Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

Oscar for Best Cinematography?

▪︎ https://www.goldderby.com/odds/user-...4-predictions/
_____

* Extra:
Apple & Amazon “Very Pleased” With Theatrical Box Office Results, Cinemark CEO Sean Gamble Says; Streaming And Concert Films Could Soon Give Theaters “More Content Than Ever”

[slip220]

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 suspect that this whole discourse is brought by people that still aren't coping well with those remarks about CBM and really want to paint Scorsese's movie as a failure.

It's the box office, its the runtime, its whatever they find to shit on this masterpiece.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

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

Right now @ #2, just behind Oppenheimer (Cinematography).

The Battle for the Oscars is between the "Father of the Atomic Bomb" and the Osage Nation.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

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

Of course he did, and if you are incapable of identifying one or both behaviors, it speaks volumes.

But enough about me. How about Killers of The Flower Moon?

[LordoftheRings]

Speaking of Killers of the Flower Moon ... vs Oppenheimer

Screenshot_20231103_113500_Chrome.jpg

It has momentum, and it's a top gun @ the Oscars.
Watch them legs ...

[sanriel]

Originally Posted by Jegærn

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.

That's true, but a lot of people like to use a movie's earnings as an indicator of whether it's good or not. And if someone doesn't like a movie, they use the revenue to their advantage to call it a failure and garbage. How stupid is that? It is certainly unpleasant to see the lack of interest and revenue for a good film, but even more unpleasant is the behavior of some individuals.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by slip220

I suspect that this whole discourse is brought by people that still aren't coping well with those remarks about CBM and really want to paint Scorsese's movie as a failure.

It's the box office, its the runtime, its whatever they find to shit on this masterpiece.

This is again a horrible take. I generally hate CBM and can trash them worse than even Scorsese, in fact have done that on these very boards.

So I don't think this ridiculous criticism applies at all.

[Scott in UK]

I havnt looked deeply into this (and that's part of my point, that I don't think alot of the time that it needs to be) so I dunno how good or bad this film is doing, but I happened to watch the UK Top Ten box office last night with Mark Kermode on YouTube, and when they got to this film, Mark said the film is doing very very well, and it's at No.3..Well at face value or surface level that sounds not bad to me. So I dunno why there's the usual box office hysteria happening in this thread.

And similarly when it comes to people raving about the film not doing well and box office bombs resulting in those kind of films not getting made any more, well again that seems hysterical and over dramatic. Yeah OK if it's a franchise or a sequel, I get it, because they are associated with other films. But when it comes to saying they would stop making movies like this, well, movie's like what? Movies of this length? Movie's of a serious subject matter? What would they be gauging it on. Of course there's always gonna be dramatic true story, tough subject matter films, so there's no need to make it seem like there's a concern that there won't be.

It's also making it seem like there should be a concern that this film could spell the end of Scorsese's career or something. Well no of course not. He's been making films for however many decades he's been making them for. It's not gonna be a case of it just so happens that it's this film that's finally gonna destroy his career. The only reason it could be his last is because of his age of course, but aside from that, it's of no concern. So I dunno why everyone's going so crazy in this thread.

And sometimes ya know, people just don't go to see a film because it isn't high up on their radar or intrest. And nothing deeper than that.

[russweiss1]

Originally Posted by sanriel

That's true, but a lot of people like to use a movie's earnings as an indicator of whether it's good or not. And if someone doesn't like a movie, they use the revenue to their advantage to call it a failure and garbage. How stupid is that? It is certainly unpleasant to see the lack of interest and revenue for a good film, but even more unpleasant is the behavior of some individuals.

There are many "movie lovers" on the site that don't even go to the theaters anymore. Box office revenue isn't an indicator of whether a film is good or bad but whether it's popular or not. It's simply a tool to gauge a film like any other.

[dkelly26666]

102.2 million as of end of day Thursday.

Let's see what this third weekend does.

It may be back at #2 this weekend, behind the ole Swifties.

I'm expecting a major drop for Freddy.

It's still holding a 93 % rating from critics on RT, 85 % from audiences; 8.1 on Imdb; 89 (Universal acclaim) on Metacritic. Exit polls showed a strong A- score.

Don't care what anyone says, this film has overall been very well received. I still believe its reputation will grow even more over time, and it will be the one film currently out that will still be remembered, relevant, and talked about by film buffs and film historians 20 years from now.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

There are many "movie lovers" on the site that don't even go to the theaters anymore. Box office revenue isn't an indicator of whether a film is good or bad but whether it's popular or not. It's simply a tool to gauge a film like any other.

