Megalopolis l Francis Ford Coppola's future magnum opus l CINEMA HAS BEEN SAVED

[Hatebox]

Interstellar doesn’t count. It got strong contemporary reviews and is still liked by letterboxd film bros but I think that’s about as far as it goes. 
 

honestly, if we’re doing Nolan films then Tenet has a better shout: deservedly or not you can see a cult forming around it now as a misunderstood gem 

 

 

Edited April 1 by Hatebox

[Firepower]

8 hours ago, AniNate said:

I don't know what an objective consensus "reappraisal" would entail but Blood Diamond has an IMDB rating of 8 despite mixed critical reviews and flopping at the box office

I remember audiences loved Blood Diamond since it was released and it got Oscar noms, but it did flop, probably because of its budget.

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, Firepower said:

So no examples I suppose? Show me 2000s movie that got rotten critics reviews and audience scores in low 6 or high 5 on release, but now have at least 7 average and positive critics score. I can't think of any because they most likely don't exist. The Thing, Scarface, Blade Runner and The Shining type of reappraisals don't exist since late 90s, those were considered rotten movies on release with Razzies nominations, that era is long over.

 

 

The reason they might not exist is because your very setup is likely very hard to reach.  The ratings systems which you hold to here, BY DEFINITION will never be able to have re-appraisals because it'll always have those older ratings as "votes".  Only if you have a breakdown of ratings by year could you really see such movement.  And I'm not about to do your homework for you by looking through IMDB or other things to see what sort of options I can glean there.

 

You're also mixing a soft analysis (alleged contemporary feelings to things like The Thing) versus an alleged set of hard data points with contemporary films.

 

That is not a like-for-like comparison. 

 

Hell, Rotten Tomatoes isn't even set up for re-appraisals, so why would we even use it as a barometer for that sort of thing?  I will allow that IMDB is more time sensitive as folks can add to it at any time.  But it still has the weight of history on it.

 

I would also note this has very little to do with social media and everything to do with ratings aggregators.  If you want to complain about how rating aggregators can freeze things in amber, that's a whole different discussion.  But then again, people don't tend to use RT as a current guide as to how a movie is seen, but more of a "how critics saw it at the time",

 

Still, all of this is wildly offtopic.  But this smacks of goal post moving and I wanted to make my objections noted.

[Firepower]

18 minutes ago, Porthos said:

The reason they might not exist is because your very setup is likely very hard to reach.  The ratings systems which you hold to here, BY DEFINITION will never be able to have re-appraisals because it'll always have those older ratings as "votes".  Only if you have a breakdown of ratings by year could you really see such movement.  And I'm not about to do your homework for you by looking through IMDB or other things to see what sort of options I can glean there.

 

You're also mixing a soft analysis (alleged contemporary feelings to things like The Thing) versus an alleged set of hard data points with contemporary films.

 

That is not a like-for-like comparison. 

 

Hell, Rotten Tomatoes isn't even set up for re-appraisals, so why would we even use it as a barometer for that sort of thing?  I will allow that IMDB is more time sensitive as folks can add to it at any time.  But it still has the weight of history on it.

 

I would also note this has very little to do with social media and everything to do with ratings aggregators.  If you want to complain about how rating aggregators can freeze things in amber, that's a whole different discussion.  But then again, people don't tend to use RT as a current guide as to how a movie is seen, but more of a "how critics saw it at the time",

 

Still, all of this is wildly offtopic.  But this smacks of goal post moving and I wanted to make my objections noted.

I do agree RT, social media and imdb not exisiting in 80s doesn't make it a fair comparison, that's true, but if The Thing was well regarded flop on release like Blade Runner 2049, it wouldn't have hurt Carpenter's career like it did, so it's safe to say it was trashed across the board on release. Even if we ignore pure numbers, do we have a generally well regarded 2000s movie that was poorly received on release? Speed Racer has its fans, but I don't think it's generally well regarded movie today, even if its reputation did improve. Tron: Legacy has its fans as well, but its numbers didn't see a noticeable improvement since release.

I think the closest thing to sort of 2000s reappraisal is Kingdom of Heaven, but it's seen in a different light today because what was trashed on release is a butchered version of it, if they released 3 hour 20 minutes cut initially, it would've had a positive reception on release, so it's still not the same thing as a theatrical cut being revaluated a decade or two later.

Edited April 1 by Firepower

[Eric the IF]

Moderation

 

This off-topic conversation has gone on long enough. Please stay focused.

[AniNate]

For the record Roger Ebert gave an enthusiastic review of Apocalypse Now and it was a pretty solid box office hit, and it also got eight Oscar nominations. So whatever the narrow definition is here I don't think that movie fits it either.

