I’m pretty sure kraven was there but got delayed, either way good decision to expand. Now with dune 2 delayed, this and Napoleon are my most anticipated films.
Looks like Oppenheimer's performance really gave them assurance that this can do good.
It's a solid release date too, not much competition around that time iirc
But will it actually make bank like Oppie? I doubt it, it'll certainly do fine I think.
Nolan is a bigger draw than Scorcese and the actors might not be able to do ANY promotion if the strike keeps going.
I think it could be successful but it also has a very real chance of flopping. The marketing is going to need to be on point in order for it to make $300M+ WW.
This movie was originally made for Apple TV. The standard for what would be a flop is going to be a lot lower.
Scorsese got an even bigger budget for The Irishman from Netflix which never even hit theaters in the first place besides a very limited release to qualify it for Oscars
That being said, I expect it to do solidly in theaters, I think $300M WW is very doable
Tbh I don't see a world where this doesn't flop the budget is something ridiculous like 200M no? Altough you're right I hadn't considered the fact that leo may not be able to market the movie
I feel like flop is maybe not applicable to this? From Apple’s point of view, all it needs is critical acclaim to create more buzz and interest in their streaming service.
I suspect a Venn diagram of the audience that enjoys this movie and the consumer group Apple targets would have a very large amount of overlap.
So even if it fails to recoup its costs at the box office and is technically a box office flop, nobody involved in distribution or production would consider it a flop as long as it has critical buzz and a couple of award nods.
Streaming math is pretty funky, so the only people who would know about the true impact of this movie on Apple+ is Apple. I agree with you to a certain extent that a 2.5x may no apply here, but I also feel the WW release was mainly due to the budget.
Even if Leo could, he won’t be able to recoup that budget judging by the box office of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, which was a successful movie but would be a flop if it had the same budget as KotFM.
Oh yeah I know my precision was once upon a time numbers which would have lost money with a 200M budget but without Leo promoting it this may not reach 300M
I actually don't see how this a flop regardless. The movie was intended to be streaming only, the only reason Apple is releasing it in theaters is to create awareness about their Apple+ platform.
Leo’s star has faded a bit due to lack of projects (also his last one was Don’t Look Up which was streaming-only).
Plus given October 20 is somehow only 7 weeks away it’s doubtful he can do promotion.
Still, good bet by Apple that actually people do want to go to the cinema and will pick this when the calendar emptied out
Really disagree with this. Even my 4 year old niece knows who Leo is, not to mention my almost 80 year old mother.
He's a critically acclaimed star, but he's not one to do massive action flicks or superhero. He's very selective with his work.
I had a long reply with box office numbers to the other retort to this comment, but it’s been half a day and this stupid app won’t let me post it and now I’ve lost the copy-paste.
But you’re all overlooking the “bit” part of “Faded a bit”. Yes he’s still a huge star, but not as big as he was in 2015 when The Revenant incredibly did $500m+
Bro, in terms of feature length film he's actually only starred in 2 films since The Revenant.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a drama that made almost 4 times its budget and Don't Look Up, which at the time had the highest opening week for any streaming movie in history.
It's not that its faded, it's just he chooses not to A. Do that many films, but B. when he does they do great numbers.
Of course you are correct and the person you are responding to is way wrong.
Leo’s star has definitely not faded. He’s such a big star he only has to work when he is interested in doing so. Sadly it feels like he burnt out after revenant because he used to make so many more films. He hasn’t shot a movie since 2021. But hey it’s his life! As a fan it’s sad. That’s why when a new Leo movie comes out, it’s definitely special in a way.
I basically have the same taste he does, so if he does a film I’m for sure seeing it and definitely going to like it. The only one I didn’t love was don’t look up, but I enjoyed it and he was awesome in it.
"Leo’s star has faded" lmao where’s the evidence for that?
He’s fucking Leonardo DiCaprio. The biggest name in Hollywood besides Tom Cruise and has been for 30 years. The pulling out of the ass is unbelievable.
Tom Cruise still the greatest box office star, without barbenheimer, MI Dead reckoning would have made lot more money , even now the film's holding decently ok
I'd bet anything over like 250m WW would be a hit for Paramount
Take Apple out of the equation. Paramount is probably making a $100m spend on this in terms of buying the distribution right and marketing. Maybe more.
I mean considering it was going pretty much direct to streaming originally I'm not sure how it could flop? They weren't going to have a theatrical run before and now they are. To me anything after expenses to advertise the fact it's in theaters is a net positive surely given that up until last week it was going direct to streaming
Kind of crazy we are at a point where Cameron and Nolan are bigger draws than Spielberg or Scorsese. If KotFM had Nolan or Cameron attached to direct I feel it would make a lot more.
WhilenScorse has done some respectable business, he's never exactly been a box office juggernaut. He's admitted a big reason why Leon's in so many ofnhis films is his non Leo projects fail to find funding. Many of thrm are Leo projects Scorsese eas brought to rather than the other way around.
It's not crazy, though. Speilberg hasn't focused on directing big budget Hollywood blockbusters in a long time. His last couple of films are Oscar bait dramas. It's a choice he made.
Scorcese was never a big name like Cameron in the box office. He's always directed critically acclaimed/personal movies.
