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

[LonePirate]

31 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

I, Tonya success was all Robbie. The box office poison allegations are exaggerated. When she chooses a great project, people come 

I love I, Tonya as much as anyone. That scene with the fur coat is one of the funniest in cinematic history. Sill, I wouldn't consider its $30M domestic gross indicative of Robbie's power to draw an audience. She certainly did not help Babylon play to packed houses.

 

However she does seem to have a talent for finding roles that boost her profile significantly and/or earn her a nice paycheck. Nothing wrong at all with that sort of acting career.

Edited October 23, 2023 by LonePirate

[Giorno]

Just now, ZattMurdock said:

Wrong projects, wrong timing. People find excuses for their darlings all the time. Case in point we don’t even need to go that far: KOTFM. The age that a film star could carry a film by their name alone hasn’t been a thing since the 20th century, I’m not sure why Margot Robbie is targeted so much with these when Will Smith, Leo DiCaprio or literally any of her male counterparts clearly can’t carry films by their names alone either.

KOFTM opened to 23m without Leo being able to promote it a link, don't be disingenuous to compare that to amsterdam/babylon which she could promote and still got single digits, she's a great actress but never been a real movie star 

[Maggie]

KOTFM would have done Silence numbers without DICaprio. He's absolutely an asset to a movie. 23M is a good opening for a drama for a movie star

[Maggie]

As for Margot Robbie, she's the biggest female star rn. her box office outside of barbie is pretty good. Remember, her fellow australian Nicole Kidman was a major star at the start of the 21st century and she starred in mostly bombs. But in the end she carved a nice career for herself. Margot Robbie is here to stay, especially now after the huge success of barbie. She'll be inundated with offers

[ThomasNicole]

DiCaprio is definitely a movie star, even 23M shows that. This movie would do Babylon numbers without him. 
 

And let’s be honest, the OW would probably be higher if it wasn’t the strike. 
 

DiCaprio appeals best for older audiences, the movie itself is very mature and aims older audiences. Sure everyone is on social media at some degree, but older audiences are still people more likely to be interested in something if a star like DiCaprio can promote it on more traditional ways.

 

The fact that 46% of the OW came from young people shows that older people didn’t show up harder like it was expected, and i bet this have to do with lack of traditional promotion. 
 

Not that it would completely changed the trajectory, but it could’ve been the difference between what it did and 30M

[MysteryMovieMogul]

8 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

But that’s exactly the point. It’s a movie made by a white man to show to white people what their history was and still is. 
 

The lens being on the white man is not a random decision, the movie itself put a target on itself by exposing this very clearly. Of course i won’t go to spoilers here, but the very feeling that Christopher Cote expressed is discussed on screen for some good 10 minutes. 
 

Of course Cote have conflicted feelings towards it, this is 100% not a movie an Osage would made. It certainly represents them with extreme respect like he said, but it doesn’t really try to show their POV, i mean how Scorsese as a white man could? It takes an Osage to do that, which is basically another movie and why he’s conflicted about this is the movie made. This is a very important discussion about opportunities for POC filmmakers, but not really what we’re talking about it here.
 

It’s a very hard discussion that the movie doesn’t shy away from neither on screen or beyond that. The fact that Cote could go the premiere and say this shows a lot about how the production was tackled. 
 

Still, it is indeed an important movie like he also said it is because Scorsese did his best to show the only POV he could successfully show: the poisoned white vision. 
 

And this is exactly why i said people wouldn’t be comfortable with it. The movie is not just showing violence toward POC, it’s pointing fingers to who did it and why, making the audience endure the fact that this is their POV the whole time for 200 bleak minutes. This is only possible because they decided to shot it in the lens of the white man. 

Don’t read too much on twitter discussions, is the type of movie which is very easy to be trapped in a “right or wrong” online narrative when the movie itself is about rights and wrongs simultaneously, asking directly the audience to think about.
 