The USA unlike other countries focuses on box office take. France and other countries count number of tickets sold per movie instead.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

The issue that I have, as do some others who have read KOTFM, is not only does the film eliminate half the book and minimize one of the lead characters to an afterthought, it buries the essence of the book, so for me it's not even the story.

What to you is the "essence" of the book?

Fwiw, I read the response you posted to my earlier question and it's hard not to conclude from your stated vision there that you yourself have missed the essence of the book.

Whereas I would say Scorsese & co. came closer to the mark in what we actually got in this adaptation.

[dkelly26666]

I've grown convinced that John Q. Public fancies himself a powerful Hollywood industry insider, and has deluded himself into thinking that all of the most influential Academy members peruse this very thread on this very site, and that they're reading his novellas with great interest, thereby assuring "Killers of the Flower Moon" is a shut-out at next year's Oscars, and assuring him an "Oppenheimer" sweep.

He writes equally long and self-assured essays over in the "Oppenheimer" thread, though it's all glowing and gushing and ejaculation.

That film, though not a fault of its own, inspires the comic book crowd's loyalty and fandom in no less a way than "The Dark Knight" does.

From the acclaimed director of "The Dark Knight Trilogy"!!! Starring 'The Sandman' from "The Dark Knight"!!! Featuring Mr. Tony Stark/Ironman!!!! Complete with modern filmmaking blockbuster flourishes!!!! Complete with music that goes, "BWOMMMMMM"!!!!

If Oliver Stone, Scorsese, hell even Spielberg, or anyone else made that movie, we'd be hearing, "It's just old white guys in suits, standing around in rooms, talking physics! It is sooooo long, and it's ssoooooo boring! They could have easily shaved an hour off of it, and it would have flowed better! They should have focused more on Patriotism, and America winning the war, and our valiant efforts to help rebuild over there. Not focus on the guys who made the bombs! They shouldn't show how we hurt Japan, they should show how we saved them!!!! This Oscar pretender lost millions, and didn't do well enough at the box office, it's trash!!!!"

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.

Ah, John Q. Public, PLEASE write a 'War and Peace' length article about this post....

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by russweiss1

There are many "movie lovers" on the site that don't even go to the theaters anymore. Box office revenue isn't an indicator of whether a film is good or bad but whether it's popular or not. It's simply a tool to gauge a film like any other.

Box Office Revenue is a financial indicator of Profit or Loss.

It determines whether a sequel gets made [I'm looking at you Divergent 4] or whether a director gets to make another movie.

Scorsese and Woody Allen ride on their reputations and with the incredible bank that both Apple and Amazon have they are willing to invest and lose money on elite directors. These businesses make so much money in other areas that the money they may lose on a film is offset, like a loss leader.

Bob Dylan did not make as much money for Columbia as some of their more commercial artists but having Bob Dylan on your label gives you prestige which is what Scorsese and Allen do for Apple and Amazon. Many artists will sign with Columbia just because Bob Dylan is on the label.

For every Taylor Swift album there are hundreds of albums that lose money but Taylor's profits are so huge it offsets the money losing albums.

Lots of people will now just wait until it streams on their favorite app. Some will wait until it comes to FX or a "free" bundled channel.

But if a movie like Oppenheimer makes the kind of money it made by being in the theaters it means people were willing to pay good money to see it, movie went "viral" and at three hours were not turned off by the length given the word of mouth.

Regardless of some of the negative comments on Oppenheimer from some Forum members, the movie delivered for Universal...big time.

[dkelly26666]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Box Office Revenue is a financial indicator of Profit or Loss.

It determines whether a sequel gets made [I'm looking at you Divergent 4] or whether a director gets to make another movie.

Scorsese and Woody Allen ride on their reputations and with the incredible bank that both Apple and Amazon have they are willing to invest and lose money on elite directors. These businesses make so much money in other areas that the money they may lose on a film is offset, like a loss leader.

Bob Dylan did not make as much money for Columbia as some of their more commercial artists but having Bob Dylan on your label gives you prestige which is what Scorsese and Allen do for Apple and Amazon. Many artists will sign with Columbia just because Bob Dylan is on the label.