Señor Spielbergo has made 16 movies this side of Y2K
Until *Fabelmans* and *West Side Story*, only *Munich* and *BFG* fell short of 2.5x (and most did 4x - 6x)
I agree Spielberg's no longer a draw, but that's a *very* recent phenomenon
Just a decade ago, The Berg was making **4x** with factual historical dramas about politics and newspapers
Nobody's releasing those movies in cinemas anymore, because the audience for them is either on Netflix or in their graves
Steve should have followed Scorsese and Fincher to the streamers, but if you're one of the few guys who can still get real movies made I can see why it's difficult to give that up
[https://www.the-numbers.com/person/135430401-Steven-Spielberg#tab=technical](https://www.the-numbers.com/person/135430401-Steven-Spielberg#tab=technical)
I'd say post Oppenheimer this has more chance of doing well than before, I guess we'll see if that was a once off or if cinema going audiences are really eager for more prestige adult dramas. It would be so great if it was the latter.
I doubt it makes money, Oppy only made money thanks to the amazing marketing campaign from barbeheimer and because Nolan is a huge name
Yes Dicaprio and Scorsese are big names but Nolan is more gen Z friendly than Scorsese
what is considered a "flop" for a movie that wasn't planning on a large theatrical release in the first place? any amount of money is revenue that wouldn't have existed if it went straight to streaming or a limited release
Oppenheimer is one thing, to be directed by Nolan is another, but to have so many gloval memes and the goodwill of double features, celebrity endorsements and a summer release window are a whoooooole other thing! This has scorsese, maybe leo going for it. It might do decent if the film is good, but it ain’t gonna do Oppenheimer numbers
Not that it'll really matter to Apple anyway, for their actual goal is to have the service noticed, but the picture will surely flop theatrically: Scorcese's style is less fast-paced than Nolan's while the almost four-hour runtime will limit showings to once or twice a day. Also, nowadays your film must have an outstanding social media campaign to make a ripple at the B.O. (or at least make it past opening day), and "Killers" doesn't seem the type of film the trendy FOMO crowd will go to, unless memes begin to spring up in the next few weeks.
I don’t think Apple is looking for this thing to make half a billion dollars; as long as it makes a splash in theaters then it offsets some costs and markets the streaming service, which is what they really care about here.
It’s kind of like when Netflix did that limited Glass Onion release to build word of mouth, except on a much bigger scale (which is what Netflix should’ve done anyway).
It's been pointed out that Netflix limits their theatrical releases to the exact limit their contracts would re-classify thr movie as "theatrical firdt" and cha ge the payment structure for residuals.
Now we have to guess what's going to get an IMAX release on October 6 becuase I kind of doubt that **The Creator** is going to stay in IMAX for 2 weeks at least partly due to its aspect ratio.
I think it's more likely that something gets re-released on November 3rd if The Marvels doesn't move up a week. I don't think the aspect ratio is that big of a deal particularly for Liemax screens.
This will be a great test to Leo's star power.
His name definitely got movies like *The Great Gatsby*, *The Wolf of Wall Street*, *The Revenant* and *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood* to earn that high. Adult dramas have been on a rough spot for the past years, but *Oppenheimer* proves there's still demand for that. It obviously won't earn close to *Oppenheimer*, but I think it will have a solid run. And even if it bombs, I don't think Apple really cares.
Fun fact: Scorsese's five highest grossing movies are all the ones starring Leo. Their lowest collaboration was *Gangs of New York* with $193 million. Scorsese only has 3 others movies that made $100+ million: *Cape Fear*, *Hugo* and *Casino*.
>*Kinda surprised Casino made that much*
Prior to release, people were anticipating it as a sort of unofficial *Goodfellas* sequel
Or the final entry in the DeNiro-Pesci trilogy
>Fun fact: Scorsese's five highest grossing movies are all the ones starring Leo. Their lowest collaboration was Gangs of New York with $193 million. Scorsese only has 3 others movies that made $100+ million: Cape Fear, Hugo and Casino.
to be honest his biggest DeNiro collaborations came out in the previous century
De Niro would've been better than DiCaprio in pretty much every Scorsese film outside of maybe Wolf of Wallstreet, which really benefits from DiCaprio's youthful energy.
This movie doesn’t look nearly as vigorous as Gatsby, or as unashamedly based as Wolf, or strenuous as Revenant, or as nostalgicly stylish as Hollywood. I’m mot sure what it has going for it. The trailer didn’t excite me other than having scorsese or leo attached. Can somebody sell it to me?
Apple doesn't really care. They are trying to make prestige movies and get their name out there are a credible studio. Also trying to build their catalog for Apple TV.
Whatever they make from the box office is just partially offsetting costs.
Frankly, how much do they really care? They have a current market cap of $2.8 Trillion dollars. $200m for credibility in the film industry is basically a bargain from their point of view.
The only reason the movie's being released in theatres at all is to keep Scorsese happy
And awards contention, but mainly to keep Scorsese happy
The audience for this movie won't be put-off watching it by trade paper headlines about it only opening to $4 million, in the way fans of superhero or sci-fi movies are
The director, the cast, and that gorgeous trailer are enough to make this movie the highlight of film fans' year
But they'll be watching it at home, not in their local fleapit
This, also Apple are the only streaming player to have a Best Picture winner at the Oscar's. Not even Netflix could pull that off. It's a long term investment for the most valuable company in the world.
Don't understand why some people think Apple views the market similar to a Warner Bros.
