KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON | 10.20.2023 | Paramount | final gross: $68,026,901

[Last Man Standing]

There's really nothing wrong with intermissions.

[CoolioD1]

I hope the cinemas are at least polite enough to not run a half hour of ads before this.

[WittyUsername]

An intermission will be absolutely necessary for this. They can’t expect people to stay seated for that long, especially if they come in during the ads/previews. 

[filmlover]

Have to imagine they'll add an intermission if this really is the runtime, though theaters probably won't be too happy to only be able to squeeze 3 showtimes (and on some screens, possibly just 2) a day. Dunno, maybe they can talk Marty into giving it the Kill Bill treatment (the two parts made almost equal box office), but I highly doubt that would happen.

[Last Man Standing]

7 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Have to imagine they'll add an intermission if this really is the runtime, though theaters probably won't be too happy to only be able to squeeze 3 showtimes (and on some screens, possibly just 2) a day. Dunno, maybe they can talk Marty into giving it the Kill Bill treatment (the two parts made almost equal box office), but I highly doubt that would happen.

And intermission is a good chance for theaters to sell more snacks.

[Ozymandias]

Scorsese is one of my favorite film makers and I hate how so many people today think movies should be 90 minutes / 2 hours maximum, but man 4 hours is kinda pushing it.  Thats longer than Lawrence of Arabia and the theatrical release of ROTK.  Does a movie like this need to be that long?  No.  Will I be there day 1?  Yes.

[Spidey Freak]

Source material is depressing af. This better be a Lily Gladstone Best Actress vehicle. One of the only ways to sensitively depict the real-life atrocities that the film covers is if it is from her character's POV. Or at least by making her a co-lead and not support.

[titanic2187]

I wonder if working with streamer like Netflix and Apple made Marty thinks that he can go for any movie's length he wants? 

 

I think Marty is the only director who doesn't make big bucks at the BO, spending hundreds of million on production costs on actionless drama, yet he still can get funding for his movie. One way or another.   

[Joel M]

2 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

I wonder if working with streamer like Netflix and Apple made Marty thinks that he can go for any movie's length he wants? 

 

I think Marty is the only director who doesn't make big bucks at the BO, spending hundreds of million on production costs on actionless drama, yet he still can get funding for his movie. One way or another.   

 

He is definately that for the last two decades but that wasn't always the case. Before the 00s with the exception of New York, New York which was a BIG project for its time, he did exclusively mid to low budget movies. Some of them did fine, some of them bombed even with low budgets and even his biggest hits were just hits moneywise, not the kind of success that will give you a blank check to do anything. He did his time working with as much as the studio sustem will alow him.

By 2000 he was already mentioned right next to Chaplin-Kubrick-Hitchkock as the big directors that oscars never rewarded. At the same time Weinstein was at the peak of his power and wanted to be the one to crown Scorsese so he got the huge budgets. And right after he failed Departed happened and the Titanic guy actually became a real movie star and some of Marty's older smaller movies were now huge classics and it ended up with him today being a gigantic figure in Hollywood that people still wanna gamble to make a big movie with. imo he earned it more than most.

 

And to touch on the runtime thing, Scorsese is famously against Director's Cuts. He says as long as the producers didn't take the movie away and you agreed to the Cut, that's the final cut end of story. There's even some Spielberg quote somewhere about Scorsese telling him he ruined a generation of filmmakers by going back to Close Encounters and doing the special edition.  Also Gangs of New York has been his only movie that had unreleasable runtime drama and they fought for a year with Weinstein in the editing room and the whole thing was heavily reported by the press. The movie came out at 165 minutes, Scorsese stood by the cut and there was never even a mention of an extended version, despite those being all the rage at the height of the dvd home market boom.

Where I'm going with this is that if the Irishman is 3,5 hours and KOTFM is 4, it's probably because Scorsese and Thelma wanted them to be so.

In a hypothetical situation where those were traditional studio movies, they would have force him to cut them down and he would be either fine with it or publicly fine and secretly mad about it. I like Gangs of New York but I wish I could have seen what that original supposedly unreleasable cut was like.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Joel M

[Firepower]

2 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

I think Marty is the only director who doesn't make big bucks at the BO, spending hundreds of million on production costs on actionless drama, yet he still can get funding for his movie. One way or another.   

That's what you get when you become a living legend.

[karlleng]

First Netflix and now Apple. Say what you want about old studio executives but they were able to keep Scorsese boomer wild thoughts in check

[Jonwo]

At nearly four hours, you'd get two showings a day at best. It's even longer than Gone with the Wind and that film is 220 minutes long. 

