hours is a long time to sit in a theater, plus the previews.
Better not drink before ...
The dialog was loud and clear? Editing impeccable? Music score punchy?

Still, the better film by a huge shot is the later. It just don't mean a thing business wise.
The way people are entertained is the way films are made to be viewed on a big screen.
Which films are best suited for that? IMAX, Avatar, Titanic, Lord of the Rings ... Oppenheimer ...

To be entertained is to be fully involved visually, auditory, sensory, emotionally, entirely grab factor. Where can it be? Where it was meant to be, or somewhere else anywhere?

And money has zero to do with full immersive entertainment ... Batman, Spider-Man, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and all.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Maybe they'll all move over to the "Napoleon" thread in a couple of weeks, LOL.

You can bank on it.

"Ridley hasn't made a good film in 30 years."

[Hedrox]

Maybe we should have a separate boxoffice section in the forum, because it's pretty obvious most people in the movie thread don't like seeing too much talk about this aspect.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

...just like that bonehead 'Avengers' guy just did to Scorsese.

Unlike you, I don't need to personalize a difference in opinion to validate my arguments.

That said, I understand. You, like many others in this thread, obviously believe by simply citing your appreciation for a director with the stature of Scorsese, combined with your contempt for those with different opinions then your own, somehow imparts a halo effect whereby you can comfortably espouse about 'cinema' and 'art' with no regard for reality as if you actually possessed knowledge about one or the other.

It must be difficult to be continually proven wrong, time and again, as you desperately post box office numbers hand in hand with gems suggesting that these numbers are 'NOT bad business,' and that Apple is not interested in the profitability of KOTFM.

It's funny, you know. Your posts. It's a good thread, it's funny, you're a funny guy.

In other news, Apple recently announced the new price of Apple TV+ is now $9.99 a month in the U.S., up from $6.99 previously, an increase of approximately 40%.

Of course, the internet has come up with a nifty new name for the increase.

/the_scorsese_tax

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

You can bank on it.

"Ridley hasn't made a good film in 30 years."

I've enjoyed several of Ridley's films from the last 30 years, Gladiator being my favorite.

[Shin sam]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Precisely. I'm afraid I've fallen far too often to responding to these 'industry insiders', LOL, in these threads, who use yardsticks to measure penis size based on box office performance, as if it's ever been any indication of a film's quality. But of course, tell them that, and they have a field day mocking you about how their crap made tons more, just like that bonehead 'Avengers' guy just did to Scorsese.

Honestly, you should really only care about the box office if you've personally got a stake in the film. otherwise, it should be immaterial to you.

And the, "The people have spoken with their wallets" argument is actually quite laughable, as we all should know the masses are asses.

I concede to falling prey to fighting back at them, LOL. This thread is looking more and more though like just a series of ignored posts for me. Heaven help me. Maybe they'll all move over to the "Napoleon" thread in a couple of weeks, LOL.


PS: I just love the "I work in the industry" guy who claimed Thelma Schoonmaker's editing was bad, LOL.

I do work in the industry. And there were some poor edits. Nothing major that the general public would spot. But for QC opps like me, there noticeable. Stop blindly defending stuff. It was an observation that probably wouldn't even have been mentioned if it wasn't for the other issues.

[slumcat]

The Scorsese dick riding here is nauseating. He's just a director, right? People act like he's the second son of god, completely above reproach, and cannot be criticized at all - nor his films.

**** that.

Someone's opinion saying that he's a talentless hack sellout and that his films are a steaming pile of horse shit is just as valid as someone who thinks Scorsese is the second coming of christ.

The scoffing at anyone expressing remotely any reservation about Scorsese or his films is bizarre.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by 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.

I wouldn't want to have scenes removed from the film.

Originally Posted by slumcat

The Scorsese dick riding here is nauseating. He's just a director, right? People act like he's the second son of god, completely above reproach, and cannot be criticized at all - nor his films.

**** that.

Nothing but strawman arguments here. People defending his work is apparently "dick riding." I would love to see what you would call the Marvel fanboys who can't take criticism of their beloved IP. Everyone is also free to criticise his films. You live in a fantasy world if you think he has never received criticism. Ebert, probably his most notable champion, had negative things to say, for example about The Colour of Money.

Originally Posted by slumcat

Someone's opinion saying that he's a talentless hack sellout and that his films are a steaming pile of horse shit is just as valid as someone who thinks Scorsese is the second coming of christ.

The scoffing at anyone expressing remotely any reservation about Scorsese or his films is bizarre.

I mean, sure, in a vacuum maybe, but I sure as hell wouldn't take anyone with this opinion seriously. They would be ignored. The fact that people are affected by his words shows how much reverence they have for his work. If it was some nobody who made those statements, no one would care. It's because it's Scorsese who has made many great films that they take notice (and offence) because he is someone who loves films and yet cannot get behind these franchise blockbusters. It's telling them something, and in response they retort something about box office as if that has any relation to quality. They also claim his films aren't even good: a coping mechanism.

I've yet to see any substantial rebuttal of his criticism of the approach taken with most of these superhero films and how they aren't in fact like theme park rides. Look at any reaction video of them and it's very clearly that kind of experience.

[Zivouhr]

Will try to see this film soon if possible.

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 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.

Thanks. I'm basing it on the budget versus the attendance/ticket sales, not the $47 million, which I agree, was really good for back then. Of course if a film cost $25 million about to make and another $5 million for promotion, there's not a big profit there if theaters get half of the $47 million attendance.

As far back as 2002, I remember a film that "only" earned $56 million or so, and that was considered a success in my eyes back then even.