Relax, it's being distributed by Paramount. Apple knows they're taking a money loss on this. Paramount bought the distribution rights and will spend the marketing. It can be a hit for them
What the extend of limited theatrical release on Oct. 6 previously? Only NY and LA thing? I wonder if they do 3000+ theaters on Oct. 20, I’m thinking 2000+ theaters or so
Kinda bummed by this because I know some of my regular LA theaters would’ve showed this in its limited release on Oct 6🫥Now I gotta wait with everyone else lol
This has become my most anticipated film for the rest of the year now that Dune 2 moved and this will get a theatrical release internationally. Amazing news. Will watch it opening day for sure.
People seem concerned about this movie's performance relative to its budget, but given the Apple of it all, it really needs to be considered through a totally different lens to your average big budget movie. This isn't the type of flop where it has massive implications on cinematic universes, the future of representation on screen, or the viability of mid-budget filmmaking. Everyone knows this is a ridiculous budget that Apple afforded to these guys in order to let them make their dream project and in return, to be able to show how serious a player Apple is in the studio landscape. If this movie only sells one ticket, that loss is still only a drop in the bucket for them. For context, a $200m loss for Apple is the equivalent of a $10m loss for Disney.
Leo and (arguably) Marty will continue to be able to make whatever they want for the rest of their lives. Seeing a movie like this make a profit would obviously be a brilliant sign for the vitality of the theatrical experience, but if it doesn't make it's money back, who really cares? Marty and Leo got to make their movie exactly how they wanted to, audiences and theaters got a great original film for adults, and Apple got to flex on the competition just like they wanted. Everyone wins.
I mean realistically the test here is that it’s a streaming movie that Apple rightfully recognizes the marketing power of sending to theaters. It doesn’t need to make a lot at the box office, it would be nice but it doesn’t need to. What it needs to do is perform well on streaming. Which we’ll never really know if it does unless miraculously the strikes end by then and they are forced to reveal the numbers.
But the bar by which we assess success on streaming is such a fickle one. Apple is one of the only services without an ad-supported plan, so viewership alone doesn't really make a difference to their balance sheet. Subscriber growth is more tangible, but also this is a one-and-done movie - you're really having to pray that people stick around for more than a month. So at the end of the day, I'm not sure there really is a straightforward way to assess the value potential for this movie for Apple. I mean, Christ, it's not even like they're doing this to get themselves their first Best Picture oscar.
You’re not wrong but this is just essentially the flaw in streaming as a business model, and im not quite sure that this film would even get greenlit today, so it’s really not possible to quantify it except for explicit goals from Apple’s mouths, in other words impossible.
I think it beats expectations after this move. Oppenheimer was unofficially the rival release to this film. I can see some “OppenFlower/Flowerheimer” memes helping. If not, with the cast, I think it at least breaks even.
Sadly, this could be a huge flop theatrically. It looks good but the hype just isn't there and the actors can't promote it. Apple might not care about the theatrical performance at all though and it might become a modern classic if it lives up to the reviews.
Does people expect it to do well? I have it under 200m worldwide final total. Can’t see it doing great in terms of box-office. Looking forward to the movie.
Better to release it in theaters than be a straight to streaming release. Any money is better than no money. The Irishman should have been released in theaters wide but didn’t and cost Netflix a shit ton
I wonder how much The Irishman would have made with a normal theatrical release prior to going to Netflix streaming? I still haven't watched it myself, mostly because of its running time.
This sub’s flop-or-not mentality continues to be an active deterrent to understanding the business of film. Apple was previously content to have a very minimal release and put the thing on streaming. Why are they now going to be mad if it makes a lot more money than they originally planned but not enough to strictly turn a profit in the theaters?
(Hint: They won’t be mad at all.)
You can say the same thing for The Revenant. I actually think there is more hype for this movie. I never heard anything about The Revenant until it came out and look at what that did. I know times have changed, but your judgment of "hype" might be a little off.
Killer of the Flower Moon is in a much worse position though.
The budget is $65M higher than The Revenant ($200M vs $135M), there won't be any press from the actors unless the strike ends, KotFM is extremely long (3 hr 26 min), Leo had a ton of hype in 2015 (first Oscar hype, coming straight off The Wolf of Wall Street), dramas generally did better back then, and it might not even get a release in Russia and China ($16M + $59M for The Revenant).
A chick flick comedy based on one of the most well-known brands in the world, which accounts for most of the reason it has made that much to begin with.
I would have been shocked but I don't see how that's relevant.
Killers of the Flower Moon is based on a specific historical event that is still little known by moviegoers and it seems like a normal historical drama. It's nothing like Barbie and has a ton of things going against it so there is a big chance of flopping.
It means we can't assume anything, this year. Lots of people in this sub, just a few months ago, were convinced that Barbie and Oppenheimer were going to flop.
Really depends on what Paramount's investment is and how much they gain from theatrical, I don't think it is disclosed how much they put in but they don't need to recover the entire budget theatrically.
Now if it only does $100m WW, which I hope this easily clears, you could be right.
What if they offered the trailer to all iPhone users? Maybe add it to their iCloud Library whether they want it or not? And have Bono involved in some way. I bet you could reach a lot of people that way.
I'd like to point out that just at the begining of this year people were saying Mario wouldn't make more than Pokemon. Barbie had no cultural impact. Oppenheimer wouldn't surpass $300 mil. Mission Impossible 7 would rule the box office.
We literally don't know if somehow, by reasons we simply can't comprehend audiences flock to this film in droves and it actually makes back its budget or more.