It was kinda sad seeing so many people using this video with Cote feelings to attack the movie and say they won’t watch even if Cote himself said it’s a movie that white people definitely should see. It was also sad seeing some people dismissing his conflicts to defends Scorsese from a discussion he put in the movie himself. Like i said, it’s an easy movie to put a right or wrong label on it even if it’s absurd to do that.

 

The reality is, this film being made makes it a lot less likely we'll ever get a version of this story told from the POV of the Osage. And if it wins awards, there's no way the story will be retold, because critics will always compare whatever is created to the award-winning version of the story.

 

I know we would all like to believe this film will open more doors for more stories to be told, but no. Hell, I can't even name 5 other white men who would get $200 million for a pet project.

[eeetooki]

5 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

The reality is, this film being made makes it a lot less likely we'll ever get a version of this story told from the POV of the Osage. And if it wins awards, there's no way the story will be retold, because critics will always compare whatever is created to the award-winning version of the story.

 

I know we would all like to believe this film will open more doors for more stories to be told, but no. Hell, I can't even name 5 other white men who would get $200 million for a pet project.

 

Does it need to be made with 200m though? An independent film from the POV of the Osage would probably be much cheaper.

[TwoMisfits]

Well, let's not underestimate that 80M people got $5 codes to see KOTFM in PLF for all open presales (to include weekdays through Thursday this week), and presales on the day they were issued to those 80M people were good before the epic drop off Wed to Thurs and then into walk ups...so Leo and Scorsese are not the only ones selling the movie.  $5 was.

 

Babylon and other "adult Oscar bait" do not tend to ever go the $5 route...at least not before this year.  Oppy didn't.

Edited October 23, 2023 by TwoMisfits

[MysteryMovieMogul]

6 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

The fact that 46% of the OW came from young people shows that older people didn’t show up harder like it was expected, and i bet this have to do with lack of traditional promotion. 

I think the much simpler explanation is, people don't want to spend money to be depressed for 3.5 hours.

 

When you're watching Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth try to kill Thanos, or Blue aliens fighting a nondescript but cliché military on a strange and fantastical planet, 3 hours feels like nothing. When you're watching Osage get murdered and are shown how terrible white people are for 3.5 hours, only for no neat bow at the end, less people are going to be interested.

[ZattMurdock]

11 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

But that’s exactly the point. It’s a movie made by a white man to show to white people what their history was and still is. 
 

The lens being on the white man is not a random decision, the movie itself put a target on itself by exposing this very clearly. Of course i won’t go to spoilers here, but the very feeling that Christopher Cote expressed is discussed on screen for some good 10 minutes. 
 

Of course Cote have conflicted feelings towards it, this is 100% not a movie an Osage would made. It certainly represents them with extreme respect like he said, but it doesn’t really try to show their POV, i mean how Scorsese as a white man could? It takes an Osage to do that, which is basically another movie and why he’s conflicted about this is the movie made. This is a very important discussion about opportunities for POC filmmakers, but not really what we’re talking about it here.
 

It’s a very hard discussion that the movie doesn’t shy away from neither on screen or beyond that. The fact that Cote could go the premiere and say this shows a lot about how the production was tackled. 
 

Still, it is indeed an important movie like he also said it is because Scorsese did his best to show the only POV he could successfully show: the poisoned white vision. 
 

And this is exactly why i said people wouldn’t be comfortable with it. The movie is not just showing violence toward POC, it’s pointing fingers to who did it and why, making the audience endure the fact that this is their POV the whole time for 200 bleak minutes. This is only possible because they decided to shot it in the lens of the white man. 

Don’t read too much on twitter discussions, is the type of movie which is very easy to be trapped in a “right or wrong” online narrative when the movie itself is about rights and wrongs simultaneously, asking directly the audience to think about.
 

It was kinda sad seeing so many people using this video with Cote feelings to attack the movie and say they won’t watch even if Cote himself said it’s a movie that white people definitely should see. It was also sad seeing some people dismissing his conflicts to defends Scorsese from a discussion he put in the movie himself. Like i said, it’s an easy movie to put a right or wrong label on it even if it’s absurd to do that.

