April 22-24th Weekend thread | Northman conquers $5m Friday, Mr. Wolf’s fine ass and The Bad Guys steal $8m, and Unbearable Talent has an unbearable start at $3m

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

4 minutes ago, Lestranger said:

Northman could make 20 million this weekend and it would still be a massive financial disaster. I still don't quite understand who sat down with a spreedsheat and said yeah, let's give him 70 million, that math works out. Then give him 20 million more to finish it. Seemed like bad business from the start.

Who cares? It's not your money

[Flopped]

8 minutes ago, Lestranger said:

Northman could make 20 million this weekend and it would still be a massive financial disaster. I still don't quite understand who sat down with a spreedsheat and said yeah, let's give him 70 million, that math works out. Then give him 20 million more to finish it. Seemed like bad business from the start.

 

Oh well, like Kidman's other financial disappointments such as EYES WIDE SHUT, it will probably outlast a lot of this year's box office hits. 

[Jake Gittes]

59 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

My brother in Christ...    

 

 

 

 

the V lady better be coming back with a 1,000+ word analysis of this.

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

The hysterics over The Northman remains so laughable. I don't get it. Yeah, it's flopping, yeah it cost money... but you're not losing money personally. Two production companies joined together because they an acclaimed director with art house hits pitched an epic that was similar to recent films like Revenant, etc which made money and got awards buzz. Instead of this hyperbole, maybe just read an interview with Eggers when he discusses the process. Hollywood still needs and desires to take "risks" sometimes--especially speciality labels such as Focus Features. The potential is a huge hit and awards. You fail theatrically, you hope the legacy of director gives it a lasting shelf life on streaming and VOD. Truly don't understand what's so complicated and maddening about this. 

[Eric is Anxious]

5 minutes ago, Lestranger said:

Northman could make 20 million this weekend and it would still be a massive financial disaster. I still don't quite understand who sat down with a spreedsheat and said yeah, let's give him 70 million, that math works out. Then give him 20 million more to finish it. Seemed like bad business from the start.

It's not that crazy IMO. Eggers is a rising director who has already cultivated a fanbase, there's a good ensemble full of recognizable names to plop on the poster, with Skarsgard also fresh off Big Little Lies, and Eggers probably pitched this as a good action revenge story, something that is easy to sell to people and easy to market. A lot can happen between greenlighting to final release in terms of production and advertising that a lot of people fail to account for.

 

And even then, studios like making big swings on directors with prestige behind them. It legitimizes their library and especially their streaming service or gives them a good hook when selling to other streamers/premium networks. Paul Thomas Anderson hasn't had a box office hit since There Will Be Blood, but he keeps getting movies made because of that prestige.

[Legion Again]

4 minutes ago, Eric is a furry said:

Paul Thomas Anderson hasn't had a box office hit since There Will Be Blood, but he keeps getting movies made because of that prestige.

It keeps happening, but that make it a sound financial decision? At some budgets, sure — at others, not so much.    
 

It’s pretty reasonable to observe that 90M for this did not have positive expected return based on information available at the time, even accounting for the possibility of spiking a blowup hit.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Thanos Legion

[Brainbug]

I for one am truly glad that there are still studios out there that give directors like Robert Eggers 70-90M for a weird ass, amazing Viking movie.

 

As long as movies such as The Northman are still beeing made, cinema is in a good place.

[CJohn]

1 hour ago, WrathOfHan said:

My brother in Christ...    

 

 

 

Sweet mother of V.

[Legion Again]

Can something explain this V thing to me? I’m seeing so many jokes about it but I have no idea where they started/what they’re about

[Eric is Anxious]

Just now, Thanos Legion said:

Can something explain this V thing to me? I’m seeing so many jokes about it but I have no idea where they started/what they’re about

Somebody found this wine mom review when Legend of Tarzan dropped. It's honestly incredible

 

https://www.emilywrites.co.nz/i-saw-tarzan-and-this-is-my-review-after-some-wines/

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

1 minute ago, Thanos Legion said:

It keeps happening, but that make it a sound financial decision? At some budgets, sure — at others, not so much.    
 

It’s pretty reasonable to observe that 90M for this did not have positive expected return based on information available at the time, even accounting for the possibility of spiking a blowup hit.

The 90 million has been proven as incorrect multiple times. 

 

Who cares if it is a sound financial decision. Everything Everywhere wasn't a sound financial decision and look at it now. Why does it matter to you? Why does it matter to anyone? Nobody here is a studio accountant. The studios that pay for these films can afford the opportunity for a "risk" and know it brings their library prestige and future streaming probability. It's worth it to them. Yeah, I think Massive Talent being 30m for example was wild but so what? I didn't pay for it. It's a Nic Cage movie which means no matter what it does theatrically, the decision making an action/comedy appealing to his fans makes sense because there'll always be an audience

 

MGM has Bond and the Amazon sale. They can give PTA some money. Focus was going to fund Licorice Pizza before pandemic shifted it to MGM so obviously they were happy with Phantom Thread's performance. 

 

Focus saw Eggers having acclaim and success with The Witch and The Lighthouse and saw potential in what he pitched as a Viking epic in a post GOT world. 

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

6 minutes ago, Brainbug the Dinosaur said:

I for one am truly glad that there are still studios out there that give directors like Robert Eggers 70-90M for a weird ass, amazing Viking movie.

 

As long as movies such as The Northman are still beeing made, cinema is in a good place.

Yeah, the people who complain will never see it anyway and it wouldn't impact the movies they do see..so what's the problem? It's filmmaking. Filmmaking is a business that's high risk.

 

Eggers explains here in NY Times:

 

Because of Covid, people are potentially anticipating that it’s not going to do what everyone wants to do, but the fact that this movie got made — the fact that me and my team were allowed to make a large movie that’s not a franchise superhero movie — is a success in and of itself.

