Weekend Thread | TAYLOR SWIFT $31M Estimate, KOTFM $23M

[Krissykins]

37 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

I thought this wasn't allowed on this thread anymore? And no, it's not an "atrocious" opening it's a 3.5 hour movie about a subject many people would shy away from. It's R rated and brutal. What exactly are you expecting? 

 

No promotion from actors is another subject. I think it probably cost it 30 million. 

 

Before the pie in the sky nutty projects (which never made sense given the runtime) an over 20 million result isn't remotely bad and is totally in line with Martin Scorsese movies that star Leo. 

 

 

This is missing a lot of context, particularly the cost. 
 

21 minutes ago, John Marston said:

this movie is made for prestige. They know they aren't making any money off it. Hell that goes for a lot of Martin Scorcese movies and even other directors like Spielberg 

 

It’s not an excuse though. There’s been plenty of Oscar bait bombs over the years. 

[Krissykins]

Anyway, Smile is how you do a “originally for streaming but went to cinemas” financial hit properly. 
 

Budget: $17m

Gross: $217m

[Mojoguy]

1 hour ago, vale9001 said:

once again lack of very late promotion is a problem and the movies end on the low range of predictions. 

This is dedicated at that banned user after first weekend of barbnheimer said "actors are not important anymore" as if even if Margot Robbie didn't made promo in the last week she wasn't on a promo tour for all the month before 😅

 

 

I never knew how much the world needed Margot Robbie on tour dressed up as Barbies over the decades.

 

[ZattMurdock]

1 hour ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

People are being really selective on which films are hurt by lack of promotion and which aren't. It's hurting films like KotFM but it isn't hurting films like The Marvels.

You see, the truth is KOTFM is actually a superhero film. Martin Scorsese made this one to prove that superhero fatigue is in fact real. Our true lord and savior of cinema comes next week, at Peacock and a movie theater near you.

[Porthos]

1 hour ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

People are being really selective on which films are hurt by lack of promotion and which aren't. It's hurting films like KotFM but it isn't hurting films like The Marvels.

 

I think it absolutely is.

 

We're getting a tremendous case study this very moment that the idea that CBMs sold themselves and didn't need star driven PR campaigns is and was... utterly wrong.

 

And, yes, we already had at least two, if not three, examples earlier this year.

 

"Oh it was always going to [DO WHATEVER IT ENDS UP DOING]" is not an argument I buy, either.

 

I simply do not buy that Marvels fabled Hype Machine is breaking down right when a critical component of any hype machine is missing is a coincidence.

VERY IMPORTANT NB:  

 

While getting the GA interested in The Marvels may or may not have always been... challenging, and The Marvels may or may not have always been destined for a... struggle at the box office, it 100% is being affected by the SAG strike.  In a huge way.

 

Like, c'mon now.

 

[Blaze Heatnix]

22 minutes ago, John Marston said:

this movie is made for prestige. They know they aren't making any money off it. Hell that goes for a lot of Martin Scorcese movies and even other directors like Spielberg 

 

Nah, it's not just that. Movies are made to get money. While flops happen time to time, studios need profit. Just look at what happened to A24. They lost a ton of money with Beau is Afraid ( third movie directed by Ari Aster ) and now are rushing to "mainstream" flicks. They need money just like everyone. It's cool to have movies "made for prestige", but money talks. 

[JustLurking]

It's honestly so funny how hurt Zatt is by Scorsese's comments.

[nevermore]

1 minute ago, JustLurking said:

It's honestly so funny how hurt Zatt is by Scorsese's comments.

Many such cases. When you make something your entire personality, an attack against it feels like an attack against you.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

6 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

I think it absolutely is.

 

We're getting a tremendous case study this very moment that the idea that CBMs sold themselves and didn't need star driven PR campaigns is and was... utterly wrong.

 

And, yes, we already had at least two, if not three, examples earlier this year.

 

"Oh it was always going to [DO WHATEVER IT ENDS UP DOING]" is not an argument I buy, either.

 

I simply do not buy that Marvels fabled Hype Machine is breaking down right when a critical component of any hype machine is missing is a coincidence.

VERY IMPORTANT NB:  

 

While getting the GA interested in The Marvels may or may not have always been... challenging, and The Marvels may or may not have always been destined for a... struggle at the box office, it 100% is being affected by the SAG strike.  In a huge way.

 

Like, c'mon now.

 

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. It totally is hurting The Marvels. 

[JustLurking]

10 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

Nah, it's not just that. Movies are made to get money. While flops happen time to time, studios need profit. Just look at what happened to A24. They lost a ton of money with Beau is Afraid ( third movie directed by Ari Aster ) and now are rushing to "mainstream" flicks. They need money just like everyone. It's cool to have movies "made for prestige", but money talks. 

Apple has money to burn, A24 does not.

 

Scorsese's highest grossing film of all time didn't even gross 400M. That means even if this film matched Scorsese's most commercially successful film to date it still would not turn a profit theatrically. That anyone could think Apple made this with theatrical profit in mind with the baseline expectation that this would be Scorsese's highest grossing film of all time by quite a margin is mad.