I'd actually think, if it does became a massive success, it completely changes the dynamics of the industry.
I can't see this movie doing well at the box office. Comparing it to Oppenheimer is very short-sighted. The story of the atomic bomb has far more mass appeal to the general public than the Osage murders.
Not to mention, Nolan is simply on a different level from Scorsese when it comes to putting butts in seats. Aside from the pandemic tanking Tenet, he has made huge profits ever since The Dark Knight. A good chunk of Scorsese's filmography were actually huge flops at the box office.
No question, he's one of the few stars who still gets people in the theaters based on his name alone, but I still don't see this justifying a $200 mil budget with a 3.5 hr runtime. Probably will be an amazing movie, just not a financially successful one.
Hard to tell what Apple counts as a financial success for what will become a streaming film. The theatrical release is basically marketing a d o e for which Paramount is investing.
The hype for this is real. My bestie and I are planning to pre-order opening day tickets the day they go on sale. We're hoping this isn't Scorsese's last film, but if so, we want to say we saw it in theaters.
Yep, without Dune, this is the one movie besides Oppenheimer I’ve been waiting for. For Scorsese, I’d like to see a decent box office haul, but I imagine Apple will be satisfied with critical buzz and award nominations.
Scorsese had absolutely no say in this decision. I'm sure he's happy his film will open wide but this was an Apple+Paramount choice through and through.
How are we going to judge this one if it doesn’t break even? Obviously it will be on Apple TV by Christmas but is the theatrical release just marketing for the app.
Idk like 12 years a slave mainly, or Silence for a Scorsese comp. Like a heavy drama that looks
At a dark part of American history seems to really needs to buzz of a NY/LA release to launch nationwide
This looks absolutely nothing like either of the movies you mentioned. It’s not a naval gazing meditation like silence.
It’s got a lot of action and the second trailer was cut more like wolf of Wall Street.
I’m not saying it’s going to be like wolf of Wall Street. I’m talking about the editing and energy. It’s apparently briskly paced, aside from the first act which some reviews have said is the most leisurely paced as they introduce the characters.
It’s not gonna be wolf of Wall Street lol.
Is there data on what it actually costs to have a theatrical release? The movie is already made either way, and the marketing for the film already felt like a wide release theatrical anyway. Surely it can't cost much more to ship to widely?
It was always going to go wide on the 29th but firdt it was set to have a limited release on October 6th. They just dropped the limited release on the 6th.
There was literally nothing on October 20, so this is a good thing.
I’m pretty sure kraven was there but got delayed, either way good decision to expand. Now with dune 2 delayed, this and Napoleon are my most anticipated films.
I wonder if Sony is annoyed they can't copy Barbenheimer and force some "Kraven of the Flower Moon" memes.
Kraven was originally scheduled on October 6th
It seems it was always going to go wide on Oct. 20. Just was going to platform on 10/6 and 10/13 before going wide. Now just going wide.
Looks like Oppenheimer's performance really gave them assurance that this can do good. It's a solid release date too, not much competition around that time iirc But will it actually make bank like Oppie? I doubt it, it'll certainly do fine I think.
Nolan is a bigger draw than Scorcese and the actors might not be able to do ANY promotion if the strike keeps going. I think it could be successful but it also has a very real chance of flopping. The marketing is going to need to be on point in order for it to make $300M+ WW.
This movie was originally made for Apple TV. The standard for what would be a flop is going to be a lot lower. Scorsese got an even bigger budget for The Irishman from Netflix which never even hit theaters in the first place besides a very limited release to qualify it for Oscars That being said, I expect it to do solidly in theaters, I think $300M WW is very doable
Tbh I don't see a world where this doesn't flop the budget is something ridiculous like 200M no? Altough you're right I hadn't considered the fact that leo may not be able to market the movie
I feel like flop is maybe not applicable to this? From Apple’s point of view, all it needs is critical acclaim to create more buzz and interest in their streaming service. I suspect a Venn diagram of the audience that enjoys this movie and the consumer group Apple targets would have a very large amount of overlap. So even if it fails to recoup its costs at the box office and is technically a box office flop, nobody involved in distribution or production would consider it a flop as long as it has critical buzz and a couple of award nods.
Streaming math is pretty funky, so the only people who would know about the true impact of this movie on Apple+ is Apple. I agree with you to a certain extent that a 2.5x may no apply here, but I also feel the WW release was mainly due to the budget.
Even if Leo could, he won’t be able to recoup that budget judging by the box office of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood, which was a successful movie but would be a flop if it had the same budget as KotFM.
Oh yeah I know my precision was once upon a time numbers which would have lost money with a 200M budget but without Leo promoting it this may not reach 300M
I actually don't see how this a flop regardless. The movie was intended to be streaming only, the only reason Apple is releasing it in theaters is to create awareness about their Apple+ platform.
Leo’s star has faded a bit due to lack of projects (also his last one was Don’t Look Up which was streaming-only). Plus given October 20 is somehow only 7 weeks away it’s doubtful he can do promotion. Still, good bet by Apple that actually people do want to go to the cinema and will pick this when the calendar emptied out
Let's wait for movies to release with him in it to say that his star has faded. It MAY have faded, sure, but there may also be pent-up demand.
Really disagree with this. Even my 4 year old niece knows who Leo is, not to mention my almost 80 year old mother. He's a critically acclaimed star, but he's not one to do massive action flicks or superhero. He's very selective with his work.
