Wolfs | 9/20/2024 | Apple | George Clooney, Brad Pitt | Jon Watts directs | Now a limited release

[AniNate]

That doesn't make any sense and let's not go there please. 

 

It does seem like another Instigators to me on paper, and I imagine Apple saw another flippity flop waiting to happen.

[Cmasterclay]

George Clooney was like the most important single person in getting Joe Biden to drop out of the election. Not bad for a washed hack!

[emoviefan]

1 hour ago, justnumbers said:

Oh yeah because a Studio that doesn't even distribute it's movies pulled 1 one of their very few movies per year from schedule.

 

Hide everyone. It's over.

Yep exactly. Instigators is sitting at 44% on RT right now. This probably won't review much better or at best Fly Me to the Moon which is at like 65%. We got to stop doing the this is bad for theatrical  thing when these mediocre star vehicles bomb or get dumped on streaming. If they felt they had a critical winner that has BO potential them and Sony would have kept this a Wide theatrical release. 

[Pinacolada]

5 hours ago, Maggie said:

But why limited release?

 

 

If this is good then this is the lamest fucking decision ever. A George Coooney Brad Pitt movie.

 

I agree with Cmasterclay tho. I think it looks fun but the trailer is pretty weak and looks completely uninspired. Even Pitt and Clooney seem kinda bored in it. The only selling point is Pitt and Clooney which is more than enough for me but given the state of things that probably wouldn't be enough. I'd bet the budget for this is something like $70m at Apple. A $15m OW wouldn't have been enough 

 

I remember Clooney on Colbert saying they took lower salaries to guarantee a theatrical release. Idk whose decision this was but those 2 boys definitely got paid out like an additional 15m each for this, on top of the eight figures they for sure got paid originally anyway

Edited August 8 by Pinacolada

[filmlover]

tbh this has been reminding me of The Nice Guys this whole time and that flopped despite being a great movie in the pre-streaming takeover era, so they probably made the right choice, at least if a franchise is what they want (assume the sequel announcement was part of the renegotiation).

[Alexander]

I think there was maybe obligation in contracts with Watts / Pitt / Clooney that they'll develope another one. Maybe some pay or play deal for them, we'll see.

[JimmyB]

Not surprised. Apple been losing their ass on these theatrical releases.  Fly Me to the Moon probably came in under already low expectations.  Im sure tracking data showed Wolfs as another box office loser.

 

No matter how much a big corporation makes they hate losing money in any division.  I worked at Chase during times they'd post record setting qtrs and departments not performing would still have 10-20% cuts.  Apple might seem like they have endless cash to burn but Apple isnt any different from any other huge company they will cut losses from non performing departments. 

[karlleng]

12 hours ago, AniNate said:

That doesn't make any sense and let's not go there please. 

 

It does seem like another Instigators to me on paper, and I imagine Apple saw another flippity flop waiting to happen.

 

Instigators seems more interesting than this dull. At least based on the trailers

[emoviefan]

If this movie is a dud, how long before Watts does a Russo Bro's and goes back to the safe Marvel franchise. 

[Avatree]

18 hours ago, Eric is Trapped said:

Yeah I think Apple's done with theatrical releases. Even they know it's not worth it.

What do you mean? Napoleon and KotFM essentially recouped half of their budgets "for free" by virtue of being theatrically released before they went to Apple TV.

[Taylor89]

1 hour ago, Avatree said:

What do you mean? Napoleon and KotFM essentially recouped half of their budgets "for free" by virtue of being theatrically released before they went to Apple TV.

 

 

KOTFM lost money. 

[Avatree]

2 minutes ago, Taylor89 said:

 

 

KOTFM lost money. 

How... ? Source?

[filmlover]

I don't think Apple is sweating nearly as much as people like to believe they are. They've clearly achieved their goal of establishing themselves as a legitimate movie/TV division by now (they just managed to get four shows nominated across the three Series categories at the Emmys, for instance).

[AJG]

7 minutes ago, Avatree said:

How... ? Source?

Basically Apple makes movie studios pay for P&A. The studio recoups its money via a distribution fee. The issue is that now studio partners don’t want to trust Apple movies’ ability to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of actually releasing Apple movies (after Flower Moon, Napoleon, Argylle and Fly To The Moon tanked).
The deal changed to Apple slitting the P&A cost with studios. I’m guessing that’s probably not enough to satisfy them and that’s all lead to the situation we’re seeing with this movie.

Quote

Apple has been partnering with legacy studio distributors (in that case, Paramount) on traditional wide theatrical releases and exclusive windows of at least 45 days. 

Unlike Amazon, which built its own distribution apparatus (and then bought MGM, which added another distribution apparatus), Apple contracts with different studios to distribute its movies. The studio pays for the P&A (marketing and distribution) and then recoups its costs via ticket sales; once it’s recouped, the studio takes a fee—often 10 cents on every dollar—from the revenue generated. More box office, more money for the studio that released the film for Apple. Sometimes—and this was the case on at least one of the three recent releases—the studio will make Apple split the P&A costs, thus reducing the risk for the studio if the film bombs.   

Killers, with a production budget of between $200 million and $300 million, depending on whose B.S. numbers you believe, and a full-scale marketing campaign and awards push, grossed just $157 million worldwide. Not great. Killers was followed in November by Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, released by Sony, whose marketing chief, Josh Greenstein, did a nice job with a poorly reviewed movie. It cost far less than Killers and grossed more—$221 million worldwide—with 72 percent coming from overseas. 

https://puck.news/apple-come-to-jesus-moment-for-movies/

[Alexander]

50 minutes ago, filmlover said:

I don't think Apple is sweating nearly as much as people like to believe they are. They've clearly achieved their goal of establishing themselves as a legitimate movie/TV division by now (they just managed to get four shows nominated across the three Series categories at the Emmys, for instance).

I don't know. If they stop making movies / series today... Would people even notice?

[Krissykins]

3 hours ago, Avatree said:

 Source?

A calculator. 

[YM!]

[filmlover]

We can probably move this to the streaming section now since it has lost its Sony deal completely. Movie will have box office run of $0.

 

Clooney said he and Pitt gave a portion of their salaries back after a theatrical deal fell through for Jon Watts' film, which gets its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival Sunday.

 

George Clooney Denies $35M 'Wolfs' Salaries for Him, Brad Pitt (hollywoodreporter.com)

[AniNate]

They still say it'll get a limited run of a few hundred theaters, probably won't be reported though.

 

I reiterate that it'd be easier for everyone if we just combined all streaming and theatrical movies into one forum. The line is just gonna continue to blur from this point, and to be blunt some streaming movies are worthy of more attention than the current setup allows.

 

 

Edited September 1 by AniNate

[Maggie]

2 minutes ago, AniNate said:

 

 

I reiterate that it'd be easier for everyone if we just combined all streaming and theatrical movies into one forum. The line is just gonna continue to blur from this point.

I think it's better to have a separate forum for streaming movies, but make it a subforum where you can access it from box office forum. Like movie it to On the Lot, Clubs...

Edited September 1 by Maggie