trifle

Apparently Tarantino is making studio execs go to his agent's office to read the script as he starts bidding since he isn't doing this with Weinstein. https://twitter.com/darkavm/status/924036624761094145

https://twitter.com/JenLawFilms/status/923724294441656320 https://twitter.com/JenLawFilms/status/9237242944 https://twitter.com/JenLawFilms/status/923724294441656320 41656320

...so that would be a no? thanks, I didn't know.

You could be right, and maybe the post-effects did add up to more than that. But doesn't Gotham consider source of funding and first break type of stuff? I think Paramount financed it, and it wouldn't give Jen a 'first big break' she wouldn't otherwise have, if those are things Gothams considers. But after reading about how elaborate, yet invisible, a lot of the effects were, I find it increasingly possible the budget was over $20M. Not for salaries, but for that.

fanart: also:

ILM Delivers Hellfire and Damnation for Darren Aronofsky’s ‘mother!’ That's a pretty interesting article on the special effects and make up. And it makes me think if the budget is $30m, that is where the money went, certainly not on salaries. Both based on the amount of work they did on effects and quotes like this one:

I don't think that guy was remotely like Bacchus. He was more of an apostle or false prophet, imho.

hmmmm?? If that were actually true, you should see mother!

Literally Just 11 Ridiculous Things That Happen In "The Snowman" This makes me think about maybe seeing it, after all.

and there are major spoilers in this analyses of the movie, but I think it is pretty interesting.

The point being, that after an entire sound track was created for the film, they threw it away. Even the creaks in the house are supposed to be distortions of Jen's voice.

I'm thinking this probably isn't about Dark Phoenix... but I could be wrong!

There's a Editing Room version of the mother! script... (a parody)

after months of the budget being reported at $13M, deadline came out with an article and in it speculated the budget was $30M based on salaries. However they also said Jen got $15M and each of Bardem, Pfeiffer and Harris got $5M. Which, aside from being unlikely on its face given the type of movie, would also total $40M not $30M, so they didn't even convince themselves. However, on the promotion tour, Aronofsky several times said he was allowed to do whatever he wanted in part because the budget was so very low. In one case he said in Black Swan he was able to do whatever he wanted because the budget was very very low, and similarly in mother! he was able to do whatever he wanted because the budget was very very low. The Black Swan budget was $13M. So I don't believe it was $30M. You are free to believe it, and I agree that often you have nothing but BOM to go by, so that is the standard people use.

Jen's going to be discussing the movie at deadline's 'The Contenders' event November 4. http://deadline.com/2017/10/deadlines-7th-annual-movie-contenders-event-set-for-november-4-with-record-turnout-expected-1202187336/

not many flops have 8 100s on metacritic and people like Scorsese taking to THR to write stand alone praises of them, you must admit. It is a box office flop, but I don't think it is relative to its budget, given I think the budget is closer to $15M than $30M. Regardless, box office isn't the point of mother! What it is is an art for art's sake argument. Some love it, some hate it. Many never remotely wanted to see art to begin with when they bought a ticket, and feel betrayed. I'm glad Jen did it, for her 'filmography' so to speak, and for pushing boundaries. I think her performance was outstanding, and more than what I even hoped for. So I got what I needed out of it; it's a success in my book.

Well, that isn't official movie promotion.... but the picture is a still from the production.....

The post-NBR screening Q&A http://www.nationalboardofreview.org/2017/10/qa-darren-aronofsky-jennifer-lawrence/