Killers of the Flower Moon (2022)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 1193
Joined: January 2013
Allstar wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:18 pm
radewart wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 2:28 pm
I love Scorsese but I do think his budgets are out of control for the types of movies he makes. He does have some responsibility to his employers to turn a profit.
No.
Why not? He should be able to film his movies at a budget that allows the companies producing them to at least have a chance to make a small amount of profit. He hasn't made a movie that turned a profit since Shutter Island.

radewart wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:27 pm
Why not? He should be able to film his movies at a budget that allows the companies producing them to at least have a chance to make a small amount of profit. He hasn't made a movie that turned a profit since Shutter Island.
*one of them didn't make a profit. pls don't spread misinformation on this forum thx

User avatar
Posts: 19931
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Filmmakers absolutely have a fiscal responsibility to get their investor's money back. However, they have no artistic obligation to do so.

There's a reason very few filmmakers can succeed on both fronts. Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, Villenueve (minus 2049), Miller, etc.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 42767
Joined: May 2010
radewart wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:27 pm
Allstar wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:18 pm
radewart wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 2:28 pm
I love Scorsese but I do think his budgets are out of control for the types of movies he makes. He does have some responsibility to his employers to turn a profit.
No.
Why not? He should be able to film his movies at a budget that allows the companies producing them to at least have a chance to make a small amount of profit. He hasn't made a movie that turned a profit since Shutter Island.
They don’t have to give that money, that’s their choice. Also, Wolf was very profitable.

It’s the studios job to market and sell the movie. They also decide what they’re comfortable financing or not. It’s on them. The filmmakers job is to deliver the film.

Posts: 1193
Joined: January 2013
Disney+'s solo2001 wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:42 pm
radewart wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:27 pm
Why not? He should be able to film his movies at a budget that allows the companies producing them to at least have a chance to make a small amount of profit. He hasn't made a movie that turned a profit since Shutter Island.
*one of them didn't make a profit. pls don't spread misinformation on this forum thx
Did you read the Hollywood Reporter article that was posted earlier??

"The backers of Hugo and Silence lost a bundle, and the scandal and court action swirling around the source of that Wolf of Wall Street financing is still playing out"

Hugo and Silence lost a lot of money, Wolf of Wall Street due to upfront fees to Leo and others and legal fees hasn't turned a profit. Who knows if Netflix deems Irishman profitable, likely not since they didn't really get involved in backing this upcoming movie. Those are the four movies post Shutter Island he did, I stand by my initial statement

I love Scorsese's movies. I'm glad he gets the money he wants eventually, but if it wasn't for streaming services with money to burn he wouldn't be able to. This time he was able to secure a theatrical window, but it may not happen for future movies with his massive budgets and I don't want to watch Scorsese films from my laptop.

User avatar
Posts: 19931
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Allstar wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 4:03 pm
radewart wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:27 pm
Allstar wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 3:18 pm


No.
Why not? He should be able to film his movies at a budget that allows the companies producing them to at least have a chance to make a small amount of profit. He hasn't made a movie that turned a profit since Shutter Island.
They don’t have to give that money, that’s their choice. Also, Wolf was very profitable.

It’s the studios job to market and sell the movie. They also decide what they’re comfortable financing or not. It’s on them. The filmmakers job is to deliver the film.
you get so defensive over your idols, dude. this is not true.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 42767
Joined: May 2010
No, it’s my opinion and seems quite logical so please explain what’s wrong about it instead of saying it’s not true and that’s it. And please, you shouldn’t talk about getting defensive over idols, the mental gymnastics you did to excuse JJ of blame for RoS...I’m sick of you trying to belittle me, when I’ve been nothing but peaceful and non combative with you since last October.

User avatar
Posts: 3994
Joined: January 2009
Location: Cupertino, CA
The truth is of course there is some shared responsibility. Even directors with final cut talk about their obligations to their studio partners. I think your scenario is ideal, Allstar — but its seems disconnected from the reality of the industry.

User avatar
Posts: 42767
Joined: May 2010
TeddyBlass wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 6:02 pm
The truth is of course there is some shared responsibility. Even directors with final cut talk about their obligations to their studio partners. I think your scenario is ideal, Allstar — but its seems disconnected from the reality of the industry.
Thanks for responding in disagreement without trying to belittle. Anyway, I think the “responsibility” most are referring to is delivering the film they and the studio agreed upon. The rest is quite frankly out of their control, unless they have marketing control like Fincher or something. But I’m 99% sure Scorsese does not get marketing control nor has interest in it.

User avatar
Posts: 19931
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Allstar wrote:
May 29th, 2020, 5:57 pm
No, it’s my opinion and seems quite logical so please explain what’s wrong about it instead of saying it’s not true and that’s it. And please, you shouldn’t talk about getting defensive over idols, the mental gymnastics you did to excuse JJ of blame for RoS...
I have repeatedly said––on NF and on twitter--that the most disappointing thing about The Rise of Skywalker isn't the story-level decisions, it's that the actual filmmaking is just bad on JJ's part. I also think there was a lot of studio interference on multiple levels, and these ideas are not mutually exclusive or excuses. It was a clusterfuck top to bottom. PS, JJ is very far from one of my idols, I just try to give everyone a fair shake. I was just defending Snyder's right for artistic vision when I hate his movies. It's the same thing.

And if a filmmaker makes a deal with a studio, he has every responsibility to try and make a product, which is ultimately what all films are, that will reasonably entice audiences to visit the theater. That's the deal.

Blade Runner 2049 is a great example. Villenueve made a nearly 3 hour long slow burn art house movie that would have never connected with a widespread audience. Yes, WB wildly mismanaged the marketing, but Villenueve categorically destroyed the box office chances. He himself acknowledges this with his comment that he realized he "created a monster." Saying this as someone who adores that movie. Filmmakers absolutely share responsibility in the box office.


-Vader

Post Reply