Edited April 1 by AniNate

[PlatnumRoyce]

12 hours ago, AniNate said:

I don't know what an objective consensus "reappraisal" would entail but Blood Diamond has an IMDB rating of 8 despite mixed critical reviews and flopping at the box office

Blood Diamond did fairly weakly at the US box office but one reason this reappraisal point doesn't really work is that I don't think Blood Diamond is fairly understood as a flop. The director wrote a book and recently did an interview tour which includes an anecdote about Blood Diamond turning a $40M profit. It did fine overseas and clearly saw robust early home video runs.

 

Quote

Blood Diamond made a $40 million profit. Over lunch studio chief Alan Horn told Zwick that he loved the film — but it would be the last of its kind the studio would make. “$40 million doesn’t move the needle on the stock price,” Horn said. 

 

https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/580608/in-hollywood-the-rarest-of-people-not-a-score-settler-or-a-tattletale-just-a-mensch/

Edited April 1 by PlatnumRoyce

[AniNate]

48 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Blood Diamond did fairly weakly at the US box office but one reason this reappraisal point doesn't really work is that I don't think Blood Diamond is fairly understood as a flop. The director wrote a book and recently did an interview tour which includes an anecdote about Blood Diamond turning a $40M profit. It did fine overseas and clearly saw robust early home video runs.

 

 

https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/580608/in-hollywood-the-rarest-of-people-not-a-score-settler-or-a-tattletale-just-a-mensch/

 

All I know is its budget was reported at $100mil and it made $170 mil worldwide, so it didn't come close to the so-called 2.5x or even the 2x rule. But this isn't the thread to litigate the box office performance of a completely unrelated movie. We have already established that this whole debate is based around fuzzy and arbitrary criteria and the mods have told everyone to stop.

 

 

[interiorgatordecorator]

the plot seems somewhat straightforward, does anyone know what leads people to say it has no commercial prospects? outside of the gimmick with the audience member which probably wont happen outside of festivals and if it does it'll just be some messing around with the aspect ratio

[AniNate]

If there's any reason to doubt its commercial prospects it's that no one saw Tetro or Twixt. But no one ever promoted those movies as Coppola's "magnum opus" and it's pretty clear that much loftier commercial ambitions are in mind here with them seeking an IMAX release and outside distributor for this one.

[WittyUsername]

November seems like an optimal time for this to be released. 

[dudalb]

23 hours ago, interiorgatordecorator said:

the plot seems somewhat straightforward, does anyone know what leads people to say it has no commercial prospects? outside of the gimmick with the audience member which probably wont happen outside of festivals and if it does it'll just be some messing around with the aspect ratio

I remember people saying here how Oppenheimer  would not do well at the box office.

Bitter fact is some people here just do not think any film that is not a "geek/nerd" film..ie. a CBM, A Sci Fi Fantasy film, An action franchise or a horror movie...can be a box office hit.

I would dispute Interstellar beind "rediscovered". It is still a pretty devisive film...and it did farily well at the box office, but was the Dark Knight level hit some were expecting.

[Firepower]

18 minutes ago, dudalb said:

It is still a pretty devisive film...

8.7 imdb, 2.1 mln votes, #21 in top 250.
4.34 letterboxd, 2.3 mln votes, #93 in top 250.

If this is a divisive film, the word "divisive" lost all meaning.

Edited April 3 by Firepower

[WittyUsername]

Interstellar is pretty much universally praised as one of the great sci-if epics of the 21st century nowadays. Certain people were snarky towards it back in the day, presumably because Marvel was dominating the landscape, so Internet critics were less willing to accept a genre film that wasn’t full of Whedonisms, but as of the 2020s, it’s consistently viewed as one of Christopher Nolan’s best films.

[AniNate]

An Interstellar type of fate definitely wouldn't be the worst thing here. But I do think there is also the possibility that it's a complete hot mess that gets a rotten reception, and if that's the case then it's toast. I would prefer not to assume that scenario though.

[lorddemaxus]

Would be funny if Neon buys NA rights for this and it ends up pretty much performing like Ferrari (both films have a bunch of similarities)

[MightyDargon]

Interstellar actually made money. If this film has an "Interstellar run" in the 2020s it would be viewed as a massive success.

[filmlover]

 

[dudalb]

2 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 

"Even your name of your brains will be on that contract in five minutes".

Now I am more curious then ever to see this.

[cannastop]

28 minutes ago, filmlover said:

 

A $100 million marketing budget? That seems pretty high for this movie.