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

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

2 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Because it costs over two hundred million dollars and is tracking to open maybe 10 million above Blue Beetle.

But it’s an apple movie not a studio movie? Like apple is paying for the entire thing. Paramount is just handling marketing and will get reimbursed by apple no matter what. It’s nothing like blue beetle which was expected to make 2.5 times or 2 times or whatever its budget. It’s not the same. 

[Bob Train]

14 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Because it costs over two hundred million dollars and is tracking to open maybe 10 million above Blue Beetle.

Unlike Blue Beetle, this will have legs as it's not a CBM that no one cares about. Also, it will do much better in overseas markets.

[Valencia]

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.

[Bob Train]

Just now, 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.

Why are you assuming it will be a flop? It hasn't even come out yet. 

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

2 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Why are you assuming it will be a flop? It hasn't even come out yet. 

I think it’ll make about what most Marty Leo movies make and that’s great! I don’t think theatrical profit is the point here. My interest is I think the story/book is incredible (but so haunting) and the cast and director is amazing. So I am rooting for it. But people crowing about how it’s a flop won’t even consider it’s not a theatrical movie even though it’s getting released in theaters. No actual studio was giving this movie a 200 million dollar budget bc the math isn’t there. Apple did anyway. And I’m glad they did cause it looks awesome. 

[Bob Train]

Django "only" opened $5m above Blue Beetle. Yet unlike Blue Beetle, it easily passed $400m WW due to the fact that unlike a superhero movie, it had actual staying power. Same with OUATIH and WOWS.

[Joel M]

Marty got the DC stans rattled too? What a Legend.

 

[Valencia]

3 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Django "only" opened $5m above Blue Beetle. Yet unlike Blue Beetle, it easily passed $400m WW due to the fact that unlike a superhero movie, it had actual staying power. Same with OUATIH and WOWS.

Django and Wolf were Christmas releases, and Hollywood was a summer release.

[Bob Train]

7 hours ago, Valencia said:

Django and Wolf were Christmas releases, and Hollywood was a summer release.

Even if you remove all the money Django made during the Christmas Corridor, it still easily beat Blue Beetle DOM and OS.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Bob Train

[PlatnumRoyce]

48 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

But it’s an apple movie not a studio movie? Like apple is paying for the entire thing. Paramount is just handling marketing and will get reimbursed by apple no matter what. It’s nothing like blue beetle which was expected to make 2.5 times or 2 times or whatever its budget. It’s not the same. 

It was a paramount film when the film had a ~150M budget so that's probably a better guide to what people expect the film to gross. 

[PlatnumRoyce]

18 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Even if you remove all the movie Django made during the Christmas Corridor, it still easily beat Blue Beetle DOM and OS.

Sure, but you're not bringing up Django because there's an inherent symmetry between a revisionist western with a lot of star power and blue beattle, you brought up Django because it had a ~30M OW. There'd be no reason to throw Django in as a comp if it opened to say 45/55M  in july. This comp makes as much sense as citing GI Joe: Retaliation's OW. GI Joe had worse legs but it's also going to easily destroy BB's Domestic gross because it had a much better OW 

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

14 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

It was a paramount film when the film had a ~150M budget so that's probably a better guide to what people expect the film to gross. 

I don’t think the budget was ever published as a studio movie. Its incarnation as a studio film was very different than what it now is. Both pov and I’m sure length. Apples to oranges. Leo was playing Tom white. 

[Bob Train]

Presales for the movie look solid, and as evidenced by many examples the tracking thread is the best tracking page on the internet. So I am optimistic about its financial prospects. 

[filmlover]

Apple clearly has control over this in a way they don't over their other theatrical releases (Napoleon/Sony and Argylle/Universal) based on how they've been marketed. Those movies are being heavily promoted across the socials of those studios, while all marketing materials from this are coming directly from the streamer. Pretty obvious Paramount really had nothing to do with the making of this and is only handling theatrical distribution costs, and won't lose much money if it fails to match its budget (which, at that price, it already faces an uphill battle in doing so) in theaters.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

1 hour ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

But it’s an apple movie not a studio movie? Like apple is paying for the entire thing. Paramount is just handling marketing and will get reimbursed by apple no matter what. It’s nothing like blue beetle which was expected to make 2.5 times or 2 times or whatever its budget. It’s not the same. 

I had no idea Apple wasn't part of the AMPTP!  

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

6 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I had no idea Apple wasn't part of the AMPTP!  

What does that have to do with anything? It’s a streaming service. It’s not a typical studio. It’s rivals are Amazon and Netflix…

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

27 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Apple clearly has control over this in a way they don't over their other theatrical releases (Napoleon/Sony and Argylle/Universal) based on how they've been marketed. Those movies are being heavily promoted across the socials of those studios, while all marketing materials from this are coming directly from the streamer. Pretty obvious Paramount really had nothing to do with the making of this and is only handling theatrical distribution costs, and won't lose much money if it fails to match its budget (which, at that price, it already faces an uphill battle in doing so) in theaters.

I think paramount is guaranteed to have apple cover any losses. It’s kinda a can’t miss deal for them. 
 

I think some people are upset Marty gets everything he wants without the pressure to deliver revenant sized numbers. Something about that seems to be very upsetting to some people lol. 

[JustLurking]

Even if it did open only 10M above blue beetle this will have way more staying power and it will do way better business in Europe where no one gives a rat's ass about Blue Beetle.

 

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

 

Honestly if anyone thinks Apple greenlit a 200M budget for this on the expectation they would get over 500M theatrical on a Scorsese 3M historical drama you are out of your minds. It's a fucking prestige film and y'all should be glad anyone's making it.

Edited October 5, 2023 by JustLurking

[SpiderByte]

10 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

What does that have to do with anything? It’s a streaming service. It’s not a typical studio. It’s rivals are Amazon and Netflix…

All three of them are studios.

[SpiderByte]

7 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Even if it did open only 10M above blue beetle this will have way more staying power and it will do way better business in Europe where no one gives a rat's ass about Blue Beetle.

 

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

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