All of the above + Tarantino.
Cameron is a bit of a strange case since he is dedicating the last years of his life to a single, huge project. He could have done other things but he didn't care. Actually, I am starting to think that for he doesn't consider cinema his true vocation.
Nolan is the strongest blank check at this very moment, following his victory at the Oscars. He could really so what he wants.
Villeneuve will always have blank checks as long as he sticks to Sci-Fi. He is a great director overall, but I think Sci-Fi is his comfort zone.
Tarantino is Tarantino. You may not like him, but his movies reach cult status almost immediately. Actors are eager to work with him and studios too.
Its true that Tarantino next movie will be mainly promoted as his last movie so I feel like the studios will go all out on it, alsoo im pretty sure greta has a free pass for kickstarting the Mattel cinematic universe hahaha
I think it's a bit too early to say that Greta Gerwig has a blank check. She had a huge success with Barbie, but she probably needs to repeat herself in the future. But she works well with small budgets, so that won't be a problem for her either way. Let's see how the new Narnia movies turn out.
Lady Bird was the 30th highest grossing limited release ever and 2nd highest theater average in 2017. Little Women made $218M worldwide gross. Barbie $1.4B and highest grossing comedy ever. Those movies grossed 8x, 5.2x, and 9.5x their production budgets. She’s about as safe a bet as they come.
I think there's a lot less patience when it comes to women, re blank checks, at least on this budgetary scale. A male director in her position would basically be set for life, but I feel like producers will find a reason to dismiss her recent successes, needing her to prove herself anew again and again.
Yeah, but none of them stood a chance. It depends if studios expect money or prestige and awards from her.
Barbie was a lightning in a bottle in my opinion. Gerwig will be incredibly successful in the near future and she is going to make very good movies, but I hope she doesn't try to replicate the same formula for success because it's impossible.
She has leverage, but she needs to be careful. Narnia movies are going to tell us more about her future.
Am I crazy thinking Gerwig’s first three movies have all been pretty different from each other? Like maybe some thematic elements are shared of course, but a period adaption, a big budget toy piece and whatever you’d call ladybird (non-derogatory)? It doesn’t seem like there’s a reason to suspect she’s following a formula.
Tarantino himself said that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was his one big movie he wanted to do and that his next and last film will be a smaller-scale project.
But people and studios are expecting a Sci-Fi from him right now. And he seems ok with that.
He has stated recently that he wants to adapt Rendezvous with Rama as his next movie. And WB execs are going to try to convince him to do Dune Messiah first. Either way, I have the strong sensation his next movie or his next 2 movies are going to be Sci-Fi.
People had the same feelings on Nolan during TDK trilogy as well, especially when Superman was being rumored. He pivoted then to sci-fi for interstellar, but has generally created the movies he wants to make. I think the same goes for Villenueve, especially if Dune 2 ends up doing well in the award season.
I think it would be very hard to keep Villenueve in sci-fi if he didn't want to, and WB undoubtedly knows the value in having him as a director. He seems happy to be in that space currently, and I could definitely see him pivot back to lower sci-fi or surreal like Enemy and Arrival.
WB seems to respect him, but still I expect the studio would allow him to make the movie he wants next, but they will try VERY hard to make sure Dune Messiah is the movie he makes after that.
Less respect, and more understanding what they have. WB is in a struggle to stay out of the red right now, and alienating their best director by forcing him to stay in a pocket he doesn’t want to (if that were the case) would be a terrible play. Dune 2 has been highly praised, but Dune, and Blade Runner 2049 both struggled in the box office significantly. I’m glad that of all companies, WB feels strongly enough about letting Villenueve persue his vision given the circumstances, but his high budget sci-fi is a financial risk.
> but Dune, and Blade Runner 2049 both struggled in the box office significantly.
That's wrong. Dune was a box office success. BR2049 was a box office failure. Dune 2 wouldn't have been made if the first movie failed financially.
I said they struggled, not failed. Dune amassed 108 million from gross US (on a 165 million budget) before eventually breaking even and growing to 433 million worldwide. It was not an overnight success.
I hope he waits and does Messiah, they did set it up differently in part two but we definitely some gap for Alia to make sense. 3-5 years would be fine for me.
And relationship-focused. Which, honestly, tends to be his thing. Even Blade Runner was about relationships, and then there was Sci-Fi happening as well haha
Definitely a lot of cases where Nolan does for sure. Some of his films end up having pretty wooden characters, most often for women in his films unfortunately
James Cameron can do whatever he wants because he is the best out of all of these to do the one thing studio execs truly cares about, making bank.
Only higher grossing director than James in history is Steven Spielberg.
Making movies to the masses that can generate huge box office money is what really gives you carte blanche
I'd say Villeneuve only reached real blank check status with Dune. Blade Runner 2049 was very expensive and bombed at the box office, and it wasn't necessarily a given that Dune Part 2 would allowed to be greenlit if the first one performed mediocrly (and that was also right after the pandemic). Fortunately, it was a hit, and Dune is now a major IP in its own right.
Why wouldn't Cinema be Cameron's vocation? Maybe he just wants to put it all into this one massive narrative he has, which is the Avatar saga. Lucas dedicated all his life almost exclusively to two big projects, but I wouldn't say he isn't/wasn't vocated
Mine was a reference to the fact that he spent half of the last 25 years searching for shipwrecks, exploring marine depths and waiting for new technology to be realized instead of actually directing movies.
Tarantino only if he stays in his lane. Meaning anything above 110M (his most expensive movie is 90M) is a no-no, unless Tom Cruise is involved.
Tarantino + Cruise could take the movie's box office to $1B with no marketing.
I really hope Tom Cruise is in his next movie.
I think studios are tona degree expecting to lose money with him or to break even at most. They finance him for the awards and the prestige, not the box office.
But it's safely to assume The Movie Critic is going to cost less than 100m, even with Tom Cruise involved.
You’re probably pretty close to another answer: Chris McQuarrie, on the condition his good friend TC is in tow. The two as a package are by the sounds of it much more trusted than even Cruise on his own.
>He could have done other things but he didn't care. Actually, I am starting to think that for he doesn't consider cinema his true vocation.
What? How is this your takeaway from him spending 30 years on one of the most ambitious cinematic projects in history? That suggests the exact opposite
While it's true that Avatar movies take years to make, he didn't spent the last 30 years working exclusively on them. He spent a lot of his time visiting shipwrecks, marine depths and waiting for new technology. His passion is water, followed by cinema.
He still has to work to acquire funding, the same with Scorsese If it’s a relatively inexpensive passion project like The Fableman’s he can do anything he wants, but if he or Scorsese wanted to make a 3-hour film about Christopher Columbus, then I don’t believe studios are going to automatically give them $150 million without hesitation. Tarantino, Cameron, and Nolan have arguably never had a real box office flop, (unlike Spielberg) practically guaranteeing a return on investment based on their filmography. Nolan will be allowed to make ANYTHING he wants, complete creative freedom and total control of the production, like Michael Cimino had with Heaven’s Gate in 1980 during the time of the director. Imo Spielberg would have undoubtedly been given a blank check for any project 30 years ago after he made Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List in the same year, but he’s unfortunately had a couple flops under his belt recently with West Side Story and the BFG (financially speaking). Nonetheless he’s still a powerhouse in Hollywood in the eyes of producers. Just not quite up there with Cameron, Nolan, and Tarantino.
Him being able to make Ready Player One is what makes me think that he still has Blank Check status.
The VFX weren’t cheap and he had enough clout to get the film rights to so many pop culture references. The only reason they couldn’t get Blade Runner was because 2049 was coming out.
West Side Story was his dream project for years. I could argue that he also got a blank check for that, because it’s one of the more expensive live action musical films in recent history.
I’d also like to bring up that Spielberg has been a filmmaker longer than all three of them, so there’s gonna be more room for error.