 

I do wish it was making more, but I'm not really sure what more could have been done here. If we weren't in the middle of the strike this probably gets to the high 30s, maybe 40, but even then it probably still would not make theatrical profit. It was simply never happening.

 

I'm hoping for good legs and a reasonable final tally, but the film will probably have good shelf life over the years. As far as I'm concerned it's another Scorsese classic.

Edited October 21, 2023 by JustLurking

[filmlover]

22 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

 

Nah, it's not just that. Movies are made to get money. While flops happen time to time, studios need profit. Just look at what happened to A24. They lost a ton of money with Beau is Afraid ( third movie directed by Ari Aster ) and now are rushing to "mainstream" flicks. They need money just like everyone. It's cool to have movies "made for prestige", but money talks. 

Eh, one could argue A24 has been moving in the direction of being a mainstream studio for a while now. Probably looking at Lionsgate, which started out as an indie company before ultimately branching out into becoming a full-fledged Hollywood studio that makes a variety of movies across genres, as to what the goal is, especially since they're the rare studio circa 2023 that has managed to pick up a following of sorts.

Edited October 21, 2023 by filmlover

[Taylor89]

1 hour ago, CJohn said:

Mega bomb for KOTFM. An absolutely atrocious opening. No other way to spin it.

 

Mega bomb was babylon not KOTFM. lol. I'm sure it will do well on streaming services..

[ZattMurdock]

40 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

It's honestly so funny how hurt Zatt is by Scorsese's comments.

At some point people that talk about box office seriously need to understand that shitting on Marvel Studios ad nauseam wouldn’t result on the return of Martin Scorsese’s own version of MAGA. 
 

I’ve already made my position quite clear on this very board before, ironically, while I was replying to you once again randomly mentioning me:

 

 

Quote

It’s not a tirade. My opinion is that they are going after the wrong targets, and I maintain the same opinion. It’s not about they hating any giving film or genre. It’s that the reason I can watch some more experimental films at my local home theater is that despite The Flash bombing, people are still going hard for Into the Spider-Verse. I’m talking brick and mortar movie theaters like the one in my town with 80k habitants that is located at a failed mall that literally just has a food center and the movie theater going for it. Yes, it’s important for the art that more films work. But the way I see it at the height of my 42 years around this planet, cinema and the industry has been dying since then, it only escalated further with streaming. Super Mario likely helped the theater patron that I know to pay the rent and lights for at least more six months. It’s mindless fun, I wasn’t even willing to go watch it but my older brother asked me to so I did. It was crowded as fuck, just like it was for Vol. 3 and Spider-Verse. 
 

Was the movie theater full when I watched Beau is Afraid at the day it premiered? Lol no, but at least it came here and I got to watch the film. For like, six years, my town didn’t even had a movie theater, and that was between 2005 and 2010. That we still have one after the pandemic and a shopping mall that went literally bankrupt during the pandemic is a miracle. That’s what I’m talking about, not really the art, but the very possibility of watching a film at a movie theater, either if it’s a superhero film or something else entirely.

 

 

I don’t really care if it’s Marvel Studios production or any other making money, either WB’s Barbie or Universal’s Oppenheimer. Hell, I don’t care if it’s Blumhouse’s Five Night at Freddy’s either. My point and I’m pretty sure that I’ve been fairly consistent on that is that shitting on what is popular is a self-inflicted wound and hurts movie theaters in the long term. It’s not good for the industry, and I don’t care if it’s Scorsese or a bunch of film snubs saying it. At same convo from back on Father’s Day, I replied to a post that suggested that ‘the death of cinema’ wouldn’t be a great loss if more and more films performed like Marvel Studios or blockbuster films:

 

 

Quote

And that’s where we fundamentally disagree. As long as the movie theater is popular and people are interested going to the movies to the point that the whole venture can still exists, I’m pleased.

 

I see this as the market regulating itself more than anything else. I don’t see any of the genres disappearing, I see them becoming more adequate to what the public is demanding, and I see this as a long term strategy to keep movie theaters afloat. If it’s just for the art, movie theaters are doomed. If you truly think that the moviegoing experience is only worth it if you have films around that the GA already voted with their wallet that they aren’t that interested on, then you are more worried about the art form than the actual existence of the market. The art form is fluid and tastes change and evolve with time, the business isn’t. Hence why it’s so important that we do get all the so called big budget spectacles.

 

I  think it’s quite ironic and actually a good thing to happen for this stupid discourse to finally go away that a Martin Scorsese film is bombing while a videogame film that is review embargoed until after it’s released on streaming is getting all the hype and yet again the death of Marvel Studios has been declared and superhero fatigue non sense talk is getting thrown around because of The Marvels tickets tracking. 
 

It’s not Marvel Studios fault or those that watch Marvel Studios films  that Scorsese’s or ‘real cinema’ films bomb. It’s not the audiences fault the perceived lack of interest on the latest Marvel Studios film. The film market is regulated by what the audiences want to see it at the big screen. And that’s a good thing, always. Trashing what is popular only hurts the movie theater moviegoing experience, and that’s what I believe it can’t go away.

