Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood | July 26 2019 | Digital Foot Technology | RIP Cinerama Dome

[excel1]

1 hour ago, HesAPooka said:

blood diamond cost 100m and made 57m in US and 170mww, that's a massive bomb lol

 

 

 

 

 

Cost has nothing to do with how it is marketed and distributed. It wasn't pushed as a major release and performed exactly where most expected it to. A lesser name and its in the 30 million range 

[JB33]

15 minutes ago, wildphantom said:

Surely this has to open really well this weekend. 

I mean, if you’re an adult and love movies, wtf are you doing if you can’t get yourself out of the house for a raved new QT movie? With that cast?

 

almost feel like this is the last straw for me defending moviegoers if this doesn’t sail past $100 million domestic. 

 

If you’re over 25 and thinking “nah, I’ll wait for that Fast and Furious movie” then I don’t know what to say. 

 

I hear ya. You're absolutely right. Nobody has the right to piss and moan about franchises if they can't make their way out to see this, at least on a Tuesday (trust me, I GET budget concerns and barely having any money for movies). I see stuff on Tuesdays a lot.

[The Futurist]

Out of 7 Billion people, Leonardo Di Cpario is probably in the top 100 000 or even 50 000 of worst/best carbon footprint emissions.

 

But he s the one who has the mission to say to people who win just enough money to fill up their fridge that

 

Carbon emissions= Baaaaaaaaaaaad

 

Peasants shouldn't take a vacation outside of the town they were born.

Freaking peasants.

[Jeriosnal]

My local AMC only has two showtimes up so far (6:30pm and 10pm) on Friday and Saturday, so I bet lots of people haven't even bought their ticket yet because of weird stuff like that.  

[PenguinHyphy]

2 hours ago, wildphantom said:

Surely this has to open really well this weekend. 

I mean, if you’re an adult and love movies, wtf are you doing if you can’t get yourself out of the house for a raved new QT movie? With that cast?

 

almost feel like this is the last straw for me defending moviegoers if this doesn’t sail past $100 million domestic. 

 

If you’re over 25 and thinking “nah, I’ll wait for that Fast and Furious movie” then I don’t know what to say. 

 

Or how about you watch want you want and allow other people to watch what they want without you berating people? 

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, HesAPooka said:

blood diamond cost 100m and made 57m in US and 170mww, that's a massive bomb lol

Not sure that this is the case for a between 2004 and 2007 release that was the peak of the revenues and safest time in Hollywood history. back in those days a 100m movie with a 125M marketing budget making less than 200m like Open Season:

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=openseason06.htm

 

Made a tiny profit, would not surprise me if the bomb was not a massive one, even if the first dollar gross got it costing more 110-115m than 100m.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

...No ? Gangs was barely a wide release 

 

 

I imagine that is because it was under performing, otherwise it would have played longer and achieved to convince more theater to play it.

[CoolioD1]

yeah dvd and tv reruns were a booming industry in the mid 2000s. a lot of movies probably got into the black thru that. i'd bet on blood diamond being one of them was on tv a lot from my recollection. back then studios could afford to play that long game.

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, wildphantom said:

I mean, if you’re an adult and love movies, wtf are you doing if you can’t get yourself out of the house

One would think the same for a Scorsese release and yet.....

[kowhite]

4 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

Cost has nothing to do with how it is marketed and distributed. It wasn't pushed as a major release and performed exactly where most expected it to. A lesser name and its in the 30 million range 

 

It still lost money.  Kinda bombed?

 

I want this one to make the money.  Kinda wanted Blood Diamond to do that too, solid flick.  Expecting this to be better.

[dxmatrixdt]

lack of investment in advertising or handing out interest, their loss.

[maxalcamo]

R.I.P to all the Chris WHOS in the marvel movies

 

Leonardo DiCaprio is the only global superstar left in a film industry in which an interchangeable group of actors suit up in spandex or brandish a lightsaber for the latest billion-dollar earner. Here's my deep dive on his career.

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/how-leonardo-dicaprio-became-hollywoods-last-movie-star-1225416

[maxalcamo]

On 7/21/2019 at 8:25 PM, Valonqar said:

In this decade, 2010 onward, his only hickup was J Edgar in 2011. The rest of them - Shutter Island, Inception, Django Unchained, Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street and The Revenant were big hits. It's a mightily impressive run considering none of these movies is a franchise and some aren't even the usual action/sci fi/fantasy spectacles that attract audience no matter who stars. 

He makes safe choices, all of them are directors with several box office hits or awards winnings before he worked with them. I think Brad Pitt or Ryan Gosling make more courageous choices but still no one can deny the incredible impact Di Caprio had for these movies.