 

Look, I understand how passionate you are about this film and Scorsese. I’m sure that Scorsese means well, I can even imagine that he is donating to Osage ran orgs part of his profits without even looking it up. I know he is an incredibly special director, a brilliant filmmaker. But when I get around watching KOTFM, I can’t really say that I won’t have the conflicted feelings that this Osage language consultant expressed on the interview I posted earlier in mind.

 

There is a reason why I very much so prefer escapism and blockbusters than actually watching films ‘based on true events’. They rarely do a good job of not romanticizing the situation, and when it is about such a delicate subject, I’d much rather see the film that Cote described there than Scorcese’s, regardless how brilliant it might be. I think that’s their story, and it’s kinda sad how they were brutalized for oil and I feel like once again they don’t have a say on telling their story. Raise awareness? Sure, that’s good. But there is a reason why I’m picky with this kind of content. Escapism is fun, art sometimes even if beautiful and well made, might be harmful. I’d watch it and watch it on its own merits, but I’d much rather watch an Osage reviewing this film than the film itself, if that makes sense.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

2 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Well, let's not underestimate that 80M people got $5 codes to see KOTFM in PLF for all open presales (to include weekdays through Thursday this week), and presales on the day they were issued to those 80M people were good before the epic drop off Wed to Thurs and then into walk ups...so Leo and Scorsese are not the only ones selling the movie.  $5 was.

 

Babylon and other "adult Oscar bait" do not tend to ever go the $5 route...at least not before this year.  Oppy didn't.

Mission Impossible 7 went this route, too.

[ThomasNicole]

2 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

The reality is, this film being made makes it a lot less likely we'll ever get a version of this story told from the POV of the Osage. And if it wins awards, there's no way the story will be retold, because critics will always compare whatever is created to the award-winning version of the story.

 

I know we would all like to believe this film will open more doors for more stories to be told, but no. Hell, I can't even name 5 other white men who would get $200 million for a pet project.

I agreed is the likely outcome, which is why i think this is the discussion social media should do from now on instead of stupid things like discuss if the movie should be made.
 

The importance of a counterpoint, the importance of more opportunities. This are relevant questions.
 

It’s a movie that beyond showing the history of a nation, also open the doors for this discussions for the future. I do hope it inspires people to fight for more, so it won’t end here on this project. 

And this is what makes me sad about it’s box office, if it didn’t find great legs i hope people watch it at least on Apple TV. It needs to be watched and discussed.
 

Other than that, i find all the argues about this being a flop kinda useless, i don’t think it matters financially for Apple.

 

[JustLurking]

An Osage will never get to make a big budget film about this story with or without Scorsese, and anyone believing otherwise is kidding themselves.

Edited October 23, 2023 by JustLurking

[Krissykins]

Taylor underestimated by $2m

[eeetooki]

4 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

Look, I understand how passionate you are about this film and Scorsese. I’m sure that Scorsese means well, I can even imagine that he is donating to Osage ran orgs part of his profits without even looking it up. I know he is an incredibly special director, a brilliant filmmaker. But when I get around watching KOTFM, I can’t really say that I won’t have the conflicted feelings that this Osage language consultant expressed on the interview I posted earlier in mind.

 

There is a reason why I very much so prefer escapism and blockbusters than actually watching films ‘based on true events’. They rarely do a good job of not romanticizing the situation, and when it is about such a delicate subject, I’d much rather see the film that Cote described there than Scorcese’s, regardless how brilliant it might be. I think that’s their story, and it’s kinda sad how they were brutalized for oil and I feel like once again they don’t have a say on telling their story. Raise awareness? Sure, that’s good. But there is a reason why I’m picky with this kind of content. Escapism is fun, art sometimes even if beautiful and well made, might be harmful. I’d watch it and watch it on its own merits, but I’d much rather watch an Osage reviewing this film than the film itself, if that makes sense.