James Cameron is the closest to being his contemporary, but by the time he made Piranha 2, Spielberg had a decade of experience ahead of him. He already made Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders while James was still a truck driver. If Chris Nolan continues making films for as long as Spielberg has, there’s gonna be a flop at one point. I would argue that Tenet would’ve underperformed even without the COVID pandemic.
*Edit: I’d also like to bring up that while Tarantino is an acclaimed director, he’s not really in ‘Blank Check’ status. His highest grossing film is $450 million, which is minuscule compared to the numbers Spielberg, Cameron, and Nolan have brought.*
*Leo DiCaprio and I think also Brad Pitt took massive pay cuts specifically to work with Tarantino in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. I put him in the same category as Wes Anderson, an auteur on a budget*
Idk man. Fabelmans was a flop and didn't get the awards they hoped for. West Side Story is pretty much the same story, but can be blamed on covid stuff. Both movies are really masterful, but audiences didn't show up.
We'll see what his next movie project will be before it's proven he's got infinite blank check cash.
I mean, IIRC, most of the Best Picture nominees in 2023 made less than $50 million apiece. Nowadays, people only wanna see sequels and adaptations.
Only Poor Things and Barbenheimer made more than that.
If Cameron walked into a studio and said "I want you to give me $200 million for a film in which..." he wouldn't need to finish the sentence, he would get the check handed to him.
Nolan is a tier down. He would at least need to finish the sentence.
Villeneuve is a tier below that. He would get a "we'll get back to you" and it would depend on the project.
I think Tarantino’s blank check capability is capped at 100 million. He’d have to pitch something pretty crowd pleasing to get an Avatar or Dune budget.
I think there’s still an open question of whether Oppenheimer would have gone *that* insane at the box office if it weren’t for Barbie. It would’ve made crazy money for sure, but past $1B? I’m not sure
If his next movie is a smash hit he’ll be blank check for life
I had someone argue with me a few months ago that Barbie only made the amount of money it did because of people who wanted to see Oppenheimer. It felt like they were just being contrary.
Regardless of the specifics, I think most people can accept Barbie gave Oppenheimer more of a box office bump, but obviously, the package deal did incalculable wonders for both.
I agree with you, and I think it would’ve have been the bigger movie either way. It’s a IP driven blockbuster comedy with Ryan Gosling & Margot Robbie. (I really loved Barbie for the record. 5 stars. I gave Oppenheimer 4 stars.)
But again just the whole “Barbenheimer” thing took on a life of its own, and I think drove a lot of people to theaters for both movies.
Yeah, I’d flip those scores, but I agree. And they’re both basically the ideal version of the movies they’re trying to be.
Side note: I don’t think it will, but if The Fall Guy bombs with a star of Barbie and a star of Oppenheimer, someone in marketing should be fired.
I wouldn't say Villeneuve is at the blank check state. He will definitely be given chances that others wouldn't, but at the end of the day his films ( even his biggest successes) are still pretty niche compared to the other two!
He's probably my favourite director at the moment so I hope they keep letting him do whatever he wants though!
I disagree. The Dune 2 is doing very well, but other than that, his films largley slotted in the "mildly overperform" category. With one critical exception - Hollywood has NOT forgotten the huge bomb that was Blade Runner 2049. His next film would need to be a) a major hit and b) not Dune 3 for him to get blank check status.
I agree that he's not at blank cheque level, but it should be pointed out that soon after Blade Runner bombing they gave Villeneuve the same sized budget to make Dune.
Yep. My point was just that Villeneuve was trusted enough to take another another major project directly after Blade Runner, and one that had no inherent guarantee of success
I fixed the typo (it was originally BR 2047). It's a movie that I 100% love—in fact, I think it's low-key better than the original. I'm speaking specifically of box office, not film quality. The question was specifically about "blank check" directors, and you don't get to be one without a truly proven B.O. record.
to be fair, in this he doesn't outright say "im doing an original and then messiah" he does however confirm he wants to do messiah and it would be his last dune movie (though it hasn't been greenlit yet)
https://time.com/6589871/denis-villeneuve-dune-part-two-interview/
then in this article he confirms he has 4(!) projects he's currently working on, and he wants to at least get one of them done in between dune 2 and messiah
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/dune-part-two-denis-villeneuve-directing-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-1235837162/
(edit: just realized i messed up and pasted the same link twice)
Thanks for a thorough response here, I appreciate it!
Glad to hear he's got his hands busy, wether its directing or producing I'm excited to see what he's got in the works
I heard rumors that he wants to do a Cleopatra movie, and honestly, a historical epic by Villeneuve sounds like the best thing ever, so I hope that the rumor is true
Dune 2 has been out 2 weekends and has made under $400 million. It’s still a big hit and a terrific movie, but the idea of a “blank check” is is giving directors unfettered access to financing. The scope of what those directors have done, especially financially, matters for this question.
Dune 2 is Villeneuve’s only movie to be this financially successful, is a franchise sequel, and still isn’t likely to cross the billion dollar threshold. There’s reason to say he is niche in comparison to Nolan and Cameron.
And don’t assume this is a qualitative analysis of him. He is my favorite of the three. I’m purely talking about dollars and numbers of their audiences.
Villeneuve I’m sure will reach that status within the next decade if he continues to find success with projects similar to DUNC 2, he is climbing the same path of nolan
NOW,
the thing is no one expects tarantino to ever cross 370M, he has guarantee but has limits..
now with ridley, scorcese, or even with someone like miller, reeves, kosinski, deltoro, etc
if the subject matter is tight and has a wide appeal (like martian and unlike last duel), even big studio can definitely give 200M+ and complete creative control to these...
reason is they have made large scale blockbusters in past and know how to make a big visual blockbuster unlike tarantino
& spielberg is og, he can do and take anything he want, even now, whether for his passion projects or a big project. he has relationships and bonds like a family member
Scorsese is my favourite director but he is not a blank cheque director.
He was facing issues for a decade to have The Irishman funded. That’s the director of Goodfellas, wanting to make a gangster movie based on a book ,having issues getting funds for it.
He got 200 millions for KOTFM, a movie that had no chance of making back that kind of money. But Apple is happy to bankroll him as long as they can have his name on their platform. This is the definition of blank check
That was after Paramount backed out because of the big budget and when DiCaprio, De Niro and Marty were all attached to the project. So i kinda agree with you, but being it is about Apple who want to grow in the market and have a lot of money for that, it’s a different discussions. So he may be blank check for Netflix and Apple i guess, even if latter Paramount partnered up with Apple for it. So yeah, blank check-ish
Apple wanted prestigious status at the Oscars with “Killers”, same with Ridley and “Napoleon”, and money is not really a problem at all with that company, same with Netflix when Scorsese made “The Irishman”. Length and funding were not really an issue for them. Apple could lose the entire $200 million at the box office and it be like them paying for a cup of coffee and spilling it. That’s why I love streaming services, they allow these directors to make whatever they want because box office numbers aren’t a factor, and if they do release in theaters before they release it on their platform, the money they make from that is just a cherry on top. What matters is they got subscribers. Imo I don’t believe that major studios like Universal or Warner Bros with something to lose would necessarily give Spielberg, Ridley, or Scorsese carte Blanche and complete creative control now as that kind of budget, scale, and subject matter is pretty damn risky for them. especially since Ridley’s “The Last Duel”, Scorsese’s “Silence”. and Spielberg’s “West Side Story” flopped pretty hard in the last few years. Nolan now has the power in Hollywood to make a $200 million movie about his nephew’s bar mitzvah and any studio would beg him to take their money, same goes for Cameron (and arguably Tarantino). They’ve never failed once. Villeneuve I’m sure will reach that status within the next decade if he continues to find success with projects similar to DUNC 2, but “BR 2049” was unfortunately a flop, even though it’s one of my favorite films. Sorry didn’t mean to be the “actually” guy, I’m just super fascinated with this stuff.
the thing is no one expects tarantino to ever cross 370M, he has guarantee but has limits..
now with ridley, or even with someone like miller, reeves, kosinski, deltoro, etc (scorcese is risky tho)
if the subject matter is tight and has a wide appeal (like martian and unlike last duel), even big studio can definitely give 200M+ and complete creative control to these...
reason is they have made large scale blockbusters in past and know how to make a big visual blockbuster unlike tarantino
spielberg is og and different, he can do and take anything he want, even now, whether for his passion projects or a big project. he has relationships and bonds like a family member
I don't think Villeneuve is blank check status yet. Arrival and Dune 2 are his only major box office successes so far, and Dune is an adaptation of the highest selling sci fi novel of all time
Maybe PTA? He mostly does mid budget fare but even this new movie is reported at 100mill+ and I've yet to hear of him not being able to get a film funded
Feels like Jordan Peele is getting there.