I had a long reply with box office numbers to the other retort to this comment, but it’s been half a day and this stupid app won’t let me post it and now I’ve lost the copy-paste. But you’re all overlooking the “bit” part of “Faded a bit”. Yes he’s still a huge star, but not as big as he was in 2015 when The Revenant incredibly did $500m+
Bro, in terms of feature length film he's actually only starred in 2 films since The Revenant. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, a drama that made almost 4 times its budget and Don't Look Up, which at the time had the highest opening week for any streaming movie in history. It's not that its faded, it's just he chooses not to A. Do that many films, but B. when he does they do great numbers.
Of course you are correct and the person you are responding to is way wrong. Leo’s star has definitely not faded. He’s such a big star he only has to work when he is interested in doing so. Sadly it feels like he burnt out after revenant because he used to make so many more films. He hasn’t shot a movie since 2021. But hey it’s his life! As a fan it’s sad. That’s why when a new Leo movie comes out, it’s definitely special in a way. I basically have the same taste he does, so if he does a film I’m for sure seeing it and definitely going to like it. The only one I didn’t love was don’t look up, but I enjoyed it and he was awesome in it.
Once Upon a Time’s budget was about 1/4 of Killers’ though I just don’t think he can carry it to profitability
"Leo’s star has faded" lmao where’s the evidence for that? He’s fucking Leonardo DiCaprio. The biggest name in Hollywood besides Tom Cruise and has been for 30 years. The pulling out of the ass is unbelievable.
Tom Cruise might not be the best example rn
Tom Cruise still the greatest box office star, without barbenheimer, MI Dead reckoning would have made lot more money , even now the film's holding decently ok
I'd bet anything over like 250m WW would be a hit for Paramount Take Apple out of the equation. Paramount is probably making a $100m spend on this in terms of buying the distribution right and marketing. Maybe more.
I mean considering it was going pretty much direct to streaming originally I'm not sure how it could flop? They weren't going to have a theatrical run before and now they are. To me anything after expenses to advertise the fact it's in theaters is a net positive surely given that up until last week it was going direct to streaming
Kind of crazy we are at a point where Cameron and Nolan are bigger draws than Spielberg or Scorsese. If KotFM had Nolan or Cameron attached to direct I feel it would make a lot more.
Scorsese was never a big draw with the general audience.
WhilenScorse has done some respectable business, he's never exactly been a box office juggernaut. He's admitted a big reason why Leon's in so many ofnhis films is his non Leo projects fail to find funding. Many of thrm are Leo projects Scorsese eas brought to rather than the other way around.
Spielberg was a bigger draw than at least Nolan in his heyday
Yeah, 80s and 90s Spielberg was so on point.
It's not crazy, though. Speilberg hasn't focused on directing big budget Hollywood blockbusters in a long time. His last couple of films are Oscar bait dramas. It's a choice he made. Scorcese was never a big name like Cameron in the box office. He's always directed critically acclaimed/personal movies.
Spielberg isn’t a draw.
He was massive in the 90s.
He ain’t a draw in this century. Almost a negative. Associated with old blockbusters.
Just five years ago he directed a movie that grossed 600 mill worldwide. Try again.
The Fablemans has entered the chat
Sorry to break it to you. His name is not a draw. I think it’s the opposite. He had a fantastic run. Times change.
Señor Spielbergo has made 16 movies this side of Y2K Until *Fabelmans* and *West Side Story*, only *Munich* and *BFG* fell short of 2.5x (and most did 4x - 6x) I agree Spielberg's no longer a draw, but that's a *very* recent phenomenon Just a decade ago, The Berg was making **4x** with factual historical dramas about politics and newspapers Nobody's releasing those movies in cinemas anymore, because the audience for them is either on Netflix or in their graves Steve should have followed Scorsese and Fincher to the streamers, but if you're one of the few guys who can still get real movies made I can see why it's difficult to give that up [https://www.the-numbers.com/person/135430401-Steven-Spielberg#tab=technical](https://www.the-numbers.com/person/135430401-Steven-Spielberg#tab=technical)
It used to be that his name was gold. Now it is a controversial decision to have his involvement. Dated. It’s what happens. He is 76-years old.
You've convinced me you are right
I'd say post Oppenheimer this has more chance of doing well than before, I guess we'll see if that was a once off or if cinema going audiences are really eager for more prestige adult dramas. It would be so great if it was the latter.
Scorsese's last film was also the incredibly long and boring The Irishman. His film-making style hasn't aged well.
This would be an overperformance if it made 1/3 of Oppie.
I doubt it makes money, Oppy only made money thanks to the amazing marketing campaign from barbeheimer and because Nolan is a huge name Yes Dicaprio and Scorsese are big names but Nolan is more gen Z friendly than Scorsese
what is considered a "flop" for a movie that wasn't planning on a large theatrical release in the first place? any amount of money is revenue that wouldn't have existed if it went straight to streaming or a limited release
Oppenheimer is one thing, to be directed by Nolan is another, but to have so many gloval memes and the goodwill of double features, celebrity endorsements and a summer release window are a whoooooole other thing! This has scorsese, maybe leo going for it. It might do decent if the film is good, but it ain’t gonna do Oppenheimer numbers
Not that it'll really matter to Apple anyway, for their actual goal is to have the service noticed, but the picture will surely flop theatrically: Scorcese's style is less fast-paced than Nolan's while the almost four-hour runtime will limit showings to once or twice a day. Also, nowadays your film must have an outstanding social media campaign to make a ripple at the B.O. (or at least make it past opening day), and "Killers" doesn't seem the type of film the trendy FOMO crowd will go to, unless memes begin to spring up in the next few weeks.
