Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by t-mel

Nope. I don't understand why you aren't getting my position. Of course budget and box office matters in Hollywood, but for the purposes of judging a film on its artistic merits, it doesn't matter in my opinion, or I am not going to hold it against the film.

Thanks for clarifying your post, and I absolutely agree that in a perfect world one should view a film from an artistic and entertainment perspective exclusive of budget and related profitability concerns.

The problem that I have with KOTFM is the amount of the money spent for a film of its nature, and how the requested budget of the film, by Scorsese and DiCaprio, led to its departure from Paramount to Apple and resulted in a big topic for discussion within the industry.

Over three years ago, I posted the following reaction to the Apple deal and script changes:

Originally Posted by cgpublic

I guess you haven't read the book, but basically DiCaprio is suggesting that Apple spend $200M for a $60M-$75M concept and rewrite the screenplay to result in a $25M film.

Well, you may say KOTFM is a $100M film, but I would argue that the core of the revised story and related screenplay is still a $25M film if it was to be shopped around today and without Apple's, DiCaprio's and Scorsese's involvement.

And I completely get the above perspective is meaningless to those who don't care or are uninterested about the film industry, which is why I say I'm not here to change anyone's mind. For those who do care, if you can sit in a theater and block out the budget and conflict surrounding the film, all power to you.

The second aspect is from an artistic perspective, and in my opinion the film is a failure, on three counts.

The first is simply Scorsese failed to do the book and story justice.

The second is simply Scorsese bought a property that had the potential to reach as large an audience, and yes, be just as financially successful as Barbie and Oppenheimer, and flushed it down the drain.

The third is the hubris he brought to the film and market, basically stating his way is 'cinema' and everyone else is a theme park employee.

Well, how about making a film that respects the material, considers and entertains the audience, and at least attempts to turn a profit?

Originally Posted by t-mel

Do you honestly think apple TV would remain at $4.99 indefinitely, with or without KOTFM?

No.

Do I believe Apple is attempting to justify raising the price by 40% by releasing KOTFM the same month? Yes.

Just an opinion, KOTFM is a bad deal and an even worse look for Apple, and let's face it, Scorsese.

Originally Posted by t-mel

But should Scorsese not have taken these opportunities, or should he have worked with a smaller budget even though more was available to him? The actual mid budget films that people have spoken positively about on this thread didn't do so well either.

All of the filmmakers you have cited in your post and their related films at the very least attempted to do their best to turn a profit.

Scorsese didn't do that, nor did he respect the material the film was based on, nor did he respect his audience with a self-indulgent three and a half hour film, nor his peers when he dumped all over them for not being Scorsese.

And this comes from a big Scorsese fan. My father grew up around the block and attended the same school and parish in Little Italy, the old St. Patrick's featured in Mean Streets, and his father, my grandfather, was a projectionist on weekends for the local Italian cinema. So, I really feel for him. I'd like to believe he received some very bad advice when taking on this project, and I guess it's hard to say no when someone says sure, we'll give you $200M, just take the money. I guess I take after my frugal, Bergman-loving German mother for that aspect!

In conclusion, a simple request. Please don't quote me on this topic moving forward; if you need to respond, by all means do so without quoting me, then I won't be obligated to reply.

Like they say in the old neighborhood, it is what is at this point, and nothing is going to change the fact that the opportunity to film the book and tell the story as written has been lost and squandered.

[t-mel]

How did Scorsese "con" anyone? That's not at all what a con is. He made a film for the budget agreed upon. No one was mislead or lied to for someone else's gain. Netflix also chose to make Irishman virtually a straight-to-streaming movie, passing over any potential box office revenue.

Glass Onion was similar. It wasn't even wide and was in cinemas for a week. Netflix is clearly hell bent on destroying the theatrical experience because it is competition to them. That's why they keep buying up these festival films and burying them on their service. This year I want to see May December and Hit Man in cinemas, but who knows if that will be available? I saw The Killer yesterday, another great Fincher film that will have a much smaller cultural footprint than any of his other films because of the release strategy.

If we are talking more specifically about box office, then KOTFM made double or triple those other films I mentioned, despite being a fair bit longer. Couldn't that be telling the studios, "maybe we can't fund this for $200m, but we could for $50m"? Isn't that what you want?

To really compare the budget to historical ones, I'm going back to that list I gave of films that were not part of franchises and still proved large successes. Here are the budgets for some of them adjusted for inflation:

Lion King, $93m; Forrest Gump, $114m; Sixth Sense, $74m; Jurassic Park, $134m; Men in Black, $173m; Ghost, $50m; Pretty Woman, $33m; Dances with Wolves, $52m; True Lies, $228m; American Beauty, $28m; Apollo 13, $105m; Seven, $66m; The Matrix, $117m; Saving Private Ryan, $129m.