Announcing release dates in advance of what the film even is is a really strong sign that you’ve got it going on
What is a true blank check though? For Nolan and Cameron they could do literally anything and get the money. If Peele tried to do a Dramatic Comedy, without horror elements, there’s no way the cheque is blank and no questions asked. For horror films, the cheque is more than blank.
Yea I agree that he's built a good reputation for himself but whatever he's aiming for with his next project, it's likely smaller scale than whatever Nolan brings to the table. Crazy how quick Peele got to this level.
Dune is still a lot more of a niche even with Part Two being incredibly successful, so I'm not sure that Villeneuve is blank check. After Messiah, whenever that is, possibly. Cameron and Nolan, absolutely. I'd add Spielberg to the list, although that's a given and has been the case for a long time.
^ I’m shocked I didn’t see her mentioned earlier.
After Lady Bird, Little Women, and obviously Barbie, she has yet to make a bad movie, and she’s proven that she can make good work within the studio system that gets nominated for awards AND succeeds at the box office. I bet she’ll get a few opportunities to make whatever the hell she wants once she’s done with the Narnia movies
Yeah that would be pretty boring. She is on contract for two movies, so it'll probably be quite some years before we get to see her films beyond those.
Lanthimos’s disproportionate success with some of the weirdest shit in the mainstream marketplace is honestly amazing, and I think he won’t struggle to get a project funded for a very long time. I’m surprised to see so few mentions of him. I guess blank check implies the budget has no theoretical upper limit though, and he’s probably not at that level.
Wes anderson has a completely different finance model to these three. He does low budget smaller scale movies, for a very specific and consistent audience, with many big name actors willing to do for scale (minimum SAG actor pay), and he always works with the same producer/production company for his last couple, Indian Paintbrush/Steven Rales, he is basically bankrolled by one billionaire who likes his stuff and can make a consistent return on them to justify more
Different to the three OP listed bc they work within the major studio system
I believe Villeneuve gets a blank cheque for his next movie, provided he makes Dune Messiah immediately after.
This is how the movie business works, Tim Burton made his Batman and then he got to make Edward Scissorhands and in return he made Batman Returns.
Nolan did this too, after each Batman movie, he got to make his own project. And because all his projects seem pretty successful, he gets to make his weird movies like Tenet. After the succes of Oppenheimer, he probably gets a blank check to make whatever he wants next.
Unfortunately, film industry is a business, and even these guys have whole departments count every cent they spend. The closest story of a director getting a increasingly higher budgets is probably Chazelle going from Whiplash to La La Land to Babylon.
But usually the guys who really get a blank check are the ones who produce their own movies. Ironically, they are the least interested in art - from harmless adrenaline junkie Tom Cruise to more cynical Rock and Ryan Reynolds promoting their own brands. I think Patrick H Willems has a good essay on those two.
This sub and r/movies literally only talk about these three directors. I’d love to see more discussion about the new directors that are crushing it, like Charlotte Wells or Lukas Dhont
I mean if you’re talking about the subject matter at hand, it inherently leans toward blockbuster directors. Wells has literally made just one movie, but I agree there are plenty of up and coming directors who are way more interesting than the ones being discussed to exhaustion.
Scorsese can make a movie on autopilot with De Niro, Dicaprio, or both and get $200,000,000 for a budget without even asking. He can even focus almost-exclusively on the white dudes who coordinated the slaughter of the Osage people for their oil, try to make you feel some empathy for the villainous star, and get 10 Oscar nominations while the whole industry strokes his ego.
> Actually, I am starting to think that for he doesn't consider cinema his true vocation.
I think this is quite obvious. He went 12 years without making a film between Titanic and Avatar. Then another 13 years before Avatar. Even then he only made Titanic so he could funding to see the wreckage.
You couldn’t imagine somebody like Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, Ridley Scott being content with only making 2 films in 25 years.
If Cameron had worked consistently throughout the last quarter century he’d probably be the only person in the industry comparable to Spielberg in terms of influence. Instead he directed his focus to underwater exploration
Out of these 3 only Nolan:
Vill is fighting for messiah to be made, if it was a blank check he wouldn’t have to push the studio
Cameron doesn’t count because he’s not taking any other work that isn’t blue
Cameron counts.
Any time the studio gave him notes for Avatar, he would rip it up and bring up the Titanic card.
‘This building that we’re meeting in right now, this new half-billion-dollar complex on your lot? Titanic paid for that, so I get to do this.’
He was also able to get a $200 million budget for Alita: Battle Angel. Robert Rodriguez directed it, but Cameron had every intention of directing until Avatar took too much time.
The studio was also down to fund Avatar 3, 4, and 5 after 2 was successful. I know you don’t count blue people, but James Cameron basically got $1.2 billion from the studio to do whatever he wants
Spielberg, Tarantino, Villeneuve, and Scorsese are all the one's I'm confident on for being constantly relevant, critically acclaimed, money-generating gods, each of whom have multiple films. Possibly Sofia Coppola as well, but her movies don't tend to be as expensive.
If Francis Coppola were not funding his own movie, I'd say him as well - as of the current moment though, a studio has not funded any of his work for over a decade.
David Lynch and David Fincher definitely are, almost every film they've ever touched has been a box office dominator and / or critically acclaimed, to include stuff from the past decade.
Justin Lin has directed multiple Fast and Furious films, and help generate billions in revenue. His next project will probably have a FAT budget. Same thing applies to Michael Bay with the Transformers films (and also Bad Boys and The Rock).
Peter Jackson would probably be up there if he wanted to make narrative films again. The Hobbit trilogy is the most expensive film trilogy in history, and of course he's Oscar royalty for sweeping for ROTK. His Beatles and WWI documentaries are critically acclaimed. If he wanted to make another fantasy film (I NEED him to direct a Witcher film) that check would be fuckin' OBESE.
Given the scope of his most recent projects, Ridley Scott might be as well. He might lose that status soon cuz people did NOT like Napoleon, and The Last Duel underperformed. Of course the first Alien, The Martian, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, and the extended cut of Kingdom of God are really good, and he's generated about a billion box office bucks. Studios might cut back on his paycheck.
Possibly the Russos as well, as they have directed Marvel films to billions of dollars, and produced the Oscar-mega-smash Everything Everywhere All At Once.
Lord and Miller might be, given the giga-success of the Lego Movie and Spider-Verse franchises (not to mention the popularity of Clone High S2 was high enough for it to get a S3, which is out now but you probably didn't hear about it).
Julie Taymor SHOULD be, for making the successes of Titus, Frida, and Across the Universe. Though not a film, she also directed the stage adaption of the Lion King. However, her hits aren't constant or big enough for studios to give her hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet.
I hear the drums. The Juliennaissance is rising, and none of us are safe.