The renevant made 532 M dollars, it's incredibile, only because of Leonardo Di Caprio and his very talk oscar worthy performance.  

Nowadawys is more than rare. Put an original movie with Di caprio on Netflix, whatever movie and you will have easily the record of views for a movie untill now. 

 

Once upon a time will do great numbers everywhere, it won't be a bomb in any way. Pitt and Di Caprio are real true global superstar, really really global. And well Tarantino alone of course is a famous brand too. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by maxalcamo

[CoolioD1]

yeah, that THR article credits him for his "risks" but it's not like it's that risky to be the lead in a new Tarantino or Scorsese vehicle. It's his time and i can't tell him what to do with it, and hey obviously his choices are working for him but it would be nice for Leo to use his powers to help an up-and-coming filmmaker every once and a while.

[filmlover]

Previews start at 4 this Thursday, didn't notice until now. Curious decision. Perhaps they realize this is gonna skew older for the most part? 

[Barnack]

54 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

yeah, that THR article credits him for his "risks" but it's not like it's that risky to be the lead in a new Tarantino or Scorsese vehicle. It's his time and i can't tell him what to do with it, and hey obviously his choices are working for him but it would be nice for Leo to use his powers to help an up-and-coming filmmaker every once and a while.

True for Tarantino, but there is a reason they didn't find a studio to finance Wolf of Wall Street (with the strict Scorsese conditions) and had to rely on independent financing from suspect international mob and government fraudster.

 

Look at Scorsese commercial success rate outside prime DeNiro and DiCaprio after that, it is pretty much only commercial failures, if Wolf of Wall street (an 100M 3hours Rrated affair) isn't really good, it would have probably failed quite a bit, even a good Wolf of Wall Street with an unknown lead could have.

 

The Revenant is arguably as risky has a blockbuster that we can get.

[CoolioD1]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

True for Tarantino, but there is a reason they didn't find a studio to finance Wolf of Wall Street (with the strict Scorsese conditions) and had to rely on independent financing from suspect international mob and government fraudster.

 

Look at Scorsese commercial success rate outside prime DeNiro and DiCaprio after that, it is pretty much only commercial failures, if Wolf of Wall street (an 100M 3hours Rrated affair) isn't really good, it would have probably failed quite a bit, even a good Wolf of Wall Street with an unknown lead could have.

 

The Revenant is arguably as risky has a blockbuster that we can get.

that's a bit literal minded but ok. it's not a risk because literally nobody would turn down those parts with those directors.

Edited July 22, 2019 by CoolioD1

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:

that's a bit literal minded but ok. it's not a risk because literally nobody would turn down those parts with those directors.

 

Nobody except him (arguably for some of those example, those movie at those budget would not exist to be turned down), there is always the risk is to loose is  ability to get that level of distribution, artistic freedom and budget (and is next role with a great director that really want to get the giant budget and artistic liberty. If 3 of is movies would fail in row it would probably loose a significant amount of that green light power, a 100m Wolf had quite the chance to fail, same for a unknown above 100m The Revenant and so on.

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

 

Nobody except him (arguably for some of those example, those movie at those budget would not exist to be turned down), there is always the risk is to loose is  ability to get that level of distribution, artistic freedom and budget (and is next role with a great director that really want to get the giant budget and artistic liberty. If 3 of is movies would fail in row it would probably loose a significant amount of that green light power, a 100m Wolf had quite the chance to fail, same for a unknown above 100m The Revenant and so on.

the revenant's budget ballooned through reshoots tho it wasn't gonna be that big when he signed on and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the riskiness of Wolf. i just always see leo as an actor who plays it safe. none of his selections ever surprise me. i don't think any of those movies failing would hurt his station he's still exclusively working with the a-list filmmakers. like i said he doesn't have to change his methods it works for him but working with an up-and-comer, helping them get a bigger budget project funded w/ his star power, would be a genuine risk.

[cannastop]

2 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

yeah, that THR article credits him for his "risks" but it's not like it's that risky to be the lead in a new Tarantino or Scorsese vehicle. It's his time and i can't tell him what to do with it, and hey obviously his choices are working for him but it would be nice for Leo to use his powers to help an up-and-coming filmmaker every once and a while.

What and tarnish his brand?

 

No way he gets less than $30m every movie.

[CoolioD1]

Just now, cannastop said:

What and tarnish his brand?

that's exactly what makes it a risk. i'm just disputing THR's claim that he's a risk taker. what's risky about brand management like that?