Curiouser and Curiouser

I'm not even convinced it "didn't do as well as hoped." It's 3.5 hours long! This is where I'm stumbling. How much higher was it reasonably supposed to go? Maybe 30 with Leo being more visible? Its length is the biggest stumbling block for it, but if this is the movie Marty wanted, i'm glad he got to make it!

The Revenant with any other actor makes almost zero dollars. Inarritu was an artsy well respected director (not really a household name) and Leo powered that thing to like half a billion. People always forget about the Revenant but that was purely down to his star power. I'm not talking about Titanic, even though the repeat viewing and Leomania was one reason it did so well (but Cameron of course always produces hits). Just cause it was out in 1998 and it was a different time in his career. But Romeo and Juliet did really well and that came out while he was filming Titanic. I don't think it's a secret that until Oppenheimer, Inception was Nolan's highest grossing non Batman movie. Just like Quentin Tarantino movies starring Leo are the highest grossing films of his career. But he's also not a miracle worker and a 3.5 hour grim drama (made by a streaming service making people think it's going to come out relatively soon at home) is always going to have some sort of cap. Especially if he can't even post about the movie or talk about it in public. It's a little odd he has a movie out right now and could be anywhere in the world. Not a peep. Look at margot robbie attending all these premieres for Barbie.

The only reason I raced out to see Oppenheimer right away was the sheer spectacle of it (and I was actually underwhelmed that it's basically a talky office drama with one huge scene). But the Nolan Imax experience turns it into an event. Tenet was beyond bad in my opinion, but I think under normal circumstances it would have done much better. Obviously! Cause context is key. Martin Scorsese is the best director of all time (I think) and is widely considered to be that, or one of the top two, but his movies do not do huge box office business. Leonardo DiCaprio movies are an exception. Who knows how the strike impacted the opening weekend? Also, it's dour and long. Not up tempo and fun like Wolf of Wall Street. It's like nothing they've really made together. If the budget was unknown, I think people would have generally felt opening a 3.5 hour slow burn movie to this amount of money is impressive. I think it's more of a Leonardo thing than a Marty thing. I just simply don't believe Matt Damon in this role gets the same attention or box office. Leo is definitely still a big draw. Just look at Silence if you want to see the difference.

But were those other movies pulled onto streaming after 45 days? Things are different nowadays. Also this movie is ridiculously long. Wolf is under 3 hours (close but under) and I just checked the showtimes near me and there are like no "typical" times. It's really weird. The evening show doesn't start until 8pm. That is just such a tough sell. thE EARLIER screenings are packed.

It's a phone company with a minor prestige arm (that actually makes good content). Good for them for investing in quality art. There was no version of this movie opening much above that, especially in a strike. This was not going to do 80 million like oppenheimer. And don't forget, when apple agreed to make it, oppenheimer as a breakout hit wasn't even on their minds. There was no precedent for this movie doing much better than this. It opened above the Leo/Marty average. There was almost no amount of money that this could have realistically opened at which would have changed your overall comment.

What does apple have to do with it though? if anything, I think apple is confusing people cause it's associated with watching it at home. Hugo opened to about 15 many years ago, right after Shutter Island. I can't speak to its release but Silence made like no money. I feel like 15 is generous. None of these movies had the Apple streaming confusion and a 3.5 hour runtime going against it. I would have loved this to make in the 30s but in the 20s for what it is, I feel like that's a great start. And as Variety pointed out, his movies tend to have legs. https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/box-office-scorsese-killers-of-the-flower-moon-opening-weekend-taylor-swift-stays-first-1235764365/

My guess is around 10 million under the current situation with the strike. Definitely under 15. I think if SAG hadn't been striking this would have done a few extra million.

Am I nuts or is the box office opening overseas pretty good for this movie?

Ummm how much would this have made swapping him out? Never mind the fact he couldn't promote it in any meaningful way since pre-strike. I don't know how much that made a difference but my guess is it made a little bit of a difference. Possibly enough to get in the 30 million range or so? maybe. I think people have forgotten that over 20 million for an original adult drama is usually considered a great opening for that type of film. Then layer in that it's incredibly long and depressing.

I think the movie would have made way more money with Leo in it than Matt Damon. Like way more. They are both "peers" but if Matt Damon starred in Killers of the Flower Moon, how would it have opened? assuming the release was exactly the same.

Paramount's losses are being covered by Apple. I don't know how much evidence people need to get the picture lol. This wasn't made with a theatrical business model in mind.

There's almost zero precedent for that in a Marty/Leo movie. Shutter Island was a marketed like a horror movie, and those always open strong.

I thought this wasn't allowed on this thread anymore? And no, it's not an "atrocious" opening it's a 3.5 hour movie about a subject many people would shy away from. It's R rated and brutal. What exactly are you expecting? No promotion from actors is another subject. I think it probably cost it 30 million. Before the pie in the sky nutty projects (which never made sense given the runtime) an over 20 million result isn't remotely bad and is totally in line with Martin Scorsese movies that star Leo.

Who can realistically go to a 3.5 hour movie at 2pm? Families, jobs, commutes, etc. I'm sure it helped a little but not much.

I wish Apple had hid the budget like they hide everything else because if this film was being evaluated like a normal movie, this opening would be impressive.

Yep! 30 seems like the target and it probably won't' hit it, but anything in that vicinity is amazing. And I think it's the Leo effect more than a Scorsese effect.

Expensive cast and crew, shooting it in Pawhuska for like five months (not really a place with film/tv infrastructure), massive covid department, huge attention to detail with production design and costumes. Basically making Pawhuska look like it was in the 1920s for five months and renting out businesses, etc. Period pieces are always extremely expensive. They are a huge undertaking. It probably could have been made for less, but it would have likely needed to be filmed elsewhere and sacrifices would have had to have been made in the various departments. So like a "budget" version of what we got. I thought the production design and costumes were so so good.

I think the comps were never right so people had high and lofty expectations when this was the number all along. I would love this to make close to 30 million (closer to 30 than 20) and before any projections came out, I think everyone would have thought that was amazing. But I have no idea what it will make this weekend because it's just too unusual.

He doesn't really do the talk show circuit, but I think we would have definitely have seen him posting on social media, doing some interviews with Marty and just being more visible. He could be on a yacht somewhere right now, and I think if he was not on strike he would be just more visible. Too bad, but I still think it's a good result and speaks to his box office draw.

This isn't on topic, but there is no universe apple gave this movie that budget and expected a return theatrically.

Do you mean 50 million total or opening weekend?

Yeah if anything this shows he still has got it. Imagine anyone else as the face of this movie, you think this gets even half of what it's going to get?

I do think that thursday isn't really an ideal time to see a 3.5 hour film, even though the movie is awesome and as many reviews have accurately stated, the length isn't really felt. I don't know if there ever would have been a review "bump" beyond what we currently are seeing, even if it hadn't premiered so long ago at Cannes. Is there a huge risk in it not making at least 20 million this weekend? That would be extremely disappointing, I'm still hoping it makes over 30. definitely over 25. Anyway, disappointing if it was tracking for 3 previews and is closer to 2.

But isn’t it a good sign people are springing for the better more expensive screens? Not saying 25 isn’t gonna happen (it could and that’s not really bad at all) but I feel like over 30 would be a huge win. Fingers crossed. Wolf of Wall Street was so much fun so it having huge legs isn’t a shock.

I agree with you completely.