 

I know Scorsese did his best as a white man making this movie, but I still have some issues with portraying Ernest as still being love with Lily even though he helped killed her whole family. It's probably what happened in the book and maybe even real life but it still makes me very uncomfortable. Like what the interview said, how can someone love you when they did that kind of thing.

[ThomasNicole]

3 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

Look, I understand how passionate you are about this film and Scorsese. I’m sure that Scorsese means well, I can even imagine that he is donating to Osage ran orgs part of his profits without even looking it up. I know he is an incredibly special director, a brilliant filmmaker. But when I get around watching KOTFM, I can’t really say that I won’t have the conflicted feelings that this Osage language consultant expressed on the interview I posted earlier in mind.

 

There is a reason why I very much so prefer escapism and blockbusters than actually watching films ‘based on true events’. They rarely do a good job of not romanticizing the situation, and when it is about such a delicate subject, I’d much rather see the film that Cote described there than Scorcese’s, regardless how brilliant it might be. I think that’s their story, and it’s kinda sad how they were brutalized for oil and I feel like once again they don’t have a say on telling their story. Raise awareness? Sure, that’s good. But there is a reason why I’m picky with this kind of content. Escapism is fun, art sometimes even if beautiful and well made, might be harmful. I’d watch it and watch it on its own merits, but I’d much rather watch an Osage reviewing this film than the film itself, if that makes sense.

I understand it, even if i think the conflict isn’t really a problem, the conflict is the driving force of the movie itself, i think it’s great to be conflicted about it and talk about it like Cote did and i’m doing it.
 

It definitely isn’t fun tho, not even really romanticized which would probably make it more engaging to watch it than the cold truth it presents. 
 

There’s more Osage talking about it, this review is particularly interesting if you want to read them more than watching it: 

 

 

 

 

[JustLurking]

Just now, eeetooki said:

 

I know Scorsese did his best as a white man making this movie, but I still have some issues with portraying Ernest as still being love with Lily even though he helped killed her whole family. It's probably what happened in the book and maybe even real life but it still makes me very uncomfortable. Like what the interview said, how can someone love you when they did that kind of thing.

Just because Ernest says it doesn't mean the audience is meant to believe it, especially while he is shown to be a manipulative, murderous piece of shit throughout the whole film. The fact that someone dares speak of love while doing what he does just further enhances the horror of the whole situation. There was no love on display here for anyone to see.

[redfirebird2008]

7 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

I agreed is the likely outcome, which is why i think this is the discussion social media should do from now on instead of stupid things like discuss if the movie should be made.
 

The importance of a counterpoint, the importance of more opportunities. This are relevant questions.
 

It’s a movie that beyond showing the history of a nation, also open the doors for this discussions for the future. I do hope it inspires people to fight for more, so it won’t end here on this project. 

And this is what makes me sad about it’s box office, if it didn’t find great legs i hope people watch it at least on Apple TV. It needs to be watched and discussed.
 

Other than that, i find all the argues about this being a flop kinda useless, i don’t think it matters financially for Apple.

 

We are on a box office website. The box office performance compared to any movie’s budget is naturally a major element of the conversation here. 

[ZattMurdock]

History is told by those who win, like they say. It’s appropriation, and it’s made for white people to feel good about how they aren’t as shitty as other shitty white people. Now we pat on our collective backs and make our memes about absolute cinema. Hence why I find fiction and escapism in a lot of ways a more powerful tool to tell a story that don’t belong to them. It’s a typical and old white entitlement to think that you can tell a story about someone else’s people and do it justice, and it frankly it never goes well. I’m old enough to remember how ‘progressive’ Dance with the Wolves and even Mel Gibson’s joints one day were. 
 

It’d be much better if Scorsese empowered a Osage director to tell that story, even if it was via a documentary, but it is what it is.

[Mojoguy]

When FNAF makes more than 3 times what KOTFM makes OW, people are going to complaining how video game movies are killing the industry which these hits are actually saving theaters. It's unfortunate both movies can't do well.