 

 

[Fancyarcher]

5 hours ago, Joel M said:

 

He is definately that for the last two decades but that wasn't always the case. Before the 00s with the exception of New York, New York which was a BIG project for its time, he did exclusively mid to low budget movies. Some of them did fine, some of them bombed even with low budgets and even his biggest hits were just hits moneywise, not the kind of success that will give you a blank check to do anything. He did his time working with as much as the studio sustem will alow him.

By 2000 he was already mentioned right next to Chaplin-Kubrick-Hitchkock as the big directors that oscars never rewarded. At the same time Weinstein was at the peak of his power and wanted to be the one to crown Scorsese so he got the huge budgets. And right after he failed Departed happened and the Titanic guy actually became a real movie star and some of Marty's older smaller movies were now huge classics and it ended up with him today being a gigantic figure in Hollywood that people still wanna gamble to make a big movie with. imo he earned it more than most.

 

And to touch on the runtime thing, Scorsese is famously against Director's Cuts. He says as long as the producers didn't take the movie away and you agreed to the Cut, that's the final cut end of story. There's even some Spielberg quote somewhere about Scorsese telling him he ruined a generation of filmmakers by going back to Close Encounters and doing the special edition.  Also Gangs of New York has been his only movie that had unreleasable runtime drama and they fought for a year with Weinstein in the editing room and the whole thing was heavily reported by the press. The movie came out at 165 minutes, Scorsese stood by the cut and there was never even a mention of an extended version, despite those being all the rage at the height of the dvd home market boom.

Where I'm going with this is that if the Irishman is 3,5 hours and KOTFM is 4, it's probably because Scorsese and Thelma wanted them to be so.

In a hypothetical situation where those were traditional studio movies, they would have force him to cut them down and he would be either fine with it or publicly fine and secretly mad about it. I like Gangs of New York but I wish I could have seen what that original supposedly unreleasable cut was like.

 

Most of Scorsese's films have also been by and large successful, even prior to Gangs and DiCaprio, in one category or another. It's not like he was making arthouse fare or something. He's always been a very commercial filmmaker (Taxi Driver was a big movie in its day, New York, New York was not as much of a flop as has been stated etc..), it's just that post the 1990s, his movies tend to be much longer and much more expensive. 

 

But he's also proven that his movies are deserving of that runtime, so even though Flower Moon is going to be superlong, I at least trust there's a reason for that, even if I would like to see the return of the intermission. I say that as somebody who sat through screenings of Wolf and The Irishman in one sitting (😅).

Edited April 17, 2023 by Fancyarcher

[Jonwo]

33 minutes ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Most of Scorsese's films have also been by and large successful, even prior to Gangs and DiCaprio, in one category or another. It's not like he was making arthouse fare or something. He's always been a very commercial filmmaker (Taxi Driver was a big movie in its day, New York, New York was not as much of a flop as has been stated etc..), it's just that post the 1990s, his movies tend to be much longer and much more expensive. 

 

But he's also proven that his movies are deserving of that runtime, so even though Flower Moon is going to be superlong, I at least trust there's a reason for that, even if I would like to see the return of the intermission. I say that as somebody who sat through screenings of Wolf and The Irishman in one sitting (😅).

 

I think studios are reluctant to give Scorsese's large budgets because his box office track record is patchy. For every Departed or Wolf of Wall Street, you get a Silence or Hugo. 

 

 

[Fancyarcher]

38 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

 

I think studios are reluctant to give Scorsese's large budgets because his box office track record is patchy. For every Departed or Wolf of Wall Street, you get a Silence or Hugo. 

 

 

 

Hugo had great PTA's and WOM though. It simply cost too much money, which is the biggest issue with Scorsese movies nowadays. 

 

Silence did poorly yes, but next to King of Comedy, his three lowest grossing narrative features are his religious trilogy. It was always going to be a hard sell. 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Fancyarcher

[kayumanggi]

 

[Jake Gittes]

I am shocked, shocked to find that World of Reel was posting unreliable info

[CoolioD1]

three minutes shorter than the irishman i'm furious #releasethescorsesecut.

[dudalb]

On 4/15/2023 at 2:04 PM, WittyUsername said:

An intermission will be absolutely necessary for this. They can’t expect people to stay seated for that long, especially if they come in during the ads/previews. 

i would not bet on that. I went to the Fathom 20th Anniversary showing of "LOTR:Return Of The King". which was the  extended  version; add in the 20 Minute special features you were in the theater for four and half hours. And there was no intermission.

I think almost evefybody in the audience had to leave to answer the call of nature on some point.

And even at 3 hours and 26 minutes, it should have an intermission.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by dudalb

[dudalb]

Up until the late 70',s almost any film that ran over two and half hours had a intermission. "The Godfather" ws an exception, and Coppola did have an intermission for "Godfather 2' 

I think "Gandhi" was the  last general release film to have an intermission.