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

[MysteryMovieMogul]

13 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Plus this will have a way better shelf life as a film people will watch over time and revisit unlike a forgettable superhero film.

Will it, though? We're living in a world in which Suits actively sits in Netflix's top 10. Who the heck even knows what's going to have staying power these days?

 

6 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

All three of them are studios.

Exactly! I'm not gonna pretend Apple isn't a studio, seeing as they're a two trillion-dollar company.

[TwoMisfits]

1 hour ago, Valencia said:

WB upgrades Blue Beetle from streaming to theatrical and it flops:

 

They never should have never made it in the first place. The brand is dead. DC is a dumpster fire. WB just give up already.

 

Apple upgrades KOTFM from streaming to theatrical and it flops:

 

Marty and Leo don’t miss. This is a win for theaters everywhere. Cinema is saved.

 

I actually somewhat agree with this sentiment.  Whether Apple planned to release it, now it has a full fledged release plan (not a Netflix one-weeker) and should be judged as any full fledged release.

 

Its budget was always too high, whether for streaming or release.  Which we also said about a bunch of movies this year. so on that point, it's not unusual.

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

24 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

All three of them are studios.

This seems extremely obtuse of you. You know there is a difference between Netflix and universal. 

[JustLurking]

43 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Those things wouldn't magically make it profitable. This isn't an argument about critics liking Scorsese or not.

Let me ask you the question: why do you think Apple greenlit this film? What do you think is success to Apple for this?

 

If you believe their goal is for this to make 500M ww, then sure, go on.

[SpiderByte]

11 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Let me ask you the question: why do you think Apple greenlit this film? What do you think is success to Apple for this?

Apple being willing to lose a shit ton of money isn't new, it's why The Morning Show is somehow so expensive despite being very mediocre. But that would not magically make the movie successful at the box office because they know in advance it won't make that money back.

[SpiderByte]

33 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

This seems extremely obtuse of you. You know there is a difference between Netflix and universal. 

At this point? Not really. The entire industry (unwisely?) has pivoted to streaming. Netflix is the biggest streamer, but everyone has either their own streamer or a streaming partner at this point.

[Hatebox]

I’m happy Scorsese is being given blank checks but I genuinely don’t understand why streaming services make these kind of movie investments. There is zero chance they’re getting their money back in corresponding subscriptions, and the prestige factor is minimal at best. 
 

But then so much about the logic of the streaming money pit eludes me.

[SpiderByte]

Easy, they want the prestige of major awards wins. Not coincidentally the reason this is at Apple and not Netflix like Irishman is probably because Irishman got completely shut out.

[Ozymandias]

9 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

I’m happy Scorsese is being given blank checks but I genuinely don’t understand why streaming services make these kind of movie investments. There is zero chance they’re getting their money back in corresponding subscriptions, and the prestige factor is minimal at best. 
 

But then so much about the logic of the streaming money pit eludes me.

 

Apple and Amazon don't give a shit about this stuff, to them streaming is basically a sideshow to impress their girlfriends.   Its why Apple can casually drop 200 million on a period drama like this(or another 200 million on Napoleon) or Amazon can commit to lighting a billion+ on fire with those bad fantasy shows. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Ozymandias

[ChipDerby]

I think everyone on this site cares way too much about movie budgets and "profit". This movie is going to make $300+ mil WW and that's incredible, no matter what the budget. Who cares? You're not the studio financing it! Stop caring about budgets.

[Hatebox]

3 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

I think everyone on this site cares way too much about movie budgets and "profit". This movie is going to make $300+ mil WW and that's incredible, no matter what the budget. Who cares? You're not the studio financing it! Stop caring about budgets.

I mean, this is a box office forum. It’s all nonsense and meaningless to our lives but it’s not entirely unrelated. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Hatebox

[ChipDerby]

Just now, Hatebox said:

Yeah, why would anyone talk about budgets on a box office forum…

 

What does the budget have to how much a film grosses at the box office? Do I really need to say once again how the studio behind Men In Black to this day says the film was a bomb and lost money?

[MysteryMovieMogul]

3 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

I think everyone on this site cares way too much about movie budgets and "profit". This movie is going to make $300+ mil WW and that's incredible, no matter what the budget. Who cares? You're not the studio financing it! Stop caring about budgets.

I guess I'm the weird one for coming to the "Box Office Discussion" forum on Box Office Theory to talk about box office.

[ChipDerby]

Just now, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I guess I'm the weird one for coming to the "Box Office Discussion" forum on Box Office Theory to talk about box office.

 

Ok smarty pants, how much net profit did Avatar make? No guesses, I need a hard number for how much it made. You're on a box office forum, so I assume this knowledge is known by you.

[Hatebox]

4 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

What does the budget have to how much a film grosses at the box office? Do I really need to say once again how the studio behind Men In Black to this day says the film was a bomb and lost money?

Caring about box office at all is really silly, but if you do then discussing it in relation to budget (ie. studio expectation) seems fair game to me. 
 

And yeah, creative accounting exists and we never really know how much these things cost but, as with the rest of it, that’s all part of the fun. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Hatebox

[ChipDerby]

Eric is probably going to ban me from this thread because people can't take criticism.

[ChipDerby]

3 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

Caring about box office at all is really silly, but if you do then discussing it in relation to budget (ie. studio expectation) seems fair game to me. 
 

And yeah, creative accounting exists and we never really know how much these things cost but, as with the rest of it, that’s all part of the fun. 

 

Sure, it can be discussed. But it's funny when people start labeling things "bombs" like lol, to who? I'm sure if this made $1 more than its budget, Apple would be thrilled. But in our twisted box office tracking world, we somehow are the arbitrators or what constitutes a success or not.

[ChipDerby]

I just think people get way too serious about movie budgets, is all.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

17 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Ok smarty pants, how much net profit did Avatar make? No guesses, I need a hard number for how much it made. You're on a box office forum, so I assume this knowledge is known by you.

None of us know anything about the box office of any movie, and yet we still discuss it here. Can't believe I'm comparing the two, but look at how Elemental was treated, an original Pixar film that broke about even. I had to read about how it wasn't a success for Disney, though Disney specifically said otherwise. But god forbid we treat Apple's $200 million 'Flowers of the Killer Moon' the same as every other theatrical release.

Edited October 5, 2023 by MysteryMovieMogul

[ChipDerby]

31 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

None of us know anything about the box office of any movie, and yet we still discuss it here. Can't believe I'm comparing the two, but look at how Elemental was treated, an original Pixar film that broke about even. I had to read about how it wasn't a success for Disney, though Disney specifically said otherwise. But god forbid we treat Apple's $200 million 'Flowers of the Killer Moon' the same as every other theatrical release.

 

We actually know exactly how much a film made at the box office. And the fact that Disney said it was a success, despite its budget, is exactly my point. We should be treating films that do well, like a success. This film is no different. I don't care if it cost $200 mil or $20 mil. The type of film it is, making $300+ mil WW is a success.