Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

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.

In your opinion, what would a successful (from an artistic standpoint) filmization of Killers of the Flower Moon look like?

Please don't just say "shoot what Grann wrote". Would be interested in hearing you elaborate on your vision for the movie adaptation?

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Boxoffice does not dictate on whether it's a good film or not.

I know…I loved Indy Dial, Dead Reckoning, Shazam Fury, The Flash

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by Mikezilla3k

Plus Transformers Age Of Extinction was the #1 film of 2014 and no one likes it.

Box Office shouldn't be used to go pointed fingers and mock films as if it's the be-all-end-all. This goes both ways as well.

I liked it (Transformers Age of Extinction).

Box office bomb means not enough people are going to go see the film for it to turn a profit. Something about the movie has turned people off or from wanting to see it.

I thought the trailer for Killer Moon was great. I am the one if the biggest defenders on here for The Flash, I absoF#CKINlutely loved it and bought the Walmart Icon edition day one and saw it four times in the theater yet it was a huge money loser. Lots of forum members hated it.

I never said Box Office Bomb was a measure of whether the film is good or bad, that is an individual subjective judgment.

The Oscars anointing a film at this point means nothing, neither do film critics who I’ve railed against. They couldn’t even see the value of Where The Crawdads
Sing.

So I will be back once I see Killer Moon to comment on whether I liked it or not.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

I liked it (Transformers Age of Extinction).

Box office bomb means not enough people are going to go see the film for it to turn a profit. Something about the movie has turned people off or from wanting to see it.

I thought the trailer for Killer Moon was great. I am the one if the biggest defenders on here for The Flash, I absoF#CKINlutely loved it and bought the Walmart Icon edition day one and saw it four times in the theater yet it was a huge money loser. Lots of forum members hated it.

I never said Box Office Bomb was a measure of whether the film is good or bad, that is an individual subjective judgment.

The Oscars anointing a film at this point means nothing, neither do film critics who I’ve railed against. They couldn’t even see the value of Where The Crawdads
Sing.

So I will be back once I see Killer Moon to comment on whether I liked it or not.

It's the sensitive crowd that somehow can't fathom sitting still for a 3.5 hour film. They either have to be on their phone or simply don't have the discipline to not eat/drink something that will make them have to go to the bathroom during the showtime. Too much effort is expected from these people that they would rather stay home. I'd say the subject matter would be a distant second, because it is heavy and dark.

[50strat54]

Right now I’m watching the World Series and listening to Weathervanes by Jason Isbell who apparently wrote the music while starring in Killer Moon.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

It's the sensitive crowd that somehow can't fathom sitting still for a 3.5 hour film. They either have to be on their phone or simply don't have the discipline to not eat/drink something that will make them have to go to the bathroom during the showtime. Too much effort is expected from these people that they would rather stay home. I'd say the subject matter would be a distant second, because it is heavy and dark.

It simply isn't a well paced film. And there are other 3 hr plus films this year that do it right - but not Killers.

Killers is paced like a TV series. Well then it probably should have been one.

I still think Killers is ultimately a good film - but i'm not going to defend its length. I have critisized even 2 hr films for being longer than necessary. So critisizing a 3.5 hr film for being too long is fair game.

[50strat54]

Oppenheimer worked.

One of the best films of the year.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Oppenheimer worked.

One of the best films of the year.

I think Killers is a better film than Oppenheimer, too.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Oppenheimer worked.

One of the best films of the year.

Oppenheimer was badly paced too and needed snipping.

Neither Oppenheimer or Killers should be in the conversation for best of the year but sadly both will be.

[Shin sam]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

And does part of your job entail QC'ing film editing from an artistic standpoint? Or, can you elaborate on what you mean by "poor edits"?

To some degree, yes. The poor edits I refer to, are, as I say minor but jars me along with the audio issues. Someone in a chair on a close up start to get up, cut to the wide shot and their getting up again. Minor, yes, but noticeable. Again, I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't for the other issues. One particular poor one was when the house bomb went off. DiCaprio jumps out of bed, looking out the window. Mouth visibly closed the whole time but ADR lines added. My main issue was the whole sound mix. It wasn't just my cinema. Dialogue levels way too low. Not a creative decision but an issue with the DCP. This should have been flagged by the post house and corrected.

[EvaDK]

I agree that Killers could lose 30 mins and no one would be the wiser. Some scenes with Leo and Robert could be cut entirely. A solid film, but the narrative focus sometimes feels misplaced. A significant improvement over The Irishman, which I just didn't care for at all.

[Hedrox]

Money really isn't a problem for Apple. According to Variety, they paid Leo $30M for this role, Pitt is also getting $30M for his upcoming F1 movie and Will Smith got $35M for last year's Emancipation. These obviously include the backend bonus, since Apple can't guarantee a % of theatrical gross, but even so they are absolutely ridiculous salaries.

