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

[WittyUsername]

Apple doesn’t care if this movie “bombs” in theaters. Box office numbers are irrelevant to their business model. Same goes for Amazon. 

[titanic2187]

If nominated for Best Picture, Flower moon will be Scorsese's 10th Best picture nominees. He will also be joining, Spielberg, to become a director of a Best Picture nominee across six different decades.

 

1970s - Taxi Driver

1980s - Raging Bull

1990s - Goodfellas

2000s- Gangs of NY, Aviator, Departed

2010s - Hugo, Wolf of wall street, Irishman 

 

[JonathanMB]

[long time lurker, first time poster]

 

The "flop or not?" discussion regarding this film is particularly thorny to me because its (reported) budget of $200M is only $41M higher than The Irishman's (reported) budget, another streaming release that didn't have to deal with the discussion despite having a (very limited and unreported) theatrical because Netflix is so adamant that their massive budgets are justified thanks to the positive financial vibes they give to the streaming service's value. If we assume that Apple feels the same way, then the only money they really need to make back in theaters is whatever extra cost they put into the theatrical release, right?

 

As for the larger budget/break-even/flop-or-not? discussion, it's kinda fun when you have clear-cut examples of a film wildly over-performing or being an unquestionable flop, but if you have to have a debate about it when the film is in the 1.5-2.5x its budget grey area, it becomes less fun because we'll never really know if they broke even or not unless you have insiders in the biz - and even  then in seemingly clear-cut cases of a profitable smash hit, studios will claim they actually lost money to keep people from making more money, as with say, Bohemian Rhapsody (to cite just one example): https://deadline.com/2021/11/bohemian-rhapsody-profits-lawsuit-queen-freddie-mercury-writer-anthony-mccarten-fox-1234876595/

 

Regardless of all that, I'm feeling a little bullish about this. I keep getting concerned about just how long it is (I think Return of the King is the only 200+ minute movies to ever make over $100M in a single theatrical run in America?), but marketing has been aggressive, the raves are nearly universal, and it just looks like a good, rewarding movie. I think it has a real shot at becoming Scorsese's biggest hit of his career.

[Bob Train]

Why do people pretend streaming/ancilliary revenues do not exist? I get it's a box office forum, but we live in a streaming world. "Billion or flop" standards are ridiculous.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Bob Train

[Bob Train]

Why do some people try to push this narrative that almost everything that doesn't make Avatar numbers is a flop? Sure, the studios may claim that they lose money on many projects that "seem" to be profitable (Harry Potter 5, anyone?), but that is just so that they can hoard more of the profits. If it was true, then Hollywood would have ceased existing long ago.

[ZeroHour]

2 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Why do people pretend streaming/ancilliary revenues do not exist? I get it's a box office forum, but we live in a streaming world.

They exist but it's very hard to put specific monetary value on them especially from the outside. Take a movie like Encanto that put up 10s of billions of minutes in the US alone on streaming despite losing money in its theatrical run. What is all that worth exactly? Surely enough to make that movie a huge financial winner for Disney, but how much of one exactly? Maybe within Disney where they can see exactly how many people signed up and watched it first and whether churn rates went down when it released, they can assign some approximate value, but from the outside it's really hard to say. You can't really blame people for wanting to keep the conversation in the theatrical space and it's fair game to talk about whether or not a film makes money theatrically, even if it's made by Apple.

[ChipDerby]

3 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Apple doesn’t care if this movie “bombs” in theaters. Box office numbers are irrelevant to their business model. Same goes for Amazon. 

 

Almost every streamer is chasing reputation. They want to be seen as serious, so they're willing to spend more than a normal studio would, because they're not seen as "serious movie makers" yet.

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

50 minutes ago, ZeroHour said:

They exist but it's very hard to put specific monetary value on them especially from the outside. Take a movie like Encanto that put up 10s of billions of minutes in the US alone on streaming despite losing money in its theatrical run. What is all that worth exactly? Surely enough to make that movie a huge financial winner for Disney, but how much of one exactly? Maybe within Disney where they can see exactly how many people signed up and watched it first and whether churn rates went down when it released, they can assign some approximate value, but from the outside it's really hard to say. You can't really blame people for wanting to keep the conversation in the theatrical space and it's fair game to talk about whether or not a film makes money theatrically, even if it's made by Apple.

Encanto is insanely popular and a great piece of IP for Disney. Toys, costumes, books, sequels. Sky is the limit. 

[ThomasNicole]

My problem here with this “bomb coming” claimings is that is coming from people that are never here to discuss the movie, that doesn’t look interested at all in the artistic aspect of the project. 
 

Keep coming here exclusively to discuss how it’s about to bomb is on the verge of concern trolling, and honestly, when it comes mostly from fans of CBM movies the whole thing just starts to feels like some personal vendetta against the director because he don’t like the IP you love so you have to keep saying how he’s about to flop. 
 

Yes, for a 200M budget, something like 350M gross won’t be profitable. We all know that and we don’t care no matter how many times you say.
 