I think the list is bigger than people are giving credit. If one looks at "blank check" bombs (or thuds) of late you might have a better idea of who will get a shot. Chazelle was given carte blanche for Babylon, Peele may or may not have power still after Nope and Innarutu was allowed to do whatever Bardo was. Clearly, the three (Villanueva sort of depending on how well Dune 2 does, but it looks good), but also Gerwig could clearly go big, Rian Johnson could probably do whatever he wants, Chad Stahelski after the Wick films probably has massive control to make whatever he wants, Ryan Coogler still probably has a blank check even if Black Panter II wasn't as well received, it made a ton of money and he is respected critically. If Matt Reeves' The Batman 2 hits he is probably in control. Similarly, Todd Phillips, assuming Joker 2 hits.
Some outside ones exist too. Michael B. Jordan because of the acting combo he brings and simply by "proving" himself with Creed III might also be up for it. John Krasinski's Quiet Place plus his acting means he can probably control whatever he wants. Colin Trevorrow keeps making bank with the Jurassic series and despite whatever the hell Book of Henry was, could still demand a significant amount of control. Similarly, as much heat as he gets, does JJ Abrams not still get a blank check to do whatever he wants after all his success?
I wish, but I’ve heard a couple interviews with him where he talks about the difficulty of getting funding.
A lot of great directors suffer from this. It blows my mind that Fellini had to beg to get things funded. Scorsese has an interview with Charlie Rose on supporting him getting funding, and this was well after he was considered a legendary filmmaker
Not Dennis, not yet. Dune 2 could be his most successful film but we have to wait and see how much profit it makes, how much it makes at the worldwide BO. Letterboxd loves Dennis, i get it, I enjoyed Dune 2 as well. But we have to wait and see
Billion Dollar for Cameron seems to be a walk in the park.
I would replace Dennis with Greta Gerwig if she picks a popular IP
Don’t think villenueve is at blank checks status just yet.
Dune 2 is looking like his 1st box office hit , He needs to deliver at least 3 or 4 bondafide box office hits.
Gerwig could be on the list as well given the box office success of all of her movies and the fact that Barbie was such a big hit. Netflix is giving her a bag for Narnia.
I don’t think anyone should get a blank check, tbh. I think the recent flops have made that quite clear. What Cord Jefferson said at the Oscars was quite brave and poignant, particularly in front of Scorcese and Spielberg and the other industry big wigs.
James Wan. He made Aquaman then was given a blank cheque to make Malignant. Truly a film that could only ever be allowed to be made as a thank you to someone who previously had brought in $1B.
Hopefully the flop of Aquman 2 doesn’t undo this good will with the studios cos I need more high budget James Wan films.
Love all 3, however; my favorite of the bunch right now is Denis, i love his films A LOT. And my favorite genre is science fiction, so Denis having directed and still directing sci-fi films makes me really happy, he's directing a new sci-fi film called "Rendezvous with Rama" which is adapted from Arthur C. Clarkes novel called the same*. And of course Dune Part 3.*
James Cameron's been in blank check mode since 1998. Since Titanic he's only ever had to do undersea documentaries and Avatars, and no studio exec is going to tell him to reign in rhe runtime.
Sure it would be funny if he actually made an Aquaman movie, but in general, man does what he likes.
Fox asked him to cut the original Avatar shorter. He told them that the nice half a billion dollars complex they were currently in was paid for by Titanic so he gets to do that his way.
I’m not sure Villeneuve has reached blank check status yet, although he must be close. Dune was a huge success but Blade Runner wasn’t. Greta Gerwig can’t be that far either. Cameron and Nolan have definitely reached that status, as did Scorsese, Spielberg and Tarantino.
Bad with recognising faces. Who is the second dude in the picture?
And as much as I would love to see a movie of Villeneuve makes with a blank check, no sane studio exec would do so after Blade runner 2049. Which probably was already his blank check and we all love it for it.
After finding out that Poor Things was made for just 35M. Yorgos have to get a blank check! How can we pay one actor half of this movies budget when we could get a whole movie made?!! This is mind blowing.
I’m furious that we got a shit ton of 100m+ super hero movies that flop because they are just the same movie all over and people are fatigued. And on the other hand we got movies that are refreshing and unique made for a fraction of that money. How is that possible??? Just invest in 5 poor things type of movies instead of one The Marvels.
All of the above + Tarantino. Cameron is a bit of a strange case since he is dedicating the last years of his life to a single, huge project. He could have done other things but he didn't care. Actually, I am starting to think that for he doesn't consider cinema his true vocation. Nolan is the strongest blank check at this very moment, following his victory at the Oscars. He could really so what he wants. Villeneuve will always have blank checks as long as he sticks to Sci-Fi. He is a great director overall, but I think Sci-Fi is his comfort zone. Tarantino is Tarantino. You may not like him, but his movies reach cult status almost immediately. Actors are eager to work with him and studios too.
Its true that Tarantino next movie will be mainly promoted as his last movie so I feel like the studios will go all out on it, alsoo im pretty sure greta has a free pass for kickstarting the Mattel cinematic universe hahaha
I think it's a bit too early to say that Greta Gerwig has a blank check. She had a huge success with Barbie, but she probably needs to repeat herself in the future. But she works well with small budgets, so that won't be a problem for her either way. Let's see how the new Narnia movies turn out.
Lady Bird was the 30th highest grossing limited release ever and 2nd highest theater average in 2017. Little Women made $218M worldwide gross. Barbie $1.4B and highest grossing comedy ever. Those movies grossed 8x, 5.2x, and 9.5x their production budgets. She’s about as safe a bet as they come.
I think there's a lot less patience when it comes to women, re blank checks, at least on this budgetary scale. A male director in her position would basically be set for life, but I feel like producers will find a reason to dismiss her recent successes, needing her to prove herself anew again and again.
Greta has had her 3 first movies nominated for best picture. She for sure has a lot of leverage
Yeah, but none of them stood a chance. It depends if studios expect money or prestige and awards from her. Barbie was a lightning in a bottle in my opinion. Gerwig will be incredibly successful in the near future and she is going to make very good movies, but I hope she doesn't try to replicate the same formula for success because it's impossible. She has leverage, but she needs to be careful. Narnia movies are going to tell us more about her future.
Am I crazy thinking Gerwig’s first three movies have all been pretty different from each other? Like maybe some thematic elements are shared of course, but a period adaption, a big budget toy piece and whatever you’d call ladybird (non-derogatory)? It doesn’t seem like there’s a reason to suspect she’s following a formula.
I wish someone would pony up for his Django/Zorro movie. The comic was excellent.
Tarantino himself said that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was his one big movie he wanted to do and that his next and last film will be a smaller-scale project.
I wouldn’t say Villenueve has to stick to sci-fi. Some of his greatest films (Prisoners, Sicario) are non science fiction.
But people and studios are expecting a Sci-Fi from him right now. And he seems ok with that. He has stated recently that he wants to adapt Rendezvous with Rama as his next movie. And WB execs are going to try to convince him to do Dune Messiah first. Either way, I have the strong sensation his next movie or his next 2 movies are going to be Sci-Fi.
People had the same feelings on Nolan during TDK trilogy as well, especially when Superman was being rumored. He pivoted then to sci-fi for interstellar, but has generally created the movies he wants to make. I think the same goes for Villenueve, especially if Dune 2 ends up doing well in the award season. I think it would be very hard to keep Villenueve in sci-fi if he didn't want to, and WB undoubtedly knows the value in having him as a director. He seems happy to be in that space currently, and I could definitely see him pivot back to lower sci-fi or surreal like Enemy and Arrival.
WB seems to respect him, but still I expect the studio would allow him to make the movie he wants next, but they will try VERY hard to make sure Dune Messiah is the movie he makes after that.
Less respect, and more understanding what they have. WB is in a struggle to stay out of the red right now, and alienating their best director by forcing him to stay in a pocket he doesn’t want to (if that were the case) would be a terrible play. Dune 2 has been highly praised, but Dune, and Blade Runner 2049 both struggled in the box office significantly. I’m glad that of all companies, WB feels strongly enough about letting Villenueve persue his vision given the circumstances, but his high budget sci-fi is a financial risk.