For every Taylor Swift album there are hundreds of albums that lose money but Taylor's profits are so huge it offsets the money losing albums.

Lots of people will now just wait until it streams on their favorite app. Some will wait until it comes to FX or a "free" bundled channel.

But if a movie like Oppenheimer makes the kind of money it made by being in the theaters it means people were willing to pay good money to see it, movie went "viral" and at three hours were not turned off by the length given the word of mouth.

Regardless of some of the negative comments on Oppenheimer from some Forum members, the movie delivered for Universal...big time.

I like that you used the word, "viral". That's EXACTLY what happened.

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".

They went to see it because everyone else was. They went to see it because of "Barbenheimer" social media driven nonsense TOLD them that this is what everyone is doing this summer. People are more conformist now than they've even been. They went because they like the pedigree of Nolan, Murphy, and Downey Jr., from the comic book movies. They went because they were told to go. You're correct about word of mouth, but not in the way you mean.

In other words, I don't think so many people loved that film so much more than this one. But that film's supporters are using the box office to declare some kind of superiority for that film over this one, and that box office is no indication of that.


I personally think that "Oppenheimer" and "Killers of the Flower Moon" are both fine films.

My point is that one making a lot more money than the other says nothing.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

My point is that one making a lot more money than the other says nothing.

Yup

[Star Lord]

Is the VOD date really Jan 2024? Too bad my theater didn't get this.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

They went because they like the pedigree of Nolan, Murphy, and Downey Jr., from the comic book movies.

I do not believe this is the case for RDJ as he has yet to gain any traction/star power outside of playing Iron Man. RDJ is crying all the way to the bank, I'm sure, but he's basically living out the premise of the Birdman movie.

There was a lot of hubbub over "Inception bros" packing theaters, but they skipped Tenet so

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Box Office Revenue is a financial indicator of Profit or Loss.

It determines whether a sequel gets made [I'm looking at you Divergent 4] or whether a director gets to make another movie.

Scorsese and Woody Allen ride on their reputations and with the incredible bank that both Apple and Amazon have they are willing to invest and lose money on elite directors. These businesses make so much money in other areas that the money they may lose on a film is offset, like a loss leader.

Bob Dylan did not make as much money for Columbia as some of their more commercial artists but having Bob Dylan on your label gives you prestige which is what Scorsese and Allen do for Apple and Amazon. Many artists will sign with Columbia just because Bob Dylan is on the label.

For every Taylor Swift album there are hundreds of albums that lose money but Taylor's profits are so huge it offsets the money losing albums.

Lots of people will now just wait until it streams on their favorite app. Some will wait until it comes to FX or a "free" bundled channel.

But if a movie like Oppenheimer makes the kind of money it made by being in the theaters it means people were willing to pay good money to see it, movie went "viral" and at three hours were not turned off by the length given the word of mouth.

Regardless of some of the negative comments on Oppenheimer from some Forum members, the movie delivered for Universal...big time.

kinda insane to use Allen and Scorsese in the same breath. Woody would make 12 movies for the price of 1 Scorsese movie. Woody literally pays SAG minimum wages to even big a list stars. Everyone that has ever worked with Woody has done so to purely be in a Woody movie. There is literally no income to be made from them.

and usually because they are so cheap - they are not losing truckloads of money to cause heartburn.

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

102.2 million as of end of day Thursday.

Let's see what this third weekend does.

It may be back at #2 this weekend, behind the ole Swifties.

I'm expecting a major drop for Freddy.

It's still holding a 93 % rating from critics on RT, 85 % from audiences; 8.1 on Imdb; 89 (Universal acclaim) on Metacritic. Exit polls showed a strong A- score.

Don't care what anyone says, this film has overall been very well received. I still believe its reputation will grow even more over time, and it will be the one film currently out that will still be remembered, relevant, and talked about by film buffs and film historians 20 years from now.

Screenshot_20231104_123938_Chrome.jpg

And as of yesterday (Nov. 3)
Domestic Box Office: $47,277,522
International Box Office: $56,800,000
Worldwide Box Office: $104,077,522

#3 overall, behind Five Nights @ Taylor Swift's concert.
Freddy's is singing along fine; with a budget of $20M it will easily make ten times more that.
Freddy's very hot; it says that you don't need a big huge overboard supercharged super-crazy budget to become a highly profitable cash register in Hollywood movie entertainment business.

* Killers gains more theaters this weekend; it's @ 3,786
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