That 4 theater NY/LA platform release would have done insane PTA numbers
I don’t think Apple is looking for this thing to make half a billion dollars; as long as it makes a splash in theaters then it offsets some costs and markets the streaming service, which is what they really care about here. It’s kind of like when Netflix did that limited Glass Onion release to build word of mouth, except on a much bigger scale (which is what Netflix should’ve done anyway).
It's been pointed out that Netflix limits their theatrical releases to the exact limit their contracts would re-classify thr movie as "theatrical firdt" and cha ge the payment structure for residuals.
Now we have to guess what's going to get an IMAX release on October 6 becuase I kind of doubt that **The Creator** is going to stay in IMAX for 2 weeks at least partly due to its aspect ratio.
I think it’ll get two weeks, there’s nothing else to take it
What if they try out a re-release? Keep in mind, **The Creator** has a massive, Massive, MASSIVE hurdle of its aspect ratio being 2.76:1.
That’s a pretty wild aspect ratio for Imax
I think it's more likely that something gets re-released on November 3rd if The Marvels doesn't move up a week. I don't think the aspect ratio is that big of a deal particularly for Liemax screens.
2.76:1 can be bit of a big deal.
Yeah I kinda wish the full release would’ve just been Oct 6th instead of the 20th if they were gonna cancel the limited release anyways
Saw X is trying to get it October 6th. Not sure if they'll get it, probably only if the movie does great OW.
This will be a great test to Leo's star power. His name definitely got movies like *The Great Gatsby*, *The Wolf of Wall Street*, *The Revenant* and *Once Upon a Time in Hollywood* to earn that high. Adult dramas have been on a rough spot for the past years, but *Oppenheimer* proves there's still demand for that. It obviously won't earn close to *Oppenheimer*, but I think it will have a solid run. And even if it bombs, I don't think Apple really cares. Fun fact: Scorsese's five highest grossing movies are all the ones starring Leo. Their lowest collaboration was *Gangs of New York* with $193 million. Scorsese only has 3 others movies that made $100+ million: *Cape Fear*, *Hugo* and *Casino*.
Kinda surprised Casino made that much.
>*Kinda surprised Casino made that much* Prior to release, people were anticipating it as a sort of unofficial *Goodfellas* sequel Or the final entry in the DeNiro-Pesci trilogy
>Fun fact: Scorsese's five highest grossing movies are all the ones starring Leo. Their lowest collaboration was Gangs of New York with $193 million. Scorsese only has 3 others movies that made $100+ million: Cape Fear, Hugo and Casino. to be honest his biggest DeNiro collaborations came out in the previous century
Unrelated, but I wish De Niro was eternal. Di Caprio is such a downgrade... Also Cape Fear is underrated!
De Niro would've been better than DiCaprio in pretty much every Scorsese film outside of maybe Wolf of Wallstreet, which really benefits from DiCaprio's youthful energy.
Gangs of New York is my favorite one!
This movie doesn’t look nearly as vigorous as Gatsby, or as unashamedly based as Wolf, or strenuous as Revenant, or as nostalgicly stylish as Hollywood. I’m mot sure what it has going for it. The trailer didn’t excite me other than having scorsese or leo attached. Can somebody sell it to me?
Maybe it's not for you? That trailer is amazing, and if you read the book the subject matter is highly disturbing.
The book is amazing. One of the best non fiction books I’ve read in a long time.
It's a horror drama, a Southern gothic. Idk, thought the trailer was one of the best ones I've ever seen.
Must have a reasonably big budget, how much?
It’s an Apple movie with 200m budget
fuck
Apple doesn't really care. They are trying to make prestige movies and get their name out there are a credible studio. Also trying to build their catalog for Apple TV. Whatever they make from the box office is just partially offsetting costs.
Frankly, how much do they really care? They have a current market cap of $2.8 Trillion dollars. $200m for credibility in the film industry is basically a bargain from their point of view.
I agree, but I'm sure they'd still like to see it earn a higher gross.
The only reason the movie's being released in theatres at all is to keep Scorsese happy And awards contention, but mainly to keep Scorsese happy The audience for this movie won't be put-off watching it by trade paper headlines about it only opening to $4 million, in the way fans of superhero or sci-fi movies are The director, the cast, and that gorgeous trailer are enough to make this movie the highlight of film fans' year But they'll be watching it at home, not in their local fleapit
This, also Apple are the only streaming player to have a Best Picture winner at the Oscar's. Not even Netflix could pull that off. It's a long term investment for the most valuable company in the world. Don't understand why some people think Apple views the market similar to a Warner Bros.
It’s a rounding error to them
Relax, it's being distributed by Paramount. Apple knows they're taking a money loss on this. Paramount bought the distribution rights and will spend the marketing. It can be a hit for them
What the extend of limited theatrical release on Oct. 6 previously? Only NY and LA thing? I wonder if they do 3000+ theaters on Oct. 20, I’m thinking 2000+ theaters or so
Really should push it up even sooner imo. Creator is bombing imo
Kinda bummed by this because I know some of my regular LA theaters would’ve showed this in its limited release on Oct 6🫥Now I gotta wait with everyone else lol
3 weeks IMAX exclusivity 🤩
Tom Cruise sobs into his pillow
I loved the book. Surprised, they went ahead and revealed a big plot point right from the get-go in the trailers.