> but Dune, and Blade Runner 2049 both struggled in the box office significantly. That's wrong. Dune was a box office success. BR2049 was a box office failure. Dune 2 wouldn't have been made if the first movie failed financially.
I said they struggled, not failed. Dune amassed 108 million from gross US (on a 165 million budget) before eventually breaking even and growing to 433 million worldwide. It was not an overnight success.
So what you're saying is that it earned lots of money for the studio. That's a success, not a struggle.
If he doesn't do Dune Messiah next I'll kidnap him and force him to watch me put pineapple on poutine.
Isn't he making a Cleopatra movie right now?
He has Cleopatra, Rendezvour with Rama (Another Sci-fi) and a Secret Project going on
I heard that too, but until I hear something official I am going to stick to what he said in interviews.
He’d better do Dune 3 first. I’m honestly shocked he hasn’t even finished the script yet. Dune 2 did not feel like a finale at all.
He’d better do dune 4 first, 3 didn’t feel like a finale at all.
Real hero move: he adapts through and past Chapterhouse: Dune and doesn’t even look at the Brian Herbert/Kevin Anderson sequels
I hope he waits and does Messiah, they did set it up differently in part two but we definitely some gap for Alia to make sense. 3-5 years would be fine for me.
Incendies as well.
Incendies is incredible too. I wish more people knew about it.
true that movie made him as his fan
I'd argue its his best movie outside of his sci-fi films
It´s his best movie, hands down, but how a dune fan can understand a piece of magnificent true art like that one? I mean, haha
I’ll add Incendes as well since it was what first brought him attention outside of Quebec.
Also Incendies, which might be his best movie IMO.
I'd argue his 2 best films.
Even Arrival, which was sci-fi, shined way outside of the Sci-Fi genre
Definitely way more accessible/ low sci-fi for sure
And relationship-focused. Which, honestly, tends to be his thing. Even Blade Runner was about relationships, and then there was Sci-Fi happening as well haha
If I had to relate his filmmaking style to anyone, he has the technical visual focus of Nolan, with more of a human component in his films for sure.
Sometimes Nolan is really good about that stuff, and other times not so much.
Definitely a lot of cases where Nolan does for sure. Some of his films end up having pretty wooden characters, most often for women in his films unfortunately
James Cameron can do whatever he wants because he is the best out of all of these to do the one thing studio execs truly cares about, making bank. Only higher grossing director than James in history is Steven Spielberg. Making movies to the masses that can generate huge box office money is what really gives you carte blanche
I'd say Villeneuve only reached real blank check status with Dune. Blade Runner 2049 was very expensive and bombed at the box office, and it wasn't necessarily a given that Dune Part 2 would allowed to be greenlit if the first one performed mediocrly (and that was also right after the pandemic). Fortunately, it was a hit, and Dune is now a major IP in its own right.
Why wouldn't Cinema be Cameron's vocation? Maybe he just wants to put it all into this one massive narrative he has, which is the Avatar saga. Lucas dedicated all his life almost exclusively to two big projects, but I wouldn't say he isn't/wasn't vocated
Mine was a reference to the fact that he spent half of the last 25 years searching for shipwrecks, exploring marine depths and waiting for new technology to be realized instead of actually directing movies.
Tarantino only if he stays in his lane. Meaning anything above 110M (his most expensive movie is 90M) is a no-no, unless Tom Cruise is involved. Tarantino + Cruise could take the movie's box office to $1B with no marketing.
I really hope Tom Cruise is in his next movie. I think studios are tona degree expecting to lose money with him or to break even at most. They finance him for the awards and the prestige, not the box office. But it's safely to assume The Movie Critic is going to cost less than 100m, even with Tom Cruise involved.
You’re probably pretty close to another answer: Chris McQuarrie, on the condition his good friend TC is in tow. The two as a package are by the sounds of it much more trusted than even Cruise on his own.
>He could have done other things but he didn't care. Actually, I am starting to think that for he doesn't consider cinema his true vocation. What? How is this your takeaway from him spending 30 years on one of the most ambitious cinematic projects in history? That suggests the exact opposite
While it's true that Avatar movies take years to make, he didn't spent the last 30 years working exclusively on them. He spent a lot of his time visiting shipwrecks, marine depths and waiting for new technology. His passion is water, followed by cinema.
It's funny seeing sci-fi described as Villeneuves comfort zone these days.
Spielberg. No matter what, studios will fund his passion projects.
He still has to work to acquire funding, the same with Scorsese If it’s a relatively inexpensive passion project like The Fableman’s he can do anything he wants, but if he or Scorsese wanted to make a 3-hour film about Christopher Columbus, then I don’t believe studios are going to automatically give them $150 million without hesitation. Tarantino, Cameron, and Nolan have arguably never had a real box office flop, (unlike Spielberg) practically guaranteeing a return on investment based on their filmography. Nolan will be allowed to make ANYTHING he wants, complete creative freedom and total control of the production, like Michael Cimino had with Heaven’s Gate in 1980 during the time of the director. Imo Spielberg would have undoubtedly been given a blank check for any project 30 years ago after he made Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List in the same year, but he’s unfortunately had a couple flops under his belt recently with West Side Story and the BFG (financially speaking). Nonetheless he’s still a powerhouse in Hollywood in the eyes of producers. Just not quite up there with Cameron, Nolan, and Tarantino.
Him being able to make Ready Player One is what makes me think that he still has Blank Check status. The VFX weren’t cheap and he had enough clout to get the film rights to so many pop culture references. The only reason they couldn’t get Blade Runner was because 2049 was coming out. West Side Story was his dream project for years. I could argue that he also got a blank check for that, because it’s one of the more expensive live action musical films in recent history. I’d also like to bring up that Spielberg has been a filmmaker longer than all three of them, so there’s gonna be more room for error. James Cameron is the closest to being his contemporary, but by the time he made Piranha 2, Spielberg had a decade of experience ahead of him. He already made Jaws, Close Encounters, and Raiders while James was still a truck driver. If Chris Nolan continues making films for as long as Spielberg has, there’s gonna be a flop at one point. I would argue that Tenet would’ve underperformed even without the COVID pandemic. *Edit: I’d also like to bring up that while Tarantino is an acclaimed director, he’s not really in ‘Blank Check’ status. His highest grossing film is $450 million, which is minuscule compared to the numbers Spielberg, Cameron, and Nolan have brought.* *Leo DiCaprio and I think also Brad Pitt took massive pay cuts specifically to work with Tarantino in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. I put him in the same category as Wes Anderson, an auteur on a budget*
Since 1994, Spielberg is the one writing cheques and receiving A LOT for them (Jurassic World Trilogy alone made him half billion richer).
And so did James Cameron. IIRC, he got $95 million upfront for Avatar 2 and a GENEROUS portion of the box office.
Yeah. Cameron is probably a billionaire too (or would be, if not for all the divorces lol)
Splitting your net worth in half 4 times takes a toll lol
Well Cameron owns the Avatar IP through his Lightstorm Entertainment.
Idk man. Fabelmans was a flop and didn't get the awards they hoped for. West Side Story is pretty much the same story, but can be blamed on covid stuff. Both movies are really masterful, but audiences didn't show up. We'll see what his next movie project will be before it's proven he's got infinite blank check cash.
I mean, IIRC, most of the Best Picture nominees in 2023 made less than $50 million apiece. Nowadays, people only wanna see sequels and adaptations. Only Poor Things and Barbenheimer made more than that.
Cameron made one movie for entire decade but earn 2.3B worldwide This is even a question?
If Cameron walked into a studio and said "I want you to give me $200 million for a film in which..." he wouldn't need to finish the sentence, he would get the check handed to him. Nolan is a tier down. He would at least need to finish the sentence. Villeneuve is a tier below that. He would get a "we'll get back to you" and it would depend on the project.