This is a 206 minutes period piece about genocide, if this can make 350M, it’s a great sign that there’s still hope for different type of stories for different type of audiences in the theatrical world. This is why we’re happy about the solid presales and it’s good prospects. 
 

If it costs 100 or 200M it doesn’t matter, we’re not paying for it, neither are a traditional studio that made it for theatrical profits. It’s made for a streaming platform, it costs that much because they can spend that without needing to get the money back in traditional ways. They have a TV show coming in January that costs 300M and won’t gross anything, this is how streaming productions is made. This one getting +300M is literally a bonus and we’re happy about what it could mean for cinema along with titles like Oppenheimer. 
 

Now if you want to start some agenda against it and treat it as a fully traditional production and release just to be sure you can call it a flop and then mock Scorsese for being whatever you think of him (just because he said something about your beloved IP), maybe hide it a little better. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by ThomasNicole

[Noctis]

18 hours ago, Bob Train said:

Why do some people try to push this narrative that almost everything that doesn't make Avatar numbers is a flop? Sure, the studios may claim that they lose money on many projects that "seem" to be profitable (Harry Potter 5, anyone?), but that is just so that they can hoard more of the profits. If it was true, then Hollywood would have ceased existing long ago.

 

I never believed Order of the Phoenix losing money. $940m on a $150m budget? 

[WrathOfHan]

17 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Almost every streamer is chasing reputation. They want to be seen as serious, so they're willing to spend more than a normal studio would, because they're not seen as "serious movie makers" yet.

This. Does anyone think Amazon was happy with Air barely breaking even? Apple wants this to be a big hit theatrically for their reputation, even if it'll pull in subscribers in a couple months.

[ZeroHour]

5 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

This. Does anyone think Amazon was happy with Air barely breaking even? Apple wants this to be a big hit theatrically for their reputation, even if it'll pull in subscribers in a couple months.

There's also a very practical reason why the budgets of streaming movies are so high. They have to completely buy out the back end profits for the stars and directors since the stars and directors are giving up any chance of making money from the theatrical run. That's still true for movies like Air and KotFM since their theatrical runs were either added at the last minute or always planned as secondary. I fully buy this would've come in closer to $150 than $200 if it had been set up at Paramount because it's VERY expensive to buy out the profit participation of Marty, Leo, De Niro, etc. This is also why it's so expensive to make crappy Netflix movies with Chris Evans and Ryan Gosling even though those have no artistic ambitions.

[emoviefan]

36 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

My problem here with this “bomb coming” claimings is that is coming from people that are never here to discuss the movie, that doesn’t look interested at all in the artistic aspect of the project. 
 

Keep coming here exclusively to discuss how it’s about to bomb is on the verge of concern trolling, and honestly, when it comes mostly from fans of CBM movies the whole thing just starts to feels like some personal vendetta against the director because he don’t like the IP you love so you have to keep saying how he’s about to flop. 
 

Yes, for a 200M budget, something like 350M gross won’t be profitable. We all know that and we don’t care no matter how many times you say.
 

This is a 206 minutes period piece about genocide, if this can make 350M, it’s a great sign that there’s still hope for different type of stories for different type of audiences in the theatrical world. This is why we’re happy about the solid presales and it’s good prospects. 
 

If it costs 100 or 200M it doesn’t matter, we’re not paying for it, neither are a traditional studio that made it for theatrical profits. It’s made for a streaming platform, it costs that much because they can spend that without needing to get the money back in traditional ways. They have a TV show coming in January that costs 300M and won’t gross anything, this is how streaming productions is made. This one getting +300M is literally a bonus and we’re happy about what it could mean for cinema along with titles like Oppenheimer. 
 

Now if you want to start some agenda against it and treat it as a fully traditional production and release just to  be sure you can call it a flop and then mock Scorsese for being whatever you think of him (just because he said something about your beloved IP), maybe hide it a little better. 

Agree with this all this. What cracks me up with those people with that agenda is they are proving scorcese right in a way that they are so emotionally stunted they cant handle his comments. Do I agree with him on his comments not really, not anymore than I agree on James Gunns supposed feelings about the Burton and Nolan Bat Films. Does that mean I am going to refuse to see their movies and mock them if they fail.  Grow the F up people. 

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

2 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

My problem here with this “bomb coming” claimings is that is coming from people that are never here to discuss the movie, that doesn’t look interested at all in the artistic aspect of the project. 
 

Keep coming here exclusively to discuss how it’s about to bomb is on the verge of concern trolling, and honestly, when it comes mostly from fans of CBM movies the whole thing just starts to feels like some personal vendetta against the director because he don’t like the IP you love so you have to keep saying how he’s about to flop. 
 

Yes, for a 200M budget, something like 350M gross won’t be profitable. We all know that and we don’t care no matter how many times you say.
 