On the other end of the spectrum you have actors like Adam Driver who took a big pay cut just so Ferrari could get made, and the cast of Oppenheimer all taking pay cuts for the opportunity to work with Nolan and free up as much of the movie's budget. If they had to pay Robert Downey, Jr. his usual $20-25M fee (he did it for $4M), that alone would've eaten 1/4th of the movie's current budget.

[slip220]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

Money really isn't a problem for Apple. According to Variety, they paid Leo $30M for this role, Pitt is also getting $30M for his upcoming F1 movie and Will Smith got $35M for last year's Emancipation. These obviously include the backend bonus, since Apple can't guarantee a % of theatrical gross, but even so they are absolutely ridiculous salaries.

On the other end of the spectrum you have actors like Adam Driver who took a big pay cut just so Ferrari could get made, and the cast of Oppenheimer all taking pay cuts for the opportunity to work with Nolan and free up as much of the movie's budget. If they had to pay Robert Downey, Jr. his usual $20-25M fee (he did it for $4M), that alone would've eaten 1/4th of the movie's current budget.

They are increase subscription prices, someone has to pay

[levcore]

It's mad that those big names are still getting that kind of money for what amounts to mostly streaming content.

Especially Smith getting 35mil for a movie nobody saw that came out after he torpedoed his own career.

[klauswhereareyou]

The Russo Bros. The Gray Man cost 200 million to make and made $454,023 in theaters. Guess Netflix passed the buck onto their subscribers in that instance.

[t-mel]

I think the film was very well paced. I was constantly engaged and the scenes transitioned between each other flawlessly. Perhaps too flawlessly because I lost sense of the track of time in the story, with only references to their children helping me orient myself.

Which 30 mins would you cut? People always make vague statements like this but are never specific. And I am always suspicious of people who rile against films being longer. Recently, for example, Dune is a film I wish were longer. Surely someone who enjoys films would enjoy watching longer ones? I understand that the discussion here is about this specific film as opposed to films in general, but I don't see why this film deserves that criticism.

As for Oppenheimer, it was very fast paced and in jumping between multiple time periods made it exhausting, but I'm glad it was as long as it was. Watching it the second time I was able to keep up and enjoy it more.

Originally Posted by slumcat

This is a limp argument. I think nothing should be put on a pedestal and anybody and everything should be critisized.

Again, strawman. When did anyone say something is immune to criticism?

Originally Posted by Shin sam

To some degree, yes. The poor edits I refer to, are, as I say minor but jars me along with the audio issues. Someone in a chair on a close up start to get up, cut to the wide shot and their getting up again. Minor, yes, but noticeable. Again, I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't for the other issues. One particular poor one was when the house bomb went off. DiCaprio jumps out of bed, looking out the window. Mouth visibly closed the whole time but ADR lines added. My main issue was the whole sound mix. It wasn't just my cinema. Dialogue levels way too low. Not a creative decision but an issue with the DCP. This should have been flagged by the post house and corrected.

Nitpicks at best in my opinion. I wonder how many people noticed or cared about these things. I found the dialogue levels fine; missed a few lines but that's standard for me.

Also, if it were more suited as a miniseries, where would the episodes end and new ones start? An episode should be somewhat self contained but part of a large narrative.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Shin sam

To some degree, yes. The poor edits I refer to, are, as I say minor but jars me along with the audio issues. Someone in a chair on a close up start to get up, cut to the wide shot and their getting up again. Minor, yes, but noticeable. Again, I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't for the other issues. One particular poor one was when the house bomb went off. DiCaprio jumps out of bed, looking out the window. Mouth visibly closed the whole time but ADR lines added.

Seriously? Show me a film that doesn't have minor errors like that; the IMDB goofs pages are filled with them.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by levcore

It's mad that those big names are still getting that kind of money for what amounts to mostly streaming content.

Especially Smith getting 35mil for a movie nobody saw that came out after he torpedoed his own career.

He got the deal way before the Oscars indecent. Again, worth pointing out that these salaries include backend deals to compensate for the movie's lack of a wide theatrical release, as a lot of these actors would typically have a percentage cut of the box office stipulated in their contracts.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Hedrox

He got the deal way before the Oscars indecent. Again, worth pointing out that these salaries include backend deals to compensate for the movie's lack of a wide theatrical release, as a lot of these actors would typically have a percentage cut of the box office stipulated in their contracts.

It's just mad, stupid money to me ha ha. Hollywood is a crazy place.

I feel a movie like Emancipation would still struggle as a wide theatrical release so it seems nuts that Smith would get so much as even with no other factors, it doesn't seem like a big box office contender. Maybe 10 years ago perhaps.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by levcore

It's just mad, stupid money to me ha ha. Hollywood is a crazy place.

I feel a movie like Emancipation would still struggle as a wide theatrical release so it seems nuts that Smith would get so much as even with no other factors, it doesn't seem like a big box office contender. Maybe 10 years ago perhaps.

Apple aren't really chasing blockbusters or "big" movies. They want to be known as the prestige/director driven streaming service and Emancipation was conceived (rather poorly) as a big awards contender.

As with any streaming service that's just starting, they need to put down big money to convince the popular actors/directors to come work with them.