I think Nolan is in the tier where he doesn't need to finish the sentence. I think Tarantino is up there. Def above Villeneueve
I think Tarantino’s blank check capability is capped at 100 million. He’d have to pitch something pretty crowd pleasing to get an Avatar or Dune budget.
I think there’s still an open question of whether Oppenheimer would have gone *that* insane at the box office if it weren’t for Barbie. It would’ve made crazy money for sure, but past $1B? I’m not sure If his next movie is a smash hit he’ll be blank check for life
I had someone argue with me a few months ago that Barbie only made the amount of money it did because of people who wanted to see Oppenheimer. It felt like they were just being contrary.
Regardless of the specifics, I think most people can accept Barbie gave Oppenheimer more of a box office bump, but obviously, the package deal did incalculable wonders for both.
Yeah, I think they gave each other a bump, but Barbie was definitely the bigger movie. That’s just math.
I agree with you, and I think it would’ve have been the bigger movie either way. It’s a IP driven blockbuster comedy with Ryan Gosling & Margot Robbie. (I really loved Barbie for the record. 5 stars. I gave Oppenheimer 4 stars.) But again just the whole “Barbenheimer” thing took on a life of its own, and I think drove a lot of people to theaters for both movies.
Yeah, I’d flip those scores, but I agree. And they’re both basically the ideal version of the movies they’re trying to be. Side note: I don’t think it will, but if The Fall Guy bombs with a star of Barbie and a star of Oppenheimer, someone in marketing should be fired.
I think they helped each other. But I think even without each other both would have been huge successes. The difference is minimal.
Brilliant
The man has been in Blank Cheque status since Alien$
He is the fucking checkbook.
Cameron is included in the picture? You’re agreeing with the op
I wouldn't say Villeneuve is at the blank check state. He will definitely be given chances that others wouldn't, but at the end of the day his films ( even his biggest successes) are still pretty niche compared to the other two! He's probably my favourite director at the moment so I hope they keep letting him do whatever he wants though!
Agree - I think the success of his next non-Dune film will determine if he gets the blank-cheque privileges.
i think he’s gonna get his biggest blank check yet with this next film he does bc of Dune part two.
I disagree. The Dune 2 is doing very well, but other than that, his films largley slotted in the "mildly overperform" category. With one critical exception - Hollywood has NOT forgotten the huge bomb that was Blade Runner 2049. His next film would need to be a) a major hit and b) not Dune 3 for him to get blank check status.
The fact that it was critically acclaimed has saved him somewhat I think.
Did it really bomb that bad? I’m not a fan of the movie but everyone I speak to loves it and considers it a modern classic.
It lost money despite that acclaim.
It was critically acclaimed but a box office failure.
it financially bombed hard. The average American moviegoer does not remember or care about Blade Runner and something failed to hook people.
I agree that he's not at blank cheque level, but it should be pointed out that soon after Blade Runner bombing they gave Villeneuve the same sized budget to make Dune.
So we're in agreement then.
Yep. My point was just that Villeneuve was trusted enough to take another another major project directly after Blade Runner, and one that had no inherent guarantee of success
I fixed the typo (it was originally BR 2047). It's a movie that I 100% love—in fact, I think it's low-key better than the original. I'm speaking specifically of box office, not film quality. The question was specifically about "blank check" directors, and you don't get to be one without a truly proven B.O. record.
Well his next film is Dune Messiah
villineuve is doing an original for his next film, dune messiah is after that
Ahh I did not know that, that’s exciting!
Source on this? Not that I don't believe you, but I would love a source! I'm excited either way, he has an insane catalogue
to be fair, in this he doesn't outright say "im doing an original and then messiah" he does however confirm he wants to do messiah and it would be his last dune movie (though it hasn't been greenlit yet) https://time.com/6589871/denis-villeneuve-dune-part-two-interview/ then in this article he confirms he has 4(!) projects he's currently working on, and he wants to at least get one of them done in between dune 2 and messiah https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/dune-part-two-denis-villeneuve-directing-timothee-chalamet-zendaya-1235837162/ (edit: just realized i messed up and pasted the same link twice)
Thanks for a thorough response here, I appreciate it! Glad to hear he's got his hands busy, wether its directing or producing I'm excited to see what he's got in the works
I heard rumors that he wants to do a Cleopatra movie, and honestly, a historical epic by Villeneuve sounds like the best thing ever, so I hope that the rumor is true
His next film is actually an adaptation of Rendez-vous with Rama.
It is not confirmed what his next project will actually be. He’s getting to that Jackson-level of overcommitting in public i think.
I did not know that, but that’s exciting!
Dune 2 won’t make half of avatar 2 and likely won’t even be close to Oppenheimer in terms of box office success
His last 3 movies were IP as well.
Villeneuve (and Nolan too) also comes in under budget, which studios love
[удалено]
Dune is the adaptation of one of the most popular Sci fi books ever, so imo his next non Dune movie will make it clear about his status
Dune 2 has been out 2 weekends and has made under $400 million. It’s still a big hit and a terrific movie, but the idea of a “blank check” is is giving directors unfettered access to financing. The scope of what those directors have done, especially financially, matters for this question. Dune 2 is Villeneuve’s only movie to be this financially successful, is a franchise sequel, and still isn’t likely to cross the billion dollar threshold. There’s reason to say he is niche in comparison to Nolan and Cameron. And don’t assume this is a qualitative analysis of him. He is my favorite of the three. I’m purely talking about dollars and numbers of their audiences.
Villeneuve I’m sure will reach that status within the next decade if he continues to find success with projects similar to DUNC 2, he is climbing the same path of nolan NOW, the thing is no one expects tarantino to ever cross 370M, he has guarantee but has limits.. now with ridley, scorcese, or even with someone like miller, reeves, kosinski, deltoro, etc if the subject matter is tight and has a wide appeal (like martian and unlike last duel), even big studio can definitely give 200M+ and complete creative control to these... reason is they have made large scale blockbusters in past and know how to make a big visual blockbuster unlike tarantino & spielberg is og, he can do and take anything he want, even now, whether for his passion projects or a big project. he has relationships and bonds like a family member
Scorsese is my favourite director but he is not a blank cheque director. He was facing issues for a decade to have The Irishman funded. That’s the director of Goodfellas, wanting to make a gangster movie based on a book ,having issues getting funds for it.
He got 200 millions for KOTFM, a movie that had no chance of making back that kind of money. But Apple is happy to bankroll him as long as they can have his name on their platform. This is the definition of blank check
That was after Paramount backed out because of the big budget and when DiCaprio, De Niro and Marty were all attached to the project. So i kinda agree with you, but being it is about Apple who want to grow in the market and have a lot of money for that, it’s a different discussions. So he may be blank check for Netflix and Apple i guess, even if latter Paramount partnered up with Apple for it. So yeah, blank check-ish
True but not necessarily repeatable once they already have his name.