These seem pretty high by what non-franchise films can get today...

The third is the hubris he brought to the film and market, basically stating his way is 'cinema' and everyone else is a theme park employee.

I mean that is patently not what he said. This is just being dishonest, unless the very specific Marvel approach to making films is "everyone else." It's just not fair to claim he only wants things his way when he is such a big champion for other voices and film preservation.

Edit: I went back to this thread and read a few posts. You seemed to have a negative preconceived notion of the film from the time you heard about the angle it was taking and you said exactly the same things as you are now. Curious for your opinion before and after the film to align so perfectly. Me? I went in with very little knowledge. I knew roughly what it was about, but I didn't know who the perpetrators were for example. The film doesn't reveal this straight away either...

[spanky87]

Seriously, when did box-office and finance become such a prevalent part of film discussion and the moviegoing experience? I don’t remember it being to this extent in the past.

It’s maddening that almost every movie thread/discussion these days becomes dominated by this whether a film is successful or not. Even before a film is released, and sometimes when a film is first announced. I just now scrolled through pages of this shit in a Martin Scorsese movie thread where I anticipate news (like the streaming date) or reactions to the film itself.

Not to knock people for discussing and being interested in that subject (I am too sometimes), but there really should be a general box-office thread on this forum so all this can go there instead of clogging up and derailing almost every movie thread.

[sanriel]

The results of people wanting to make good movies - Nolan, Scorsese. The result of others wanting to just make money - Disney. And despite everything, we keep talking about revenue, and the qualities of the film remain in the background. The whole situation is so absurd. I understand seeing this in the Barbie thread, but here... ? I'm starting to wonder if some people have brains at all.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Box Office Bomb = no one wants to see it

Or no one saw it yet...leading to the inevitable discovery and the film becoming a beloved classic and a hit title. Happens all the time. And giving people an excuse to not see something theatrically such as conditioning them to just wait for it to appear on streaming in 60 days, is only adding to this conflation of box-office gross vs. audience appreciation and opinion. The only thing box office means anymore is that a certain number of people bought a certain amount of tickets at a certain range of prices and generated a certain sum of money in a certain window of time during a certain range of world events, national mood, cultural tastes, and economic realities.

Elemental struggled in theaters, but held on for a while...it's been in the top ten films on streaming for over a month now. Indy 5 struggled in theaters, it's been huge on streaming retailers, the home video release in December will be largely concurrent with the streaming release on Disney+ (12/1 Disney+ in America, 4K disc streets 12/5).

I think this should be the model going forward if you want to goose audiences back into theaters...stop putting titles on streaming 60 days from launch. Try six months. I think people are seriously spending wisely right now, and Disney is having a rough time in theaters because audiences got conditioned to just wait a few weeks.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by sanriel

The results of people wanting to make good movies - Nolan, Scorsese. The result of others wanting to just make money - Disney. And despite everything, we keep talking about revenue, and the qualities of the film remain in the background. The whole situation is so absurd. I understand seeing this in the Barbie thread, but here... ? I'm starting to wonder if some people have brains at all.

I don't know. Various meltdowns on here over the budget, the film not being the same as the book, weird doomer fears over this movie's box office performance or lack thereof being the end of non superhero cinema, Marty not calling the MCU cinema, Scorsese "conning" investors, the length of the film, etc...etc...

All I'll say is I liked the movie, it did drag during the court scenes (like pretty much every movie IMHO except A Few Good Men), Leo was okay, but I really liked De Niro and Gladstone's performances, excellent soundtrack and cinematography as well. Also appreciated the fact that a lot of camera setups were used. Never read the book so I can't comment on if it ruined it. I'd probably rank this next to Oppenheimer as the best film I've seen from 2023. Oppenheimer was more engaging just from a cinematic perspective, but I thought the acting was a little better on this one, probably due to the script.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Like they say in the old neighborhood, it is what is at this point, and nothing is going to change the fact that the opportunity to film the book and tell the story as written has been lost and squandered.

Ya, that’s just it. You seem to really like this book and that’s great. But you’re coming off like an entitled baby because it wasn’t adapted in the way you’d prefer and are going out of the way to continually spread negativity in this thread without even seeing the movie (which you’ve pre-determined you won’t like when you eventually do). It’s become a bore.

The history, the book, and the movie goes beyond you. As a result of this movie adaptation (which most people seem to like) more people now know about this part of history and more people will read this book.

In conclusion, a simple request. You’ve already made your stance known about this adaptation and don’t need to keep making it about you.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Seriously, when did box-office and finance become such a prevalent part of film discussion and the moviegoing experience? I don’t remember it being to this extent in the past.

