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

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

2 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

I mean… I guess, but how much “less” than a 23 OW would we really get? Like I’m sure it would still pull 15 or so. The real test will be to see if it can have exceptional legs, in which case we can go back to saying maybe Leo was still a draw here. 

My guess is around 10 million under the current situation with the strike. Definitely under 15. I think if SAG hadn't been striking this would have done a few extra million. 

[Krissykins]

Will be interesting to see (if the strike is resolved) if there will be a start date from where casts can promote, as in will they need to promote films that have already opened? Or will they just agree to start from releases on a certain date. 

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

16 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

Ummm how much would this have made swapping him out? Never mind the fact he couldn't promote it in any meaningful way since pre-strike. I don't know how much that made a difference but my guess is it made a little bit of a difference. Possibly enough to get in the 30 million range or so? maybe. 

 

I think people have forgotten that over 20 million for an original adult drama is usually considered a great opening for that type of film. Then layer in that it's incredibly long and depressing. 

I don’t see a Scorsese movie backed by Apple opening much below $15M. 

[Giorno]

4 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

I don’t see a Scorsese movie backed by Apple opening much below $15M. 

Silence made like $23m total

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

3 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

I don’t see a Scorsese movie backed by Apple opening much below $15M. 

What does apple have to do with it though? if anything, I think apple is confusing people cause it's associated with watching it at home. Hugo opened to about 15 many years ago, right after Shutter Island. 

 

I can't speak to its release but Silence made like no money. I feel like 15 is generous. None of these movies had the Apple streaming confusion and a 3.5 hour runtime going against it. I would have loved this to make in the 30s but in the 20s for what it is, I feel like that's a great start. And as Variety pointed out, his movies tend to have legs. 

https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/box-office-scorsese-killers-of-the-flower-moon-opening-weekend-taylor-swift-stays-first-1235764365/

[Cappoedameron]

24 million dollar opening on a budget of 200 million, boy that was a choice.

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

12 minutes ago, Cappoedameron said:

24 million dollar opening on a budget of 200 million, boy that was a choice.

It's a phone company with a minor prestige arm (that actually makes good content). Good for them for investing in quality art. There was no version of this movie opening much above that, especially in a strike. This was not going to do 80 million like oppenheimer. And don't forget, when apple agreed to make it, oppenheimer as a breakout hit wasn't even on their minds. There was no precedent for this movie doing much better than this. It opened above the Leo/Marty average. There was almost no amount of money that this could have realistically opened at which would have changed your overall comment. 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by Curiouser and Curiouser

[MovieMan89]

It’s been 10 years since they made a movie together…. you have to adjust for inflation if we’re talking about what their box office “standard” is. As I’ve shown, KOTFM should have pulled at least 150 DOM to be anywhere near their standard. 

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

1 minute ago, MovieMan89 said:

It’s been 10 years since they made a movie together…. you have to adjust for inflation if we’re talking about what their box office “standard” is. As I’ve shown, KOTFM should have pulled at least 150 DOM to be anywhere near their standard. 

But were those other movies pulled onto streaming after 45 days? Things are different nowadays. Also this movie is ridiculously long. Wolf is under 3 hours (close but under) and I just checked the showtimes near me and there are like no "typical" times. It's really weird. The evening show doesn't start until 8pm. That is just such a tough sell. thE EARLIER screenings are packed. 

[eeetooki]

51 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

It's a phone company with a minor prestige arm (that actually makes good content). Good for them for investing in quality art. There was no version of this movie opening much above that, especially in a strike. This was not going to do 80 million like oppenheimer. And don't forget, when apple agreed to make it, oppenheimer as a breakout hit wasn't even on their minds. There was no precedent for this movie doing much better than this. It opened above the Leo/Marty average. There was almost no amount of money that this could have realistically opened at which would have changed your overall comment. 

 

 

 

I never understood why people assumed Killers would do well just because Oppenheimer did well. Nolan makes blockbusters. If you don't count his earlier films, literally the only one that didn't profit since2008 was Tenet. Somehow people just assumed that his next film would flop based on Tenet's numbers and conveniently ignores the fact that it was released at the height of the pandemic.

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

18 minutes ago, eeetooki said:

 

I never understood why people assumed Killers would do well just because Oppenheimer did well. Nolan makes blockbusters. If you don't count his earlier films, literally the only one that didn't profit since2008 was Tenet. Somehow people just assumed that his next film would flop based on Tenet's numbers and conveniently ignores the fact that it was released at the height of the pandemic.

The only reason I raced out to see Oppenheimer right away was the sheer spectacle of it (and I was actually underwhelmed that it's basically a talky office drama with one huge scene). But the Nolan Imax experience turns it into an event. Tenet was beyond bad in my opinion, but I think under normal circumstances it would have done much better. Obviously! Cause context is key. 

 

Martin Scorsese is the best director of all time (I think) and is widely considered to be that, or one of the top two, but his movies do not do huge box office business. Leonardo DiCaprio movies are an exception. Who knows how the strike impacted the opening weekend? Also, it's dour and long. Not up tempo and fun like Wolf of Wall Street. It's like nothing they've really made together. If the budget was unknown, I think people would have generally felt opening a 3.5 hour slow burn movie to this amount of money is impressive. 

 

I think it's more of a Leonardo thing than a Marty thing. I just simply don't believe Matt Damon in this role gets the same attention or box office. Leo is definitely still a big draw. Just look at Silence if you want to see the difference. 

 

[eeetooki]

7 minutes ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

The only reason I raced out to see Oppenheimer right away was the sheer spectacle of it (and I was actually underwhelmed that it's basically a talky office drama with one huge scene). But the Nolan Imax experience turns it into an event. Tenet was beyond bad in my opinion, but I think under normal circumstances it would have done much better. Obviously! Cause context is key. 

