PAPA NOL∀N'S TENƎꓕ | August 26 internationally. September 2 "in select US cities" | 75% on RT after 228 reviews

[Alli]

i wouldn't worry about box office.  these type of big budget action spy movies make a shitload of money.

[filmlover]

Kind of wild this apparently costs so much more than either Inception or Interstellar did when those had certified A-listers to anchor them. Fingers crossed it all works out in the end.

[EarlyDeadlinePredictions]

People doubting Nolan....

 

 

[MrGamer]

Caine and Branagh alone will ensure this will make its budget back.

Edited June 19, 2019 by MrGamer

[MrPink]

21 minutes ago, Avatree said:

But it looks like any other $200M movie and marketed like one. The budget of a film has very little if anything to do with its box office i.e. people would not be twice as likely to watch Dunkirk if they knew it had twice the budget.

 

Unless Dunkirk had much smaller marketing costs (dont think it did), i think its fair to say that just in terms of box office it was not that great compared to some of Nolan other films.

 

I can't say I agree it looks like any other $200m film (though it certainly got a big marketing push). To me, Dunkirk is much more contained in its scale compared to Interstellar and Inception so when the reports came out it was budgeted closer to 100m, I wasn't surprised. I think everybody knew going in that Dunkirk was never going to be the kind of gargantuan hit that Inception was, and that's why they spent less in the first place. People are not twice as likely to watch Dunkirk if it had twice the budget, but if it had twice the budget, you get more marketable stars, bigger setpieces, etc....things that do impact the appeal of the film. But it's not going to benefit the film linearly.

 

It pretty much grossed the high end of what I would have expected.

[Avatree]

3 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

I can't say I agree it looks like any other $200m film (though it certainly got a big marketing push). To me, Dunkirk is much more contained in its scale compared to Interstellar and Inception so when the reports came out it was budgeted closer to 100m, I wasn't surprised. I think everybody knew going in that Dunkirk was never going to be the kind of gargantuan hit that Inception was, and that's why they spent less in the first place. People are not twice as likely to watch Dunkirk if it had twice the budget, but if it had twice the budget, you get more marketable stars, bigger setpieces, etc....things that do impact the appeal of the film. But it's not going to benefit the film linearly.

 

It pretty much grossed the high end of what I would have expected.

yeah it did a lot better than I thought. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I thought it looked huge, I remember seeing things in the newspaper while it was filming about them spending $5 million on a plane to crash it. 

[MrPink]

16 minutes ago, Avatree said:

yeah it did a lot better than I thought. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I thought it looked huge, I remember seeing things in the newspaper while it was filming about them spending $5 million on a plane to crash it. 

 

A false rumor in the end...

 

I would say that we were probably expecting  at some point something bigger in scale than the end product. 

[Avatree]

5 minutes ago, MrPink said:

 

A false rumor in the end...

 

I would say that we were probably expecting  at some point something bigger in scale than the end product. 

Well, you mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger.

[reddevil19]

2 hours ago, MrPink said:

 

I can't say I agree it looks like any other $200m film (though it certainly got a big marketing push). To me, Dunkirk is much more contained in its scale compared to Interstellar and Inception so when the reports came out it was budgeted closer to 100m, I wasn't surprised. I think everybody knew going in that Dunkirk was never going to be the kind of gargantuan hit that Inception was, and that's why they spent less in the first place. People are not twice as likely to watch Dunkirk if it had twice the budget, but if it had twice the budget, you get more marketable stars, bigger setpieces, etc....things that do impact the appeal of the film. But it's not going to benefit the film linearly.

 

It pretty much grossed the high end of what I would have expected.

Exactly this. A lot of people complained that the beaches looked too deserted (i.e. not enough extras/not enough CG) and it was small scale (just a handful of planes and a few boats). Now, obviously that fit the story he wanted to tell, but had he gone the opposite and created a Pearl Harbour scale movie, with a ton of big set pieces, the marketing would have been even bigger around that (there was A LOT of marketing, sure, but it didn't scream huge action spectacle as much as tense war thriller) and I believe the international numbers would have been bigger as a result. So, 700 million box office, but 200 million budget. In terms of profit, it's not like WB would be making much more, it would just look like a bigger smash. 

