KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON | 10.20.2023 | Paramount | current gross: $67,826,648

[filmlover]

4 hours ago, Joel M said:

I'm firmly in the camp give Marty all the money he wants but I still can't wrap my head around how this is supposed to cost 200m. Revenant was a long production with harsh conditions and the entire crew chasing snow from Canada to Argentina and didn't cost close to that. Gangs of NY build a city from scratch and even adjusted the budget isn't close to that. I don't get what all this money is needed for.

We live in a world where How Do You Know of all movies cost $120M ($50M on the salaries for the key players, another $70M on...what? Shooting entirely on location?) to make and that was a decade ago. Who knows where all this money goes.

[Joel M]

46 minutes ago, filmlover said:

We live in a world where How Do You Know of all movies cost $120M ($50M on the salaries for the key players, another $70M on...what? Shooting entirely on location?) to make and that was a decade ago. Who knows where all this money goes.

Yeah out of control budgets because of production problems and general mismanagement has always been a thing. How Do You Know was prob greenlight with a Nancy Meyers like big budget and then went into ridiculous levels because Brooks decided to reshoot the entire beggining and finale of the film. Revenant had a 60ish starting budget and ballooned because of production problems. Ditto Mad Max and a ton of other movies.

 

If Killers of the Flower Moon was something that was shooting for a year and half with Apocalypse Now production disasters and the budget went over 200m sure.

 

But we 're talking about starting budget. Scorsese and his producers went to studios and said we estimate we need 200m to make this if all goes according to plan. That's what is nuts about the whole thing.

[Barnack]

There is probably some:

 

- Hey DiCaprio do you want to make a Netflix movie ?

 

- Why would I ever consider doing that right now ?

 

- It is a so ambitious Scorsese feature that not even if it star you in the lead that a studio will have an hard time greenlight it and you will be paid $60M.

 

- Ok then.

 

I am not sure how much someone use to 20M + 10/15% gross (so often a 50M+ payday) would cost to get on streaming where 100% of the money is upfront but if Ryan Reynolds rumors salary is an indication, a lot.

[Barnack]

7 hours ago, Joel M said:

Revenant was a long production with harsh conditions and the entire crew chasing snow from Canada to Argentina and didn't cost close to that

Once you put how much talent made after the release it would not surprise me if The Revenant was not far if not around that price tag $200M, Netflix (if they do not start some bonus structure) will have to pay all of it upfront.

 

Django Unchained budget went from 87M net after a generous tax credit to over 164M after you consider Tarantino-DiCaprio-Fox-Jackson-etc... payday.

[Joel M]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

Once you put how much talent made after the release it would not surprise me if The Revenant was not far if not around that price tag $200M, Netflix (if they do not start some bonus structure) will have to pay all of it upfront.

 

Django Unchained budget went from 87M net after a generous tax credit to over 164M after you consider Tarantino-DiCaprio-Fox-Jackson-etc... payday.

You clearly know more about how movie budgets and adittional costs work from me, I gather you research this part a lot from your posts here in general but I think you 're missing my point so I'm gonna beat that dead horse one last time, promise.

 

I'm sure the Revenant and Django and any other movie costs more than the officially communicated production budget when you count back end deals, marketing, prints and whatever else cost is not included in the production budget. But my point is Killers of the Flower Moon is a project that hasn't even been greenlight yet. That ridiculous 200m number doesn't include back end deals, and marketing and anything else, it's the number they are asking just for this to get made. And they are not asking that number because Netflix got money they shopped it at Paramount first. It's clearly not a 60m theoretical DiCaprio bait to lure him into streaming. It's what they say they need to make the movie. Which just seems nuts, whatever comparison anyone brings up from any overbudgeted movie. 

 

If Tarantino went to Weinstein with a 164m budget proposal Django wouldn't get made. If Inarritu went to Fox and said I have a cool 135m idea with DiCaprio he's so hot right now they would say thanks but no thanks.