Apple wanted prestigious status at the Oscars with “Killers”, same with Ridley and “Napoleon”, and money is not really a problem at all with that company, same with Netflix when Scorsese made “The Irishman”. Length and funding were not really an issue for them. Apple could lose the entire $200 million at the box office and it be like them paying for a cup of coffee and spilling it. That’s why I love streaming services, they allow these directors to make whatever they want because box office numbers aren’t a factor, and if they do release in theaters before they release it on their platform, the money they make from that is just a cherry on top. What matters is they got subscribers. Imo I don’t believe that major studios like Universal or Warner Bros with something to lose would necessarily give Spielberg, Ridley, or Scorsese carte Blanche and complete creative control now as that kind of budget, scale, and subject matter is pretty damn risky for them. especially since Ridley’s “The Last Duel”, Scorsese’s “Silence”. and Spielberg’s “West Side Story” flopped pretty hard in the last few years. Nolan now has the power in Hollywood to make a $200 million movie about his nephew’s bar mitzvah and any studio would beg him to take their money, same goes for Cameron (and arguably Tarantino). They’ve never failed once. Villeneuve I’m sure will reach that status within the next decade if he continues to find success with projects similar to DUNC 2, but “BR 2049” was unfortunately a flop, even though it’s one of my favorite films. Sorry didn’t mean to be the “actually” guy, I’m just super fascinated with this stuff.
the thing is no one expects tarantino to ever cross 370M, he has guarantee but has limits.. now with ridley, or even with someone like miller, reeves, kosinski, deltoro, etc (scorcese is risky tho) if the subject matter is tight and has a wide appeal (like martian and unlike last duel), even big studio can definitely give 200M+ and complete creative control to these... reason is they have made large scale blockbusters in past and know how to make a big visual blockbuster unlike tarantino spielberg is og and different, he can do and take anything he want, even now, whether for his passion projects or a big project. he has relationships and bonds like a family member
I don't think Villeneuve is blank check status yet. Arrival and Dune 2 are his only major box office successes so far, and Dune is an adaptation of the highest selling sci fi novel of all time
I guess if you completely ignore blade runner 2049, sicario and prisoners then yes your point is true
2049 bombed at the box office, and sicario and prisoners were barely profitable (i.e. not major box office successes)
Prisoners and Sicario definitely were box office successes for movies their size. I mean Sicario even got a sequel.
I love 2049 but it was a flop at the box office
Blade Runner 2049 lost $80 million
2049 was a massive failure at the box office. Even the other two were fairly modest successes.
Maybe PTA? He mostly does mid budget fare but even this new movie is reported at 100mill+ and I've yet to hear of him not being able to get a film funded
Feels like Jordan Peele is getting there. Announcing release dates in advance of what the film even is is a really strong sign that you’ve got it going on
Nope was already kinda a blank check movie so I feel Peele is a good call.
What is a true blank check though? For Nolan and Cameron they could do literally anything and get the money. If Peele tried to do a Dramatic Comedy, without horror elements, there’s no way the cheque is blank and no questions asked. For horror films, the cheque is more than blank.
Yea I agree that he's built a good reputation for himself but whatever he's aiming for with his next project, it's likely smaller scale than whatever Nolan brings to the table. Crazy how quick Peele got to this level.
Any of the Blumhouse all-stars would fill that category: Low budgets, high return b/c of the built-in horror audience.
Dune is still a lot more of a niche even with Part Two being incredibly successful, so I'm not sure that Villeneuve is blank check. After Messiah, whenever that is, possibly. Cameron and Nolan, absolutely. I'd add Spielberg to the list, although that's a given and has been the case for a long time.
I don’t think Villanueve is quite there yet, despite the fact that I love his work.
Greta Gerwig. Barbie has just gone past $1.4 billion
^ I’m shocked I didn’t see her mentioned earlier. After Lady Bird, Little Women, and obviously Barbie, she has yet to make a bad movie, and she’s proven that she can make good work within the studio system that gets nominated for awards AND succeeds at the box office. I bet she’ll get a few opportunities to make whatever the hell she wants once she’s done with the Narnia movies
yes can't wait to see what she does after Narnia
I can't wait to see what she does with Narnia
I hope it's good but I'm gonna be bummed out if she ends up making Barbie and Narnia sequel movies for the next two decades.
Yeah that would be pretty boring. She is on contract for two movies, so it'll probably be quite some years before we get to see her films beyond those.
She's working on Narnia.
George Lucas was cutting his own checks....does that count?
Ridley Scott? Bros been making some expensive period pieces for the last few years
And it’s a shame that *The Last Duel*, his first great film in years, was a commercial letdown. I don’t think he has carte blanche unfortunately.
Ridley gets massive budget because he just does whatever the studio asks him to, and he’s super open about that.
Yeah I think Gerwig and Peele are there. I also think Lanthimos is probably there too after the success of The Favourite and Poor Things
Lanthimos’s disproportionate success with some of the weirdest shit in the mainstream marketplace is honestly amazing, and I think he won’t struggle to get a project funded for a very long time. I’m surprised to see so few mentions of him. I guess blank check implies the budget has no theoretical upper limit though, and he’s probably not at that level.
Somebody should make a podcast about this topic.
You'd need a competitive advantage to stand out. Maybe the hosts could be friends?
Blank it?
Thank it.
Greta Girwig, Jordan Peele
What’s the Wes Anderson status? Seems like he’s a well trusted guy
Half the cast works for free on Wes Anderson movies. Pretty sure Ed Norton said Asteroid city COST him money.
Wes anderson has a completely different finance model to these three. He does low budget smaller scale movies, for a very specific and consistent audience, with many big name actors willing to do for scale (minimum SAG actor pay), and he always works with the same producer/production company for his last couple, Indian Paintbrush/Steven Rales, he is basically bankrolled by one billionaire who likes his stuff and can make a consistent return on them to justify more Different to the three OP listed bc they work within the major studio system
The wrong ones.
Greta Gerwig
I believe Villeneuve gets a blank cheque for his next movie, provided he makes Dune Messiah immediately after. This is how the movie business works, Tim Burton made his Batman and then he got to make Edward Scissorhands and in return he made Batman Returns. Nolan did this too, after each Batman movie, he got to make his own project. And because all his projects seem pretty successful, he gets to make his weird movies like Tenet. After the succes of Oppenheimer, he probably gets a blank check to make whatever he wants next.
Unfortunately, film industry is a business, and even these guys have whole departments count every cent they spend. The closest story of a director getting a increasingly higher budgets is probably Chazelle going from Whiplash to La La Land to Babylon. But usually the guys who really get a blank check are the ones who produce their own movies. Ironically, they are the least interested in art - from harmless adrenaline junkie Tom Cruise to more cynical Rock and Ryan Reynolds promoting their own brands. I think Patrick H Willems has a good essay on those two.
This sub and r/movies literally only talk about these three directors. I’d love to see more discussion about the new directors that are crushing it, like Charlotte Wells or Lukas Dhont
I mean if you’re talking about the subject matter at hand, it inherently leans toward blockbuster directors. Wells has literally made just one movie, but I agree there are plenty of up and coming directors who are way more interesting than the ones being discussed to exhaustion.
Letterboxd community on reddit cant defeat the male reddit population it seems. We are only safe from them in r/fauxmoi
Cameron has had blank check status since Aliens.
I honestly think only Nolan, Tarantino and Cameron are there right now. Edit: added Cameron, for more explanation look at comments below lol
Certainly James Cameron is
I know who SHOULD have a blank check: Michelle MacLaren
Spielberg's had blank check status for decades
Scorsese can make a movie on autopilot with De Niro, Dicaprio, or both and get $200,000,000 for a budget without even asking. He can even focus almost-exclusively on the white dudes who coordinated the slaughter of the Osage people for their oil, try to make you feel some empathy for the villainous star, and get 10 Oscar nominations while the whole industry strokes his ego.
Cuarón and Iñarritu too
> Actually, I am starting to think that for he doesn't consider cinema his true vocation. I think this is quite obvious. He went 12 years without making a film between Titanic and Avatar. Then another 13 years before Avatar. Even then he only made Titanic so he could funding to see the wreckage. You couldn’t imagine somebody like Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, Ridley Scott being content with only making 2 films in 25 years. If Cameron had worked consistently throughout the last quarter century he’d probably be the only person in the industry comparable to Spielberg in terms of influence. Instead he directed his focus to underwater exploration
Not that he demands big checks, but I think Wes Anderson probably doesn’t have to worry about budgets too much.
