Killers of the Flower Moon (2021)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 42622
Joined: May 2010
I’m not here to get into argument about RoS and who is to “blame”, just getting tired of the cheap shots when I’ve done work to be better even if you massively disagree what I say.

I think they deserve blame IF they deliver a movie they did not agree upon without question. Maybe that was the case with 2049 or some Scorsese movies? Or if they refuse to listen/compromise even slightly with the studio’s wishes after they see a cut. But the bottom line is as of right now people can’t blame Scorsese for the budget when nobody is obligated to finance it imo. Scorsese, DiCaprio don’t NEED 20 mill each but hey if that’s their rate and what they can get, so be it. DeNiro getting 15 million is actually kind of weird though lol, he’s not a big draw these days lol. Legend goat regardless.

User avatar
Posts: 19544
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Allstar wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 6:17 pm
I’m not here to get into argument about RoS and who is to “blame”, just getting tired of the cheap shots when I’ve done work to be better even if you massively disagree what I say.

I think they deserve blame IF they deliver a movie they did not agree upon without question. Maybe that was the case with 2049 or some Scorsese movies? Or if they refuse to listen/compromise even slightly with the studio’s wishes after they see a cut. But the bottom line is as of right now people can’t blame Scorsese for the budget when nobody is obligated to finance it imo. Scorsese, DiCaprio don’t NEED 20 mill each but hey if that’s their rate and what they can get, so be it. DeNiro getting 15 million is actually kind of weird though lol, he’s not a big draw these days lol. Legend goat regardless.
I would agree if a studio took on the risk based on a script and vision that was all backed in good faith by all sides, and the movie flops, that would be outside the filmmakers control. But that's a much different distinction than the filmmaker shoulders no responsibility. So it seems like we essentially agree here.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 42622
Joined: May 2010
I was going off these presumptions that they don’t deserve blame. Maybe I should have been more clear, but could just ask to clarify instead of making a dismissive insult because I do think we more or less agree. For example, I read Wolf of all Street script, Scorsese made that film. Even with Silence the producers knew what they were getting into before filming (interview confirmed this) and knew it would be very hard to be profitable but they did it anyway. So I can’t blame Scorsese Silence failed to make money. That’s not blind worship of Marty. In this case seemingly Scorsese was straightforward with Paramount, he changed his vision let Paramount know, they backed out and then Apple came on board to finance his new vision. It’s now low risk for Paramount and Apple doesn’t have to worry about boxoffice. Having a DiCaprio movie for their platform is huge for the brand/platform no matter what. It’s a win win for all parties as far as I see.

User avatar
Posts: 19544
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
The reason I said you sound defensive is because Scorsese is infamous for going way overbudget constantly. At the same time, you also said (I realize you've since clarified your comments) he has no responsibility in the financial prospects of a movie. That was a materially false statement, as you said it. He obviously has every responsibility, one that he's violated repeatedly his whole career.

Gangs of New York went around 15 million overbudget.

The Aviator went overbudget.

Silence went way overbudget (supposedly it was originally budgeted for 20-25 million).

Hugo went overbudget by literally 70 million dollars.

The Irishman was originally budgeted around 125 million, and rumors suggest it went overbudget by 100 million dollars.

The majority of his movies have gone way overbudget. He's even more notorious for this than Cameron in the industry lol. Maybe you didn't realize this, but still.


-Vader
Last edited by Vader182 on May 29th, 2020, 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 42622
Joined: May 2010
I was aware of this and it’s a valid point....but the studio does not have to give him that extra money technically. They could say “release with the footage you got”. It is still his fault for going over budget though.

Secondly, I was more so in defense of this movie which hasn’t even started filming or has a budget firmly set/agreed upon. Perhaps it will go way over budget and with Apple’s endless pockets I won’t doubt it.

It’s truly fantastic Marty and Leo collaborated to change roles and tell the story from the inside. So much more interesting on paper.

User avatar
Posts: 2862
Joined: January 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Who gives a shit. Like Jim Cameron said when asked about Avatar's budget and how he feels about that much money (with the fake 500 M number at the time) being spent on a film: "I would say the answer to that is every one of those dollars goes to a person, because it doesn't get fed into a computer and the computer makes the movie. It's humans, artists, working with computers that do all this work, and film crew, because we have live action shooting and so on, actors. People are making a living; a lot of people are making a living off this, so it's making jobs in time of an economic downturn. I don't feel bad about that at all."

That's all that needs to be said on this. Also, Silence going overbudget is bullshit, it's because of all the legal issues. Scorsese literally said in an interview that they really made the film for 17.5 million, all the rest was legal costs (some of which he had to pay out of his pocket).

And every one of his big budget ventures (Gangs, Aviator, Hugo, Irishman, Boardwalk Empire, Vinyl), all of them, the money is on the screen, the attention to detail is exquisite, the scale is immense, lavish sets. This is also an important picture. Apple paid up, why are we even discussing the budget really?

I know it's intriguing to know the details but it's getting made, that's all that matters. Of course it probably won't make a profit, that doesn't matter. It's about prestige, it's about allowing a master to make another masterpiece, a large scale western about an important subject matter as well with two of the best actors in the world.

Rejoice goddam it.

User avatar
Posts: 9842
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
I think Marty did The Color of Money to prove he could deliver on budget on time and it's the only time he actually did it.

At the end of the day, it's not my money, but if I had it there would be far worse things to "throw it away on" than uncompromised Scorsese pictures, of which there are inevitably only going to be a limited amount to come. How amazingly lucky we are to live in a time where The Irishman gets made.

yes for the record this is perhaps the most absurd topic to take issue with.

User avatar
Posts: 12837
Joined: February 2011
It's not just about a bunch of corporate arseholes who might see their bank accounts shrink.

And I'm not even going to start talking about how much damage to big filmmaking companies, will in turn hurt workers and movie theaters.

But its damage also befalls Marty's chance of financing his future passion projects. If auteur filmmakers don't deliver on the profit, they gradually lose investors' trust and we end up getting even more corporate mediocrities our way.

It's a legitimate concern and one that the very few remaining auteur directors who still have the trust of big corporation, should feel responsible about, so that they can keep the ship afloat.

User avatar
Posts: 19544
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Master Virgo wrote:
May 30th, 2020, 12:57 pm
It's not just about a bunch of corporate arseholes who might see their bank accounts shrink.

And I'm not even going to start talking about how much damage to big filmmaking companies, will in turn hurt workers and movie theaters.

But its damage also befalls Marty's chance of financing his future passion projects. If auteur filmmakers don't deliver on the profit, they gradually lose investors' trust and we end up getting even more corporate mediocrities our way.

It's a legitimate concern and one that the very few remaining auteur directors who still have the trust of big corporation, should feel responsible about, so that they can keep the ship afloat.
This is exactly it. Selfishly, I'm thrilled Blade Runner 2049, Silence, and The Irishman exist. I've been posting how excited I am this project got greenlit. What's not to love about studios throwing stupid amounts of money at art? Well...

The more instances of Scorsese (or any big A-list filmmaker) abusing his budgets, the less likely not only will he get greenlit in the future, but original projects for all filmmakers in general. The most persuasive way to convince studios that daring and/or original projects are profitable is...for them to be profitable, and responsibly made.


-Vader

Post Reply