 

With the exception of the surefire juggernauts like Avengers and Star Wars no movie gets or even asks a starting 200m prod. budget before anyone sets foot on set. All the other examples that people cite went that high because they run out of money and the studio had already invest a ton and had to choose if they would give more money or not have a finished movie at all.

 

That's what makes this budget such a mystery to me, and I guess we will find out why they need that much if it ever gets made. But anyway you slice it, this is an unprecedent budget for this kind of movie on every level, and not at all comparable with the Revenants and Djangos and whatnot.

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, Joel M said:

That ridiculous 200m number doesn't include back end deals,

That the distinction, it never will (except if Netflix start a bonus structure based on views we do not known about).

 

All the back end deals talent are use to get is paid upfront, that why a Ryan Reynolds get a $27M salary for a non sequel.

 

2 hours ago, Joel M said:

And they are not asking that number because Netflix got money they shopped it at Paramount first. It's clearly not a 60m theoretical DiCaprio bait to lure him into streaming.

A ok yes, you are right the rumor is not that it was being shop at apple+/netflix for $200M, is that Paramount walked out because it ballooned at over $200M:

The project, “Killers of the Flower Moon,” had been slated for production at ViacomCBS Inc.’s Paramount Pictures, but then the movie’s cost ballooned to more than $200 million, another person familiar with the matter said. (I.E. could be shop for quite more on streaming)

[snarkmachine]

marty needs to get a grip. the irishman didn't need to cost that much either

[Macleod]

Cast alone for this is asking close to $100 mil.  There's where the problem is. 

 

But yeah... Call to the Wild cost at least $120 mil!  Why??  Effects?  And I guess Ford?  It should have been made for half-that. 

Edited April 13, 2020 by Macleod

[Macleod]

"Well, as long as the movie gets made anytime soon..." 

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leonardo-dicaprio-robert-de-niro-offer-walk-role-upcoming-film-1290345

[35MM-18]

Depending on how long it takes for COVID to subside and for this film to be able to safely start filming, we could be looking at the biggest gap between Scorsese films since The Departed and Shutter Island (3 years, 4 months, 10 days).

 

The all-time champion is still the gap between his first two films, Who's That Knocking At My Door? and Boxcar Bertha (4 years, 7 months).

[RealLyre]

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2020 by RealLyre

[CoolioD1]

Every Scorsese movie from now on will exclusively be financed by streaming services looking to legitimize themselves. they're the only ones willing to pay up.

[antovolk]

Based on how things went with Irishman, the right choice. Gets the full theatrical window and wide global release via Paramount, then just skips traditional home ent and goes onto ATV+ 16 weeks later or so. Criterion or similar Blu-ray probably too.

[SLAM!]

9 minutes ago, RealLyre said:

 

 

 

 

 

Hopefully this type of release pattern happens again...

[CoolioD1]

yeah, it's nice this seems to be getting a real theatrical release. won't have to take a 90 minute train ride to see it in a cinema like for The Irishman.

[lorddemaxus]

17 minutes ago, antovolk said:

Based on how things went with Irishman, the right choice. Gets the full theatrical window and wide global release via Paramount, then just skips traditional home ent and goes onto ATV+ 16 weeks later or so. Criterion or similar Blu-ray probably too.

I think this still gets physical home video. Seems like a similar deal to what WB and Amazon had with The Goldfinch.

[Ryan Reynolds]

 

[filmlover]

Figured Paramount wasn't gonna give up a Leo/Marty joint that easy so glad they found a way to cover whatever was needed to make it and it'll be a regular theatrical release.

[CoolioD1]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

i'm guessing the same as netflix but they were able to sweeten the deal with a proper cinema run.

[Gavin Feng]

1 hour ago, antovolk said:

Based on how things went with Irishman, the right choice. Gets the full theatrical window and wide global release via Paramount, then just skips traditional home ent and goes onto ATV+ 16 weeks later or so. Criterion or similar Blu-ray probably too.