This is a 206 minutes period piece about genocide, if this can make 350M, it’s a great sign that there’s still hope for different type of stories for different type of audiences in the theatrical world. This is why we’re happy about the solid presales and it’s good prospects. 
 

If it costs 100 or 200M it doesn’t matter, we’re not paying for it, neither are a traditional studio that made it for theatrical profits. It’s made for a streaming platform, it costs that much because they can spend that without needing to get the money back in traditional ways. They have a TV show coming in January that costs 300M and won’t gross anything, this is how streaming productions is made. This one getting +300M is literally a bonus and we’re happy about what it could mean for cinema along with titles like Oppenheimer. 
 

Now if you want to start some agenda against it and treat it as a fully traditional production and release just to be sure you can call it a flop and then mock Scorsese for being whatever you think of him (just because he said something about your beloved IP), maybe hide it a little better. 

350 million would be an absolute dream for this film. I’d be very impressed. 

[PlatnumRoyce]

2 hours ago, ZeroHour said:

That's still true for movies like Air and KotFM

Killers of the Flower Moon just seems like a really expensive movie that's likely costing significantly over $200M and there's just no way to downplay that. If you pull pre-Apple articles, there were discussions of an earlier version of the film hitting that number while still at Paramount. 

 

23 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

Apple doesn’t care if this movie “bombs” in theaters. Box office numbers are irrelevant to their business model. Same goes for Amazon. 

From a basic financial perspective, it really seems obvious that Amazon massively overpaid for Air and basically gave Affleck and co. pretty much the maximum backend without the film realizing that value. Regardless of whether or not Amazon cares about the box office (I think their history + current embrace of ads shows it does to some degree), AIR's box office mattered in large part because the streaming numbers didn't contradict them.

Even if KotFM doesn't make The Revenant style box office grosses, there's a chance its a big hit and perhaps there's different ways of valuing that. It's hard to see how AIR paid for itself but I'm sure someone has a cool argument for it. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Noctis said:

 

I never believed Order of the Phoenix losing money. $940m on a $150m budget? 

Yeah, but that's due to "net participation profit" definitions not "real" profits (and $0.00 in TV revenue that's obviously either changed in the intervening years or something funky in the contract). No one thinks that if Russia hacked WB's internal documents in 2023, and posted them online via wikileaks they'd show an internal understanding the film lost money. 
 

Edited October 6, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[Boxx93]

I've never doubted DiCaprio's box office power, and I ain't gonna start now. I truly believe we are gonna see a repeat of Wolf Of Wall Street kind of BO run.

 

Though with that runtime, an Intermission would be nice for many people's bladders.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Boxx93

[dudalb]

On 10/5/2023 at 10:37 AM, WittyUsername said:

Apple doesn’t care if this movie “bombs” in theaters. Box office numbers are irrelevant to their business model. Same goes for Amazon. 

Apple is after prestige, thinking that will pay off in the long run.

A good example of htis is their announcement that  "Masters Of The Air", the long awaited Speilberg/Hanks produced sucessor to "Band of Brothers" and "Pacific" will debut on Apple on Jan. 24th. Thie series about the 8th Air Force Bombing Campaing against Nazi Germany was in limbo at HBO for years until Apple grabbed it. Very much a project wiht a lot of prestige.

[35MM-18]

On 10/5/2023 at 7:12 PM, titanic2187 said:

If nominated for Best Picture, Flower moon will be Scorsese's 10th Best picture nominees. He will also be joining, Spielberg, to become a director of a Best Picture nominee across six different decades.

 

1970s - Taxi Driver

1980s - Raging Bull

1990s - Goodfellas

2000s- Gangs of NY, Aviator, Departed

2010s - Hugo, Wolf of wall street, Irishman 

 

Additionally, if nominated for Best Director, Scorsese will become the second director ever to receive 10 or more nominations in that category (presently he has 9 nominations, as does Spielberg), after William Wyler (12 Best Director nominations and 3 wins). 

[Celedhring]

11 hours ago, dudalb said:

Apple is after prestige, thinking that will pay off in the long run.

A good example of htis is their announcement that  "Masters Of The Air", the long awaited Speilberg/Hanks produced sucessor to "Band of Brothers" and "Pacific" will debut on Apple on Jan. 24th. Thie series about the 8th Air Force Bombing Campaing against Nazi Germany was in limbo at HBO for years until Apple grabbed it. Very much a project wiht a lot of prestige.

 

That alone will make me re-suscribe to Apple, tbf.

[Hatebox]

The problem with streaming services throwing money at prestige projects for long-term cred is… they’re really shit at it. I absolutely do not associate any of them with venues for quality original feature films, and I would never subscribe to them on that basis. Does anyone? If that’s part of the strategy, I’d say they’re failing miserably. 
 

(This is a totally different conversation to the one where I’m very happy Scorsese gets a blank check to make whatever he wants. I don’t care about this movie’s success, but the idea that these massive streaming companies coming to the rescue of great cinema is, as it currently stands, patently horseshit.)

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by Hatebox