Killers of the Flower Moon (2023)

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

Now, I'm completely done with this topic, now.

You keep stating that you're 'done,' and yet, here you are, posting some fantastical version of the world in which we live as opposed to the inconvenient truth.

No one is disputing Apple invested over a billion dollars to drive Apple TV+ subs, hand in hand with the wildly optimistic justification of raising the price by 50%, thanks to an elevated profile of the service during the awards season.

The problem so far is two of the flagship films, FOTKM and Napoleon, are not the slam dunk critical and box office successes that Apple had hoped, to the tune of poor word of mouth, middling reviews and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses based on traditional box office metrics.

The inconvenient perceptual truth for Apple is simply everyone knows they're losing a boat load of cash, the types of losses that would significantly impact a traditional studio.

And why is that a problem? Let's say both of the above films are shut out of the major awards at the Oscars, which is really the only show left with any cultural currency and highly unlikely given the legs of Oppenheimer and Barbie, hand in hand with Apple TV+ metrics that are flat or actually decreasing?

Failure. Not perceptual failure, real failure.

For a company such as Apple, that's not a look they are accustomed to, and unlikely to engender future investments of a similar scale.

For Scorsese and Scott, what traditional studio is ever going to give them anything close to that type of budget for a traditional, studio-financed film in the future?

Nobody.

They're done.

Persona non grata.

If Scorsese had agreed to the budget Paramount had original proposed, the film still would have lost money, thanks to his utterly ridiculous adaptation of Grann's phenomenal book.

What a shame.

[everygrainofsand]

Originally Posted by dkelly26666

[Show spoiler]“KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON� Receives The Gotham Historical Icon & Creator Tribute - YouTube

The Gotham Awards ceremony.

Thanks for linking this, friend. Hearing DeNiro speak such simple truths was electrifying! Seriously. In a time when lying percolates the politico-media air like pollution - when fact itself often just doesn't count - then hearing a guy say the truth out loud is a beautiful thing. Facts do exist; the truth does matter. That this isn't self-evident, and needs stating - indeed is a matter of controversy! - is both chilling and deeply depressing.

Kudos to DeNiro. And thanks again for linking this, mate

[Foggy]

I mean the film literally just won the New York’s Critics Choice for Best Film, and Lily Gladstone is still favourite to get the Best Actress. Pretty absurd to suggedt this is getting shut out of the Oscars, let alone call it a failure critically.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I mean the film literally just won the New York’s Critics Choice for Best Film, and Lily Gladstone is still favourite to get the Best Actress. Pretty absurd to suggedt this is getting shut out of the Oscars, let alone call it a failure critically.

The NYFCC for Best Film hasn't aligned with the Oscars since The Artist over a decade ago.

Gladstone has a very good shot over Hollywood darling Stone for Poor Things and Carey Mulligan for Maestro, but it's not a slam dunk, and even if she does win, you're telling me she's going to drive Apple TV+ subs all on her own?

I don't begrudge Scorsese for blowing $200M+ on KOTFM, he's Scorsese after all, likewise Scott, but let's not get carried away and ask everyone to don rose-colored glasses.

It's The Irishman and The Last Duel all over again.

What could have been from two of my favorite directors, and what is.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

If Scorsese had agreed to the budget Paramount had original proposed, the film still would have lost money, thanks to his utterly ridiculous adaptation of Grann's phenomenal book.

Have you even seen Scorsese’s movie yet for you to call it “ridiculous”?

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Have you even seen Scorsese’s movie yet for you to call it “ridiculous”?

Why? So I can offer my subjective 'opinion' of the movie?

Not to put too fine a point on it, what difference would that make?

Will my, or anyone else for that matter, opinion magically conjure up a film that reflects the non-fiction book of the same title?

Scorsese & Co. gave their reasons for significantly altering the book which, in their own words, eliminated half of the story.

However, based on the facts specific to the story and related intent per the film, I do have an opinion.

Ridiculous.

[50strat54]

Oppenheimer much better film than Flower Moon or Napoleon and I enjoyed The Flash much more than these two films as well.

[slumcat]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

No you didn't. What you said is that Killers of the Flower Moon (and Napoleon) will lose money. It might not be totally accurate, as they are under Apple's umbrella of protection.

It don't really matter, it's only money.
What counts is the glory and the Oscars. Scorsese is on the radar.
Scott? The guy has the glory already, anything else is bonus, even the negative critics.
And, both of them are coming up to Apple TV+, with Napoleon's extended 4-hour+ cut.
Everything is on the table to amass tons of profits and glory directly to the heavens, white clouds or not.

It is what it is, nothing is lost.

Like literally how is not that accurate. It will LITERALLY MATHEMATICALLY lose money.

This was a full on theatrical motion picture released globally.

It's like saying The Marvels will not lose money. It will eventfully make up for it in Disney Plus.

Who's to know that. But theatrically both movies 100% lost money - that's a mathematical reality - i dont know why anyone would object to that.

[slumcat]

I would 100% bet money that Lily Gladstone is going to win the Best Actress oscar. Take it to the bank.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by 50strat54

Oppenheimer much better film than Flower Moon or Napoleon and I enjoyed The Flash much more than these two films as well.

Delete this.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Why? So I can offer my subjective 'opinion' of the movie?

Not to put too fine a point on it, what difference would that make?

Will my, or anyone else for that matter, opinion magically conjure up a film that reflects the non-fiction book of the same title?