 

Tenet definitely has a huge budget for a non-franchise movie these days, so it will be a risk, sure. But it will be down to what the movie actually ends up being. Whether it's sci-fi, a Bond-style spy movie, an action thriller or a combination of all, if the scale looks sufficiently big, combined with Nolan's own brand, it should deliver at least Interstellar numbers, IMO.

Edited June 19, 2019 by reddevil19

[redfirebird2008]

11 hours ago, Jayhawk said:

Tbf, I don't really see it as crazy. Time and time again he's made them a lot of money, even with decently risky projects (Dunkirk being a big one). They are clearly right to have faith in him from a commercial perspective alone.

 

Still pretty huge risk when you are throwing around numbers like $170m for production. Tack on marketing and the fact they don't get anywhere near 100% (or even 70%) of the global box office, it is pretty damn risky to spend this type of money unless you have a mega franchise scenario.

 

Of course $170m budget is not considered that big of a deal nowadays when we are seeing some of these franchise movies hit $300m budgets without blinking. Still though...$170m is a shitload of money IMHO. Haha

[tonytr87]

Methinks the time travel rumors are true if the budget is that big. Lot of money needed for period detail (or who knows, maybe even futuristic detail) knowing how Nolan likes practical. 

[The Futurist]

31 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

Methinks the time travel rumors are true if the budget is that big. Lot of money needed for period detail (or who knows, maybe even futuristic detail) knowing how Nolan likes practical. 

Not really.

He just despise fantasy so no need for CG most of the time.

[tonytr87]

53 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Not really.

He just despise fantasy so no need for CG most of the time.

 

I think you misunderstood. 

[The Futurist]

27 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

 

I think you misunderstood. 

Not gonna lie, this word association

 

Nolan/Practical

 

triggers me.

[excel1]

Odd but a Nolan flop could be what leads us to INCEPTION 2 which would do $150/$550/$1.4b if Leo returned 

[MrPink]

4 hours ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

Still pretty huge risk when you are throwing around numbers like $170m for production. Tack on marketing and the fact they don't get anywhere near 100% (or even 70%) of the global box office, it is pretty damn risky to spend this type of money unless you have a mega franchise scenario.

 

Of course $170m budget is not considered that big of a deal nowadays when we are seeing some of these franchise movies hit $300m budgets without blinking. Still though...$170m is a shitload of money IMHO. Haha

 

It is a lot of money...but Nolan's worth is bigger than some franchises right now at the box office.

 

Certainly more than say...(Fo)X-Men or MIB. So yeah it's a risk, but  not all original films are created equal. It helps when all of Nolan's blockbusters (BB aside in a relatively different era) to date have made 500m +. When that's the case, 170m seems appropriate to me. Aside from Disney, any studio, especially Paramount or Sony would be glad to spend that money and get those returns. You don't have the safety net of being tied to an existing franchise, but you also don't run into a wall of diminishing returns when you draw from the well too many times.

Edited June 20, 2019 by MrPink

[TMP]

Are people still doubting Nolan? People were saying Dunkirk was gonna bomb before it opened, and it did almost $200m domestic + got a lot of Oscar nominations, including Picture & Director.

[The Futurist]

21 hours ago, TMP said:

Are people still doubting Nolan? People were saying Dunkirk was gonna bomb before it opened, and it did almost $200m domestic + got a lot of Oscar nominations, including Picture & Director.

Sane people doubt.

Religious people submit.

Edited June 21, 2019 by The Futurist

[Alli]

The cast is so young and dare i say inexperienced with this type of huge movie. Yeah, RPat has been in Twilight, but he sucked. He has not proven himself with a good huge mainstream movie

 

Curios how Pattinson fares here. This is basically his most high profile mainstream role after Twilight. If he's not well received, then good luck with that Batman role.   I think he'll do ok tho.

[Valonqar]

Eh, an actor doesn't need experience to carry a big movie. If they have the X factor or at least X Factor for that particular role they'll be fine. Majority of cape actors are duds outside of cape movies but on point there. And some like Hems, Gadot and Momoa don't have big resumes and yet carried huge franchise movies to big success. 

 

I doubt it that Nolan would cast them if he felt they were off.