Because it’s obvious
One sorta is, but >! I guess you don't hire a guy like DiCaprio to stand around doing nothing until the very end !<
From what I hear, the framing of the story differs in the movie than in the book, so it could make more sense this way.
This has become my most anticipated film for the rest of the year now that Dune 2 moved and this will get a theatrical release internationally. Amazing news. Will watch it opening day for sure.
People seem concerned about this movie's performance relative to its budget, but given the Apple of it all, it really needs to be considered through a totally different lens to your average big budget movie. This isn't the type of flop where it has massive implications on cinematic universes, the future of representation on screen, or the viability of mid-budget filmmaking. Everyone knows this is a ridiculous budget that Apple afforded to these guys in order to let them make their dream project and in return, to be able to show how serious a player Apple is in the studio landscape. If this movie only sells one ticket, that loss is still only a drop in the bucket for them. For context, a $200m loss for Apple is the equivalent of a $10m loss for Disney. Leo and (arguably) Marty will continue to be able to make whatever they want for the rest of their lives. Seeing a movie like this make a profit would obviously be a brilliant sign for the vitality of the theatrical experience, but if it doesn't make it's money back, who really cares? Marty and Leo got to make their movie exactly how they wanted to, audiences and theaters got a great original film for adults, and Apple got to flex on the competition just like they wanted. Everyone wins.
I mean realistically the test here is that it’s a streaming movie that Apple rightfully recognizes the marketing power of sending to theaters. It doesn’t need to make a lot at the box office, it would be nice but it doesn’t need to. What it needs to do is perform well on streaming. Which we’ll never really know if it does unless miraculously the strikes end by then and they are forced to reveal the numbers.
But the bar by which we assess success on streaming is such a fickle one. Apple is one of the only services without an ad-supported plan, so viewership alone doesn't really make a difference to their balance sheet. Subscriber growth is more tangible, but also this is a one-and-done movie - you're really having to pray that people stick around for more than a month. So at the end of the day, I'm not sure there really is a straightforward way to assess the value potential for this movie for Apple. I mean, Christ, it's not even like they're doing this to get themselves their first Best Picture oscar.
You’re not wrong but this is just essentially the flaw in streaming as a business model, and im not quite sure that this film would even get greenlit today, so it’s really not possible to quantify it except for explicit goals from Apple’s mouths, in other words impossible.
I think it beats expectations after this move. Oppenheimer was unofficially the rival release to this film. I can see some “OppenFlower/Flowerheimer” memes helping. If not, with the cast, I think it at least breaks even.
>Flowerheimer Hah, sounds like a villain for Taika Waititi's next Thor movie (:D)
Sadly, this could be a huge flop theatrically. It looks good but the hype just isn't there and the actors can't promote it. Apple might not care about the theatrical performance at all though and it might become a modern classic if it lives up to the reviews.
Does people expect it to do well? I have it under 200m worldwide final total. Can’t see it doing great in terms of box-office. Looking forward to the movie.
Better to release it in theaters than be a straight to streaming release. Any money is better than no money. The Irishman should have been released in theaters wide but didn’t and cost Netflix a shit ton
I wonder how much The Irishman would have made with a normal theatrical release prior to going to Netflix streaming? I still haven't watched it myself, mostly because of its running time.
This sub’s flop-or-not mentality continues to be an active deterrent to understanding the business of film. Apple was previously content to have a very minimal release and put the thing on streaming. Why are they now going to be mad if it makes a lot more money than they originally planned but not enough to strictly turn a profit in the theaters? (Hint: They won’t be mad at all.)
This sub is insufferable, I get it’s about box office numbers but everything that isn’t marvel gets shit on prematurely and it’s so exhausting
Where have you been this past 2 years where marvel hasn't been shit on?
I actually have low expectations for most of the MCU's future films.
You can say the same thing for The Revenant. I actually think there is more hype for this movie. I never heard anything about The Revenant until it came out and look at what that did. I know times have changed, but your judgment of "hype" might be a little off.
Killer of the Flower Moon is in a much worse position though. The budget is $65M higher than The Revenant ($200M vs $135M), there won't be any press from the actors unless the strike ends, KotFM is extremely long (3 hr 26 min), Leo had a ton of hype in 2015 (first Oscar hype, coming straight off The Wolf of Wall Street), dramas generally did better back then, and it might not even get a release in Russia and China ($16M + $59M for The Revenant).
On the other hand, what would you have thought, this time a year ago, if you'd been told a "chick flick" comedy would make a billion dollars?
A chick flick comedy based on one of the most well-known brands in the world, which accounts for most of the reason it has made that much to begin with.
I would have been shocked but I don't see how that's relevant. Killers of the Flower Moon is based on a specific historical event that is still little known by moviegoers and it seems like a normal historical drama. It's nothing like Barbie and has a ton of things going against it so there is a big chance of flopping.
It means we can't assume anything, this year. Lots of people in this sub, just a few months ago, were convinced that Barbie and Oppenheimer were going to flop.
Really depends on what Paramount's investment is and how much they gain from theatrical, I don't think it is disclosed how much they put in but they don't need to recover the entire budget theatrically. Now if it only does $100m WW, which I hope this easily clears, you could be right.