Scorsese & Co. gave their reasons for significantly altering the book which, in their own words, eliminated half of the story.

However, based on the facts specific to the story and related intent per the film, I do have an opinion.

Ridiculous.

I thought perhaps if you actually saw it, you might realize that Scorsese's filmization is actually quite faithful to the spirit of the book, if not precisely the letter.

[50strat54]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

Delete this.

No

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

I thought perhaps if you actually saw it, you might realize that Scorsese's filmization is actually quite faithful to the spirit of the book, if not precisely the letter.

Humans interpret art through the lens of their personal beliefs and biases, both informed by an understanding of themselves and of our shared history, or lack thereof.

Why do you believe Scorsese and Roth were of the mindset it was necessary to excise a significant aspect of the story and diminish the character of Tom White in the context of a three and half-hour film?

Furthermore, I'm curious just how many of this film's audience are aware of the history of the Osage, their wars of conquest against the Cherokee and Kiowa along with many other tribes to acquire their so-called 'land,' and of the Cutthroat Gap massacre, where The Osage brutally slaughtered and decapitated Kiowa women, children and elderly, their heads placed in cooking pots?

Now that last bit isn't in the book KOTFM, never mind the film, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the story of The Osage, and a lesson of who we are as humans and our shared history.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Humans interpret art through the lens of their personal beliefs and biases, both informed by an understanding of themselves and of our shared history, or lack thereof.

Why do you believe Scorsese and Roth were of the mindset it was necessary to excise a significant aspect of the story and diminish the character of Tom White in the context of a three and half-hour film?

[Show spoiler]If you actually read the Grann book as you claim, you'd see that Grann himself diminishes the importance of the FBI investigation led by Tom White. Why should Scorsese make it central to his film adaptation if Grann recognizes the relative travesty that it was enough to structure his book so that the third part of his book--the part that most informed Scorsese's adaptation--almost entirely undermines the second part devoted to the feds' escapades?

[llj]

Killers was always a long term investment. Apple isn't stupid, they had to know the subject matter and length wouldn't be marketable, so they accepted that at best it would be a slow earner over several years. Quite honestly I think the movie's doing a lot better profit wise than it was probably expected to, given all the things going against it (length, subject matter etc). Apple has to be happy with how it's doing so far.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

Have you even seen Scorsese’s movie yet for you to call it “ridiculous”?

Why watch a movie when you can keep clogging up threads about how offended you are by it? The movie is over 3 hours long, that really cuts into complaining on the internet time.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

[Show spoiler]If you actually read the Grann book as you claim, you'd see that Grann himself diminishes the importance of the FBI investigation led by Tom White. Why should Scorsese make it central to his film adaptation if Grann recognizes the relative travesty that it was enough to structure his book so that the third part of his book--the part that most informed Scorsese's adaptation--almost entirely undermines the second part devoted to the feds' escapades?

So your argument is based upon accusing someone of not reading the book because their interpretation of the book may not align with your own, said interpretation completely ignoring the fact it was an award-winning, critically-lauded accomplishment as structured? Got it.

If your interpretation of the Grann's book is as basic as you have just stated, then let me suggest, in the kindest manner possible, that you consider giving the book another read.

As I shared in my earlier post, humans interpret art through the lens of their personal beliefs and biases, the practical outcome of which can sometimes result in blind spots.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Why watch a movie when you can keep clogging up threads about how offended you are by it? The movie is over 3 hours long, that really cuts into complaining on the internet time.

Why watch a movie? Thanks for asking, but because I work for living hand in hand with a slew of other responsibilities, I'm not going set aside the five hours necessary on a weekend for a film that basically dumped all over one of the best non-fiction reads of this century just so the director can pander to the Academy with more than a hint of desperation all to win another Oscar when I can wait until it's streaming in a few weeks, that's why.

Clogging up the threads? Hate to break the news to you, I'm not interested in your opinion about this movie or any other. It's worthless to me, unless you can actually add some insight to why it worked, or why it didn't.

In this case, my posts are specific to the flawed approach to the adaptation, which resulted in a theatrical box office debacle.

An unfortunate outcome for those of us who loved the book and had hoped for a director who would have given the book and story its right place, above personal achievement to be found in a meaningless statuette.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

Why watch a movie? Thanks for asking, but because I work for living hand in hand with a slew of other responsibilities, I'm not going set aside the five hours necessary on a weekend for a film that basically dumped all over one of the best non-fiction reads of this century just so the director can pander to the Academy with more than a hint of desperation all to win another Oscar when I can wait until it's streaming in a few weeks, that's why.

Clogging up the threads? Hate to break the news to you, I'm not interested in your opinion about this movie or any other. It's worthless to me, unless you can actually add some insight to why it worked, or why it didn't.

In this case, my posts are specific to the flawed approach to the adaptation, which resulted in a theatrical box office debacle.

An unfortunate outcome for those of us who loved the book and had hoped for a director who would have given the book and story its right place, above personal achievement to be found in a meaningless statuette.

Interested enough to respond. Scorsese told a true story and didn’t copy the book one to one and you shall continue to come in here and cry and throw a temper tantrum. Poor baby, so sad for you.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

As I shared in my earlier post, humans interpret art through the lens of their personal beliefs and biases, the practical outcome of which can sometimes result in blind spots.

In order to interpret art you first have to, you know, actually experience said art. Maybe you should start a separate thread discussing the merits of the book and reserve your comments on the film until you've actually seen it.