dragon_phoenix wrote: ↑

September 8th, 2020, 12:29 am

LeoCobb wrote: ↑

September 7th, 2020, 6:15 pm

Jesus of Suburbia wrote: ↑

September 7th, 2020, 6:07 pm

Both Tenet and Mulan both disappointed. Mulan only got a million buys for a total of 30m but VOD drops like a rock after the first weekend. At most Disney will get only 60m. This will be harder for studios to decide what to do. Theaters aren’t generating a profit nor is VOD.

I think TENET numbers are pretty decent over pandemic scenario and VOD still doesn't work for blockbusters.

Yea I agree. As much as I wish I can watch a 1080p version of TENET right now, I strongly believe that Tenet deserves a long ass theatrical window so that as many Nolan fans worldwide can watch it on the big screen.

I hope Tenet makes sufficient money that WB continue to write blank check for Nolan. The rumour earlier this year that Tenet is 3 blockbuster combined is utter bullshit. Yes, Tenet is a large scale movie but I didn't feel like it was much bigger than say a typical Bond movie.

I hope Nolan makes a larger scale movie than Tenet in the next decade or so.

That may be the case for you but not for other people. Who is right about the scale of Tenet? Who knows.

Another problem is its not showing good holds in some international marks. It dropped more than 66% in the UK this past weekend.

It's a bad result, no doubt about it. Even considering the pandemic 20 million over 13 days is about Unhinged numbers which just shows this might be the most theaters and studios can hope for at the moment which is scary. I expect movies to move release dates again. Studios can't make a profit unless they release a cheap horror film. Candyman should do alright but Wonder Woman and Bond cannot. Marvel is also in a pickle since Mulan didn't do so well on Disney+. And sure, you can say Mulan is no Black WIdow and you'd be right, but the people who were buying the premium vod were mostly families with children for whom a more family friendly Mulan is a more accurately targeted movie than Black Widow. Black Widow might make more on brand recognition alone as more people would be willing to buy it but not by a huge number considering less families would do so.

As for theaters? I don't know what they'll do. I would definitely rent out rooms for sports events but that you can only do live. Maybe do some exclusive concerts (but that would require a much longer preparation period and contracts to be signed, you cannot start doing it overnight) and hope you'll get some quality cheap horrors that will keep the business going for a bit. They should also be showing a lot of animated movies since these are the only ones some people seem to be revisiting with children by renting out the whole room. Foreign films and classics are not really an option if other countries are anything like Poland. These classics screenings are mostly empty here. I was at the theatrical cut of Empire Strikes Back and there were 4 people inside.

On a side note: After watching Tenet there was something bugging me. Do we know that the 250 million budget is for real? Because if I'm being honest, I don't understand how it cost more than 100 million. We could argue that it was the plane sequence but Nolan said they used a real plane because it was cheaper to do than with a model. Also the final battle used a lot of extras and exploding, already dilapidated buildings, so that's probably the second most costly sequence but even then I don't see how it ballooned to 250 million unless Nolan took his family on an expensive vacation in all those exotic locations they went to.

Filming on location is expensive. Remember when they closed down that major highway in Tallin. That cost lots of money, even for a smaller country. Renting out the upper scale hotels in Italy. All the extensive construction in Eagle Mountain and the remodeling of the concert hall for the prologue sequence. All the big boats, helicopters, and trucks they rented.

LelekPL wrote: ↑

September 8th, 2020, 2:26 am

On a side note: After watching Tenet there was something bugging me. Do we know that the 250 million budget is for real? Because if I'm being honest, I don't understand how it cost more than 100 million. We could argue that it was the plane sequence but Nolan said they used a real plane because it was cheaper to do than with a model. Also the final battle used a lot of extras and exploding, already dilapidated buildings, so that's probably the second most costly sequence but even then I don't see how it ballooned to 250 million unless Nolan took his family on an expensive vacation in all those exotic locations they went to.

Where did you get that number from? The rumor was always around $200M and Variety just said Tenet "cost close to $200 million".

Here I was thinking every cent of that money was on screen. This film has a colossal, lavish scale. As expensive as the action sequences would've been in general, the third act set piece must've cost a fortune in itself.

And yeah, shooting at length on location and shutting down highways is $$$$.


-Vader

Not using a single green-screen on TENET also ballooned costs, I'm sure, because now the crew has to be flown out to location also, put up in hotel rooms, etc. instead of just sending them home and then having them come back to the green-screen studio the next day.

You can see it in the behind-the-scenes for Inception, which was when he still green and shot many scenes in green-screen.

He has a lot of quirks like that (another one being: shooting on IMAX film) that balloon the costs of his films, in ways where the $$$ don't really show up on the screen in 'obvious' ways.

I have to assume that that's why he tries to compensate for it by filming as few takes as possible and moving on quickly, staying ahead of the schedule, etc.

Oku wrote: ↑

September 8th, 2020, 9:05 am

Not using a single green-screen on TENET also ballooned costs, I'm sure, because now the crew has to be flown out to location also, put up in hotel rooms, etc. instead of just sending them home and then having them come back to the green-screen studio the next day.

You can see it in the behind-the-scenes for Inception, which was when he still green and shot many scenes in green-screen.

He has a lot of quirks like that (another one being: shooting on IMAX film) that balloon the costs of his films, in ways where the $$$ don't really show up on the screen in 'obvious' ways.

I have to assume that that's why he tries to compensate for it by filming as few takes as possible and moving on quickly, staying ahead of the schedule, etc.

I'll be honest. When I saw the plane sequence I immediately thought to myself - you could have done it with CGI nowadays. Sure, use the plane on the runway to shoot on camera with actors getting believable performances out of them, etc. but the impact with the building and the explosion? CGI of environments right now is indistinguishable from practical effects. I would understand the need for a real plane if there was a big stunt performed in this sequence by a stunt perfomer or even the star like Tom Cruise. That would create a big buzz. But when it's just a plane hitting a building? You can do that with CGI, man. It's not that exciting of an event once you see it on screen to do it for real. The lead up to it was much more effective.

I guess you hit the nail on the head: "the $$$ don't really show up on the screen in 'obvious' ways." Obvious is the key word here, as I get that renting a highway or the final battle could cost a lot when done practical, but since the chase sequence is not more exciting than in say TDK trilogy and the battle is so incomprehensible at times, I just don't see the point in making it cost that much.

Isn't it also true that Daddy avoids CG because it messes up image quality?