Oppenheimer | 2024 Academy Award Winner for Best Picture and Best Director

[screambaby]

1 hour ago, dudalb said:

Depends on how you define epic. It is epic in that it covers a farily long period of time and has a number of charecters but is not epic if you mean big spectaclar scenes with lots of eye candy. This is my most anticipated film of the summer, but I don't expect it to be a hit. which says a lot about today's movie audiences...and nothing good IMHO.

Cause kids teenagers and even older people want to be reminded we could all be blasted into oblivion in a heartbeat...again making a movie without a purpose other then to get awards....otherwise put it on the discovery channel it wouldn't cost a 100 million

[dudalb]

2 minutes ago, screambaby said:

Cause kids teenagers and even older people want to be reminded we could all be blasted into oblivion in a heartbeat...again making a movie without a purpose other then to get awards....otherwise put it on the discovery channel it wouldn't cost a 100 million

Maybe you are happy with nothing but a diet of Comic Book Movies. (Not that I don't like some of them). I am not. I like some more serious fare.

[screambaby]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Maybe you are happy with nothing but a diet of Comic Book Movies. (Not that I don't like some of them). I am not. I like some more serious fare.

And that's fine. But to expect the rest of  the general audience to feel the same? I actually am not into comic books movies ..but the movies I like don't make mega bucks either anymore 

Edited May 5, 2023 by screambaby

[kayumanggi]

 

[The Dark Alfred]

4 hours ago, excel1 said:

This is not an overly commercial film was mass appeal. It just isn't. A $45m/$160m type of domestic run is entirely possible, but feels like best case scenario. 

 

That's a great prediction. Would be a great total that for a biopic.

[kestrel]

Just a reminder that Elvis grossed $150m last year. Not a perfect comparison as Elvis is much more well known, but it does show that serious, biographical dramas can still make money in this day and age. And that one was pushing 3 hours too.

[excel1]

6 minutes ago, kestrel said:

Just a reminder that Elvis grossed $150m last year. Not a perfect comparison as Elvis is much more well known, but it does show that serious, biographical dramas can still make money in this day and age. And that one was pushing 3 hours too.

 

The film was obviously much more high energy than this, just saying 

[filmlover]

Got the trailer for this before my Guardians showing last night. Looks both epic and engaging, as one would expect a Nolan film about this topic would be. Can't wait equally to see both this and Barbie that weekend!

 

That poster is a hilarious travesty though. I applaud that they avoided the temptation of stuffing every single actor on the poster (no easy feat given how packed with familiar faces this is), but "VHS cover from the late 90s/early 2000s" wasn't the way to go either.

[thajdikt]

Got the trailer today before my screening in Vol 3, didn´t get it on Wednesday. It looked good, sound was insane. 

[GOGODanca]

Variety claimed that this movie had to make 400m to break even (off of a $100m budget) seems a bit high unless nolan gets some crazy % of gross

[kestrel]

12 hours ago, excel1 said:

 

The film was obviously much more high energy than this, just saying 

We'll see. Being too slow or lacking energy has never been a problem for Nolan's films before.

[excel1]

1 hour ago, GOGODanca said:

Variety claimed that this movie had to make 400m to break even (off of a $100m budget) seems a bit high unless nolan gets some crazy % of gross

 

Nolan did indeed get a crazy deal from Universal to go there.

[Maggie]

I can't believe the trailer is still not online. Nolan is really serious about seeing movies in theaters

[kayumanggi]

I forgot DUNKIRK almost made 190M. Is this a tougher sell? I am actually surprised DUNKIRK made that much.

[JWR]

1 minute ago, kayumanggi said:

I forgot DUNKIRK almost made 190M. Is this a tougher sell? I am actually surprised DUNKIRK made that much.

 

It had Harry Styles and it had all the spectacle war movies are known for without being too brutal/graphic.

[kayumanggi]

3 minutes ago, JWR said:

 

It had Harry Styles and it had all the spectacle war movies are known for without being too brutal/graphic.

 

I actually don't think Styles is a great pull. I think Nolan simply just has this very loyal following.

[WittyUsername]

19 minutes ago, kayumanggi said:

I forgot DUNKIRK almost made 190M. Is this a tougher sell? I am actually surprised DUNKIRK made that much.

I’d say it is a tougher sell. Dunkirk is a war movie that came out at a point when streaming wasn’t quite as prominent as it is today. Nolan’s name also might not be quite as big a draw six years later. 

[lorddemaxus]

Was the trailer for this in a different aspect ratio in IMAX screens?

[filmlover]

6 hours ago, kayumanggi said:

I forgot DUNKIRK almost made 190M. Is this a tougher sell? I am actually surprised DUNKIRK made that much.

1917 made nearly $160M about 2.5 years later. There's clearly an audience for a well-made war movie that promises a thrilling experience.

[excel1]

18 minutes ago, filmlover said:

1917 made nearly $160M about 2.5 years later. There's clearly an audience for a well-made war movie that promises a thrilling experience.

Can someone make big-budget, well-done take on PEARL HARBOR or D-DAY please? Big $$$$ no doubt.