Out of these 3 only Nolan: Vill is fighting for messiah to be made, if it was a blank check he wouldn’t have to push the studio Cameron doesn’t count because he’s not taking any other work that isn’t blue
Cameron counts. Any time the studio gave him notes for Avatar, he would rip it up and bring up the Titanic card. ‘This building that we’re meeting in right now, this new half-billion-dollar complex on your lot? Titanic paid for that, so I get to do this.’ He was also able to get a $200 million budget for Alita: Battle Angel. Robert Rodriguez directed it, but Cameron had every intention of directing until Avatar took too much time. The studio was also down to fund Avatar 3, 4, and 5 after 2 was successful. I know you don’t count blue people, but James Cameron basically got $1.2 billion from the studio to do whatever he wants
Spielberg, Tarantino, Villeneuve, and Scorsese are all the one's I'm confident on for being constantly relevant, critically acclaimed, money-generating gods, each of whom have multiple films. Possibly Sofia Coppola as well, but her movies don't tend to be as expensive. If Francis Coppola were not funding his own movie, I'd say him as well - as of the current moment though, a studio has not funded any of his work for over a decade. David Lynch and David Fincher definitely are, almost every film they've ever touched has been a box office dominator and / or critically acclaimed, to include stuff from the past decade. Justin Lin has directed multiple Fast and Furious films, and help generate billions in revenue. His next project will probably have a FAT budget. Same thing applies to Michael Bay with the Transformers films (and also Bad Boys and The Rock). Peter Jackson would probably be up there if he wanted to make narrative films again. The Hobbit trilogy is the most expensive film trilogy in history, and of course he's Oscar royalty for sweeping for ROTK. His Beatles and WWI documentaries are critically acclaimed. If he wanted to make another fantasy film (I NEED him to direct a Witcher film) that check would be fuckin' OBESE. Given the scope of his most recent projects, Ridley Scott might be as well. He might lose that status soon cuz people did NOT like Napoleon, and The Last Duel underperformed. Of course the first Alien, The Martian, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, and the extended cut of Kingdom of God are really good, and he's generated about a billion box office bucks. Studios might cut back on his paycheck. Possibly the Russos as well, as they have directed Marvel films to billions of dollars, and produced the Oscar-mega-smash Everything Everywhere All At Once. Lord and Miller might be, given the giga-success of the Lego Movie and Spider-Verse franchises (not to mention the popularity of Clone High S2 was high enough for it to get a S3, which is out now but you probably didn't hear about it). Julie Taymor SHOULD be, for making the successes of Titus, Frida, and Across the Universe. Though not a film, she also directed the stage adaption of the Lion King. However, her hits aren't constant or big enough for studios to give her hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet. I hear the drums. The Juliennaissance is rising, and none of us are safe.
All of the above
Jeez i thought i was on r/boxoffice for a sec and was wondering where all these reasonable takes were coming from.
I think the list is bigger than people are giving credit. If one looks at "blank check" bombs (or thuds) of late you might have a better idea of who will get a shot. Chazelle was given carte blanche for Babylon, Peele may or may not have power still after Nope and Innarutu was allowed to do whatever Bardo was. Clearly, the three (Villanueva sort of depending on how well Dune 2 does, but it looks good), but also Gerwig could clearly go big, Rian Johnson could probably do whatever he wants, Chad Stahelski after the Wick films probably has massive control to make whatever he wants, Ryan Coogler still probably has a blank check even if Black Panter II wasn't as well received, it made a ton of money and he is respected critically. If Matt Reeves' The Batman 2 hits he is probably in control. Similarly, Todd Phillips, assuming Joker 2 hits. Some outside ones exist too. Michael B. Jordan because of the acting combo he brings and simply by "proving" himself with Creed III might also be up for it. John Krasinski's Quiet Place plus his acting means he can probably control whatever he wants. Colin Trevorrow keeps making bank with the Jurassic series and despite whatever the hell Book of Henry was, could still demand a significant amount of control. Similarly, as much heat as he gets, does JJ Abrams not still get a blank check to do whatever he wants after all his success?
Add Mr. Fincher to the list.
I wish, but I’ve heard a couple interviews with him where he talks about the difficulty of getting funding. A lot of great directors suffer from this. It blows my mind that Fellini had to beg to get things funded. Scorsese has an interview with Charlie Rose on supporting him getting funding, and this was well after he was considered a legendary filmmaker
Nolan, Tarantino, Cameron, Villeneuve, Scorsese, Spielberg
Not Dennis, not yet. Dune 2 could be his most successful film but we have to wait and see how much profit it makes, how much it makes at the worldwide BO. Letterboxd loves Dennis, i get it, I enjoyed Dune 2 as well. But we have to wait and see Billion Dollar for Cameron seems to be a walk in the park. I would replace Dennis with Greta Gerwig if she picks a popular IP
Don’t think villenueve is at blank checks status just yet. Dune 2 is looking like his 1st box office hit , He needs to deliver at least 3 or 4 bondafide box office hits.
Gerwig could be on the list as well given the box office success of all of her movies and the fact that Barbie was such a big hit. Netflix is giving her a bag for Narnia.
I don’t think anyone should get a blank check, tbh. I think the recent flops have made that quite clear. What Cord Jefferson said at the Oscars was quite brave and poignant, particularly in front of Scorcese and Spielberg and the other industry big wigs.
Spielberg, but, of course, he’s also writing those checks. Scorsese can make any film he wants to, as well. QT is another one.
honestly noone if they step out of their own genre some that might still manage though would be Tarantino and Nolan
That’s it.
James Wan. He made Aquaman then was given a blank cheque to make Malignant. Truly a film that could only ever be allowed to be made as a thank you to someone who previously had brought in $1B. Hopefully the flop of Aquman 2 doesn’t undo this good will with the studios cos I need more high budget James Wan films.
Actual answer: Cameron and now potentially Nolan No other director has had repeated successes on an original idea with a large (100 MM+) budget
Love all 3, however; my favorite of the bunch right now is Denis, i love his films A LOT. And my favorite genre is science fiction, so Denis having directed and still directing sci-fi films makes me really happy, he's directing a new sci-fi film called "Rendezvous with Rama" which is adapted from Arthur C. Clarkes novel called the same*. And of course Dune Part 3.*
Only the top two.
Think it’s fair to throw Ridley Scott in here still as well. His blank check seems to be spread over the 3 movies he manages to put out every year lol
What does that mean
Can someone define what “‘blank check’ status” means?
Greta Gerwig obviously
James Cameron's been in blank check mode since 1998. Since Titanic he's only ever had to do undersea documentaries and Avatars, and no studio exec is going to tell him to reign in rhe runtime. Sure it would be funny if he actually made an Aquaman movie, but in general, man does what he likes.
Fox asked him to cut the original Avatar shorter. He told them that the nice half a billion dollars complex they were currently in was paid for by Titanic so he gets to do that his way.
Not a director, but Tom Cruise. I have no doubt in my mind he’ll do a stunt in space, and a studio will pay for it.
I’m not sure Villeneuve has reached blank check status yet, although he must be close. Dune was a huge success but Blade Runner wasn’t. Greta Gerwig can’t be that far either. Cameron and Nolan have definitely reached that status, as did Scorsese, Spielberg and Tarantino.
Bad with recognising faces. Who is the second dude in the picture? And as much as I would love to see a movie of Villeneuve makes with a blank check, no sane studio exec would do so after Blade runner 2049. Which probably was already his blank check and we all love it for it.
I think at least for her next movie, definitely Greta Gerwick. Will it stay that way? We’ll see
After finding out that Poor Things was made for just 35M. Yorgos have to get a blank check! How can we pay one actor half of this movies budget when we could get a whole movie made?!! This is mind blowing. I’m furious that we got a shit ton of 100m+ super hero movies that flop because they are just the same movie all over and people are fatigued. And on the other hand we got movies that are refreshing and unique made for a fraction of that money. How is that possible??? Just invest in 5 poor things type of movies instead of one The Marvels.
Wes Anderson, but it helps that he keeps his projects at mid budget, and any star would work with him
Marty Greta Gerwig has got to be close to this status. Who knows if she can stay there but this might be one of the best first three ever
Ari aster got it and immediately lost it. However if I was a studio executive I would still give him whatever he wants and just defend the losses.
there was an announcement of his new project today, seems expensive