It’s maddening that almost every movie thread/discussion these days becomes dominated by this whether a film is successful or not. Even before a film is released, and sometimes when a film is first announced. I just now scrolled through pages of this shit in a Martin Scorsese movie thread where I anticipate news (like the streaming date) or reactions to the film itself.

Not to knock people for discussing and being interested in that subject (I am too sometimes), but there really should be a general box-office thread on this forum so all this can go there instead of clogging up and derailing almost every movie thread.

In the past few years film discussion has become worse than sports bar talk. It's quite depressing to see.

[cheez avenger]

To say that Scorsese "conned" anyone is a freakin' lie. Graham King isn't starving or destitute by any means. I see he's been living it up with all of that Bohemian Rhapsody money.

[yanksno1]

Was Brendan Fraser wearing a fat suit again in this movie?

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by yanksno1

Was Brendan Fraser wearing a fat suit again in this movie?

Killers of The Whale Moon?

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Ya, that’s just it. You seem to really like this book and that’s great. But you’re coming off like an entitled baby because it wasn’t adapted in the way you’d prefer and are going out of the way to continually spread negativity in this thread without even seeing the movie (which you’ve pre-determined you won’t like when you eventually do). It’s become a bore.

The history, the book, and the movie goes beyond you. As a result of this movie adaptation (which most people seem to like) more people now know about this part of history and more people will read this book.

In conclusion, a simple request. You’ve already made your stance known about this adaptation and don’t need to keep making it about you.

One thing that I've learned in life is when a person needs to resort to lies, e.g., this film is an unqualified artistic success and the box office is not that bad, hand-in-hand with name-calling, then I know I have a winning argument.

If another person's argument was of merit, there would be no need for lies and name-calling, it would simply be a difference in opinion.

So, thanks a $150 million!

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

In the past few years film discussion has become worse than sports bar talk. It's quite depressing to see.

The movie cost a lot (at least for a non Action or Superhero film) and isn't doing very well theatrically so talk of the box office is expected, but where some of that discussion has headed here is a little on the weird side.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Seriously, when did box-office and finance become such a prevalent part of film discussion and the moviegoing experience? I don’t remember it being to this extent in the past.

This is baffling and myopic. News flash - cinema is a business. Yes, it can be art too - but I'd venture that is only seldom the case - mostly it is a business.

And success perpetuates success and failure perpetuates failure.

Everyone participating in the discussion here is invested in cinema to even bother being on a movie discussion board.

You can't just ignore the founding principle of a topic and say - **** the business, I don't want to speak about it - fingers in my ears - na na na!

That is what is childish and juvenile.

Well, tough luck - cinema is a business. And a legitimate discussion about cinema WILL include discussion of its business aspects.

YOU might not be interested in this aspect but that doesn't mean it isn't a founding aspect of cinema.

Calls for shutting down this or that conversation again tells me how intolerant people are to divergent viewpoints. I am not going to threads and railing against other people if a topic displeases me. If a topic displeases me - the response is obvious - no response.

There is such an impulse to police people these days and shut down perfectly meaningful discourse because it doesn't comport with a particular viewpoint.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

One thing that I've learned in life is when a person needs to resort to lies, e.g., this film is an unqualified artistic success and the box office is not that bad, hand-in-hand with name-calling, then I know I have a winning argument.

If another person's argument was of merit, there would be no need for lies and name-calling, it would simply be a difference in opinion.

So, thanks a $150 million!

Thanks for writing a concise post that wasn't longer and 150 million times more meandering then the script for Killers of the Flower Moon.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

One thing that I've learned in life is when a person needs to resort to lies, e.g., this film is an unqualified artistic success and the box office is not that bad, hand-in-hand with name-calling, then I know I have a winning argument.

If another person's argument was of merit, there would be no need for lies and name-calling, it would simply be a difference in opinion.

So, thanks a $150 million!

Except he did neither of those things in the post that you quoted.

[DR Herbert West]

This thread is more depressing than the end of Dead Ringers.

[LordoftheRings]

Oscar for Best Cinematography?

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Oscar for Best Cinematography?

I would think it should at the very least get a nomination.

[Jegærn]

Originally Posted by sanriel

The results of people wanting to make good movies - Nolan, Scorsese. The result of others wanting to just make money - Disney. And despite everything, we keep talking about revenue, and the qualities of the film remain in the background. The whole situation is so absurd. I understand seeing this in the Barbie thread, but here... ? I'm starting to wonder if some people have brains at all.

If every movie that comes out from great directors, fail at the box office, hollywood stops producing more of them. That's why many of us are truly concerned about good movies failing at the box office. It's got nothing to do with having no brain or thinking movies that fail to earn back it's budget are bad movies. And the sad trend these last few years is that many of the greatest films bomb at the box office.