 

Martin Scorsese is the best director of all time (I think) and is widely considered to be that, or one of the top two, but his movies do not do huge box office business. Leonardo DiCaprio movies are an exception. Who knows how the strike impacted the opening weekend? Also, it's dour and long. Not up tempo and fun like Wolf of Wall Street. It's like nothing they've really made together. If the budget was unknown, I think people would have generally felt opening a 3.5 hour slow burn movie to this amount of money is impressive. 

 

I think it's more of a Leonardo thing than a Marty thing. I just simply don't believe Matt Damon in this role gets the same attention or box office. Leo is definitely still a big draw. Just look at Silence if you want to see the difference. 

 

 

I mean I do think Leo is a draw but I am not sure if he's as big of a draw as people make him out to be. His two biggest movies were directed by Cameron and Nolan, both are bigger draw than a lot of actors.

[Curiouser and Curiouser]

9 minutes ago, eeetooki said:

 

I mean I do think Leo is a draw but I am not sure if he's as big of a draw as people make him out to be. His two biggest movies were directed by Cameron and Nolan, both are bigger draw than a lot of actors.

The Revenant with any other actor makes almost zero dollars. Inarritu was an artsy well respected director (not really a household name) and Leo powered that thing to like half a billion. People always forget about the Revenant but that was purely down to his star power. 

 

I'm not talking about Titanic, even though the repeat viewing and Leomania was one reason it did so well (but Cameron of course always produces hits). Just cause it was out in 1998 and it was a different time in his career. But Romeo and Juliet did really well and that came out while he was filming Titanic. 

 

I don't think it's a secret that until Oppenheimer, Inception was Nolan's highest grossing non Batman movie. Just like Quentin Tarantino movies starring Leo are the highest grossing films of his career. But he's also not a miracle worker and a 3.5 hour grim drama (made by a streaming service making people think it's going to come out relatively soon at home) is always going to have some sort of cap. Especially if he can't even post about the movie or talk about it in public. It's a little odd he has a movie out right now and could be anywhere in the world. Not a peep. Look at margot robbie attending all these premieres for Barbie. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Curiouser and Curiouser

[LonePirate]

Caught an afternoon showing of KOTFM. Somebody brought their 3 or 4 year old toddler to showing. He was a little talkative for the first hour before apparently falling asleep for the rest of it. Why in the hell would anyone bring a young kid to see this movie? Did the babysitter cancel? Makes no sense at all.

[eeetooki]

30 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

Caught an afternoon showing of KOTFM. Somebody brought their 3 or 4 year old toddler to showing. He was a little talkative for the first hour before apparently falling asleep for the rest of it. Why in the hell would anyone bring a young kid to see this movie? Did the babysitter cancel? Makes no sense at all.

 

Apparently people did that with Oppenheimer as well...

 

[Webslinger]

I feel like you can’t really judge a Martin Scorsese picture’s performance by the usual metrics. The man is one of the most revered directors in the history of film, tons of actors still want to work with him, and I feel like his financiers go into collaborations with him knowing they’re likelier to get a Hugo than a Departed (which, itself, carried a huge budget for a mid-‘00s thriller aimed at adults) but are willing to take the chance that they’ll get a masterpiece with a long shelf life after its theatrical run. I don’t think anyone involved with Killers of the Flower Moon ever expected it to break even, but rather just wanted to let Marty cook (and, to extend the metaphor, to be in the kitchen with him).

 

With that in mind, I think that on balance, $23 million isn’t a bad number for Killers of the Flower Moon. Leo or no Leo, we’re talking about a three-and-a-half-hour drama that is kind of a bummer opening in a dead marketplace where most adult dramas not titled Oppenheimer are still struggling to pull in much business. It’s not a blockbuster, no doubt, but it could have gone over so much worse.

[TwoMisfits]

44 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

Caught an afternoon showing of KOTFM. Somebody brought their 3 or 4 year old toddler to showing. He was a little talkative for the first hour before apparently falling asleep for the rest of it. Why in the hell would anyone bring a young kid to see this movie? Did the babysitter cancel? Makes no sense at all.

 

4.5-5 hrs of babysitting for 1 kid is about $50-90, depending on your locale...

[emoviefan]

4 hours ago, reddevil19 said:

Ya, good luck with that. I'd be surprised if that didn't also flop.

Because the 3.5 hour grim drama  backed by Apple did not do as well as hoped so the fun looking 2 hour or so romp also backed by Apple will also not do well? You may be right but I don't feel like going down that negative everything is going to bomb or underperform road  because that movie did.

[Arlborn]

6 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

4.5-5 hrs of babysitting for 1 kid is about $50-90, depending on your locale...

TIL that I pay the same for babysitting as Americans do…

 

But eh, I still judge a parent bringing a toddler to a movie like this. Should’ve planned something else for the toddler or just not gone. God only knows I wish I could go more often to the cinema but I am simply not bringing my toddler along to annoy the crap out of myself and everyone else in there with us.

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

1 hour ago, Curiouser and Curiouser said:

Especially if he can't even post about the movie or talk about it in public. It's a little odd he has a movie out right now and could be anywhere in the world. Not a peep. Look at margot robbie attending all these premieres for Barbie. 

DiCaprio hasn't really done talk shows in years, but he does have social media and his Instagram account has 56 million followers. Mostly he posts about the environment and related issues, but he has used it to promote his movies. That one set photo of Leo and Lily at the table debuted on his socials.

Edited October 23, 2023 by BoxOfficeFangrl