 

There will always be a popular thing until well, there isn’t and the movie theater experience as we know it goes away. What I don’t want is the popular experience of watching movies to get trashed to the point that movie theaters go the way of the opera or live theaters experience. We need popular films. Either by Marvel Studios or anything or anyone else. From Taylor Swift to Five Night at Freddy’s. That’s what keeps the brick and mortar movie theaters lights on. Trashing them because your prestige film can’t find an audience only hurts the movie theater experience in the long run. 

Edited October 21, 2023 by ZattMurdock

[John Marston]

22 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. It totally is hurting The Marvels. 

 

Nobody decides to watch the latest Marvel movie because some actor appeared on some crappy comedian’s show. Iman Vellani was everywhere promoting Ms Marvel yet it tanked in viewership 

[redfirebird2008]

1 hour ago, John Marston said:

this movie is made for prestige. They know they aren't making any money off it. Hell that goes for a lot of Martin Scorcese movies and even other directors like Spielberg 

Except Spielberg doesn’t need a $200M budget for this type of movie. That said, Apple wants prestige from working with Scorsese & DiCaprio. If Apple gets a Best Picture Oscar from this project, they will be pretty dang happy regardless of the financial situation. 

[Porthos]

36 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. It totally is hurting The Marvels. 

 

Ah, Poe's Law in action.  My apologies.  Still one can see I might think someone would say that uniron—

 

 

12 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Nobody decides to watch the latest Marvel movie because some actor appeared on some crappy comedian’s show. Iman Vellani was everywhere promoting Ms Marvel yet it tanked in viewership 

 

—ically.

 

(what's the secret to success in comedy?  TIMING!)

Edited October 21, 2023 by Porthos

[TwoMisfits]

31 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Apple has money to burn, A24 does not.

 

Scorsese's highest grossing film of all time didn't even gross 400M. That means even if this film matched Scorsese's most commercially successful film to date it still would not turn a profit theatrically. That anyone could think Apple made this with theatrical profit in mind with the baseline expectation that this would be Scorsese's highest grossing film of all time by quite a margin is mad.

 

I do wish it was making more, but I'm not really sure what more could have been done here. If we weren't in the middle of the strike this probably gets to the high 30s, maybe 40, but even then it probably still would not make theatrical profit. It was simply never happening.

 

I'm hoping for good legs and a reasonable final tally, but the film will probably have good shelf life over the years. As far as I'm concerned it's another Scorsese classic.

 

There is a difference in saying "Apple made this thinking they would make money" and "Apple made this and expected a financial bloodbath at the box office."  Right now, with a budget north of $200M just in production, the latter is still possible, and Apple would not have signed up for that...

 

We'll see how it goes INT and in DOM legs, but this could be a big disappointment, even if there was no expectation to "make money."

 

[titanic2187]

41 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

It's honestly so funny how hurt Zatt is by Scorsese's comments.

Because truth always hurt.

 

also I totally agree with Scorsese in regard to MCU, the way they perceive art and promote cult-fiction is simply disgusting but no doubt we need them for the theatrical business to thrive. In other words , they are very useful and valuable trash. 

[ZattMurdock]

Just now, titanic2187 said:

Because truth always hurt.

 

also I totally agree with Scorsese in regard to MCU, the way they perceive art and promote cult-fiction is simply disgusting but no doubt we need them for the theatrical business to thrive. In other words , they are very useful and valuable trash. 

My point was never about the MCU itself, but the need that movie theaters have that films put butts on the seats. Is Five Night At Freddy’s the reason why KotFM is bombing or The Marvels isn’t tracking well at the ticket sales? Who is to blame? Is there blame to be attributed to? If Marvel Studios stopped making their films right now or other franchise became the hot new thing, would they be to blame for cinema’s demise? Because I truly don’t think so.

 

I don’t think shaming MCU fans and treating them like ‘not true cinema’ fans is a good thing for film business. And same goes for each and every popular thing. I just don’t want the movie theater to not go the way of opera and become too prestige. I will always get my Marvel fix, one way or another. But I do think there is something special about the popular moviegoing experience, hence why I am so vocal against film snubs. 

[MysteryMovieMogul]

13 minutes ago, John Marston said:

Nobody decides to watch the latest Marvel movie because some actor appeared on some crappy comedian’s show. Iman Vellani was everywhere promoting Ms Marvel yet it tanked in viewership 

And yet, I can pull tons of quotes from here and the Box Office subreddit claiming that Leo and the other actors from KotFM would have helped that film. So, it can't be both ways. It either helps both or hurts both. To pretend otherwise is just laughable.

 

20 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

At some point people that talk about box office seriously need to understand that shitting on Marvel Studios ad nauseam wouldn’t result on the return of Martin Scorsese’s own version of MAGA. 

Scorsese loves to talk about saving Cinema (and it's obvious he means prestige pictures in theaters), but then asks for $200+ million to make a period piece that, even with half its budget, would still only find a niche audience due to the subject matter.

 

Auteurs are still thriving. Avatar 2, Barbie, and Oppenheimer were all from auteurs perfecting their craft. That's what we need more of. Those kind of films will save Cinema. Not 3.5 hour period pieces that people recommend and then say are depressing in the same breath.