I’m incredibly humbled and excited by the early reviews being so positive, but even if you absolutely hate this movie, I feel it’s society’s responsibility to root for it a little bit because other filmmakers should get the opportunity to do this, and audiences should have the opportunity to see things other than superhero movies. I’m not even deriding superhero movies, but there needs to be room for something else, too.

[watcher1232]

Some people in this thread are talking like they personally run Focus Features or whatever. The moment films get distilled into just "Will this make money" is the moment movies as a medium die. Sure will a movie make money or not is something for the higher ups to consider or whatever but to see average people in here like "WAS NORTHMAN A GOOD FINANCIAL DECISION" is ridiculous.

Edited April 23, 2022 by watcher1232

[Legion Again]

2 minutes ago, BestPicturePlutoNash said:

Who cares if it is a sound financial decision.

The uhh… the people… the people who funded it? They probably care like, quite a lot. And they’ll care the next time they’re making a similar decision in the future. It’s not like cinema funding just appears from the ether.    
 

Also, you know, many of the people on the forum care. It’s a forum about box office. The business of the movies. Grosses, and also often revenues, and costs, and ROI, and so on. We talk about this stuff for most movies 🤷‍♂️   
 

If the 90M is not reputable and in fact a lower amount was spent, then that was probably not a good idea if it was just a little lower but maybe a pretty good idea if it was a lot lower — I agree that the intangibles of reputation and library quality can be difficult to account for 👍

[ThomasNicole]

32 minutes ago, Lestranger said:

Northman could make 20 million this weekend and it would still be a massive financial disaster. I still don't quite understand who sat down with a spreedsheat and said yeah, let's give him 70 million, that math works out. Then give him 20 million more to finish it. Seemed like bad business from the start.

Not necessarily. The Revenant have a very similar aproach and it did very well with audiences and awards. 

 

It's not really Eggers fault if Universal decided to release an acclaimed movie with strong potential for many nominations (and Oscar buzz) in April with a questionable marketing and 17 theatrical window. The fact that original movies are struggling even more since pandemic doesn't help.

 

But in the end thank God someone sat with him and decided to give him so much money, even knowing it's a risk. It seems like we get back an wonderful original movie and honestly, this is what matters the most for the audience. More studios should do this instead of throw the same money to produce movies like Clifford The Big Red Dog that also didn't perform well and it's not really good.

Edited April 23, 2022 by ThomasNicole

[watcher1232]

Just now, Thanos Legion said:

The uhh… the people… the people who funded it? They probably care like, quite a lot. And they’ll care the next time they’re making a similar decision in the future. It’s not like cinema funding just appears from the ether.    
 

Also, you know, many of the people on the forum care. It’s a forum about box office. The business of the movies. Grosses, and also often revenues, and costs, and ROI, and so on. We talk about this stuff for most movies 🤷‍♂️   
 

If the 90M is not reputable and in fact a lower amount was spent, then that was probably not a good idea if it was just a little lower but maybe a pretty good idea if it was a lot lower — I agree that the intangibles of reputation and library quality can be difficult to account for 👍

There's a striking difference between "Northman's not performing well" and "WHO GREENLIT THIS?"+"Was it a sound financial decision, come on.

[Legion Again]

It’s funny to me that the complaints about talking about movie profitability come out when it’s a beloved smaller movie that probably wasn’t, when many of those same people would love talking about ROI if the context was instead a small movie that was a megahit or a big movie that was a poor investment. “why do you care, it’s not your money” just seems like such a strawman. Why are any of us here talking about any of this? Because we find it interesting. It’s not like box office is a for profit hobby.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Thanos Legion

[BestPicturePlutoNash]

1 minute ago, Thanos Legion said:

The uhh… the people… the people who funded it? They probably care like, quite a lot. And they’ll care the next time they’re making a similar decision in the future. It’s not like cinema funding just appears from the ether.    
 

Also, you know, many of the people on the forum care. It’s a forum about box office. The business of the movies. Grosses, and also often revenues, and costs, and ROI, and so on. We talk about this stuff for most movies 🤷‍♂️   
 

If the 90M is not reputable and in fact a lower amount was spent, then that was probably not a good idea if it was just a little lower but maybe a pretty good idea if it was a lot lower — I agree that the intangibles of reputation and library quality can be difficult to account for 👍

New Regency funded half of The Northman. They funded bohemian Rhapsody which made damn near a billion dollars and made profit off Little Women, which was also eye-rolled by many. They also funded the new David O. Russell movie with Fox. I'm sure they know and are content with their business model lol

[watcher1232]

Just now, Thanos Legion said:

It’s funny to me that the complaints about talking about movie profitability come out when it’s a beloved smaller movie that probably wasn’t, when many of those same people would love talking about ROI if the context was instead a small movie that was a megahit or a big movie that was a poor investment. “why do you care, it’s not your money” just seems like such a strawman. Why are any of here talking about any of this? Because we find it interesting. It’s not like box office is a for profit hobby.

I think this forum gets too mean when big films underperform too, but you also have to see the difference. Blockbusters, as much as I love many, are a dime-a-dozen. Smaller mid-budget films like this are not, and them dying out has been an issue.

[Legion Again]

2 minutes ago, watcher1232 said:

There's a striking difference between "Northman's not performing well" and "WHO GREENLIT THIS?"+"Was it a sound financial decision, come on.

Yes, there is a striking difference. I feel like Northman *is* performing pretty well — but someone else brought up the fact that the budget seems quite high for what it is, which seems like a pretty normal thing to mention in a weekend thread, and they got some pushback about it which I found odd, and now here we are like a page deep on a topic that I feel like people aren’t really enjoying that we could have mostly avoided if people weren’t being weird about the initial observation.