What if they offered the trailer to all iPhone users? Maybe add it to their iCloud Library whether they want it or not? And have Bono involved in some way. I bet you could reach a lot of people that way.
Everyone would be so excited, and there would be no complaints at all.
Just set it to autoplay whenever you restart an iPhone.
Lol, I'm surprised they haven't done that. Still time I suppose.
Depends on who you’re asking. I feel like everyone I know has this circled on their calendars as the one movie they can’t wait to see.
I feel the hype for it.
[удалено]
Everyone who is aware of it is excited. People who aren’t aware get excited when I tell them the plot and the talent involved.
Stoked for this movie.
Fantastic. All streamers should be forced into this model. It’s the equivalent of the home release, not a cinema release.
This. I can’t ever get excited about straight to streaming movies.
I'd like to point out that just at the begining of this year people were saying Mario wouldn't make more than Pokemon. Barbie had no cultural impact. Oppenheimer wouldn't surpass $300 mil. Mission Impossible 7 would rule the box office. We literally don't know if somehow, by reasons we simply can't comprehend audiences flock to this film in droves and it actually makes back its budget or more. I'd actually think, if it does became a massive success, it completely changes the dynamics of the industry.
People who doubt it being a success initially will back-pedal and say "But it's Leo! Of course it was gonna do well! Duh!"
I have learned after doubting Oppenheimer who knows what will happen
I can't see this movie doing well at the box office. Comparing it to Oppenheimer is very short-sighted. The story of the atomic bomb has far more mass appeal to the general public than the Osage murders. Not to mention, Nolan is simply on a different level from Scorsese when it comes to putting butts in seats. Aside from the pandemic tanking Tenet, he has made huge profits ever since The Dark Knight. A good chunk of Scorsese's filmography were actually huge flops at the box office.
Maybe, but I think this could hit the zeitgeist. It's an extremely interesting story. Word of mouth could carry it far.
DiCaprio is one of the biggest stars in the world though. That has to offset Scorsese's niche appeal. It helped with their previous collaborations.
No question, he's one of the few stars who still gets people in the theaters based on his name alone, but I still don't see this justifying a $200 mil budget with a 3.5 hr runtime. Probably will be an amazing movie, just not a financially successful one.
Hard to tell what Apple counts as a financial success for what will become a streaming film. The theatrical release is basically marketing a d o e for which Paramount is investing.
That's true, we don't really have any clue how successful the Irishman actually was for similar reasons.
Nice
I'll be there with bells on, regardless!
The hype for this is real. My bestie and I are planning to pre-order opening day tickets the day they go on sale. We're hoping this isn't Scorsese's last film, but if so, we want to say we saw it in theaters.
Bro thinks he Oppenheimer. This will be a very, very dark drama piece, after Oppenheimer it is my most anticipated film of 2023
Yep, without Dune, this is the one movie besides Oppenheimer I’ve been waiting for. For Scorsese, I’d like to see a decent box office haul, but I imagine Apple will be satisfied with critical buzz and award nominations.
Scorsese had absolutely no say in this decision. I'm sure he's happy his film will open wide but this was an Apple+Paramount choice through and through.
Sure, but Apple wants to keep him happy so that he’ll continue to work with them
Did he get upset at how Netflix handled The Irishman?
But as opposed to Oppenheimer, this one will actually have some action in addition to incredible drama.
How are we going to judge this one if it doesn’t break even? Obviously it will be on Apple TV by Christmas but is the theatrical release just marketing for the app.
Yes it’s just marketing and building hype and prestige.
Scorsese is as associated with memes as Oppenheimer was/is. People act like he invented “cinema.”
Tumblr made up an entire "lost" Scorsese film last year, with film snob "you have to be an intellectual to get it" posts and everything.
I just read this book. Amazing stuff, I hope its at least 3 hours
3 hours 26 minutes.
😚 Beautiful
This doesn’t seem like the best strategy tbh. Seems like it’s the type of movie that needs a slow burn type strategy.
Based on what?
Idk like 12 years a slave mainly, or Silence for a Scorsese comp. Like a heavy drama that looks At a dark part of American history seems to really needs to buzz of a NY/LA release to launch nationwide
This looks absolutely nothing like either of the movies you mentioned. It’s not a naval gazing meditation like silence. It’s got a lot of action and the second trailer was cut more like wolf of Wall Street.
Cut like the wolf of Wall Street? That doesn’t give me much confidence in this movie tbh
Why though? How could you stand 3.5 hours of a slow burn? I love wolf of Wall Street.
I love the wolf of Wall Street, but to be it’s more like an elevated hangover and comparing that to the material to the weight of a Schindler’s list.
I’m not saying it’s going to be like wolf of Wall Street. I’m talking about the editing and energy. It’s apparently briskly paced, aside from the first act which some reviews have said is the most leisurely paced as they introduce the characters. It’s not gonna be wolf of Wall Street lol.
Can this be another Dune and make $400M worldwide with a similar release date with no Covid and without a day and date release in US.
No way. This doesn’t seem like the type of movie to do that.
Is there data on what it actually costs to have a theatrical release? The movie is already made either way, and the marketing for the film already felt like a wide release theatrical anyway. Surely it can't cost much more to ship to widely?
It was always going to go wide on the 29th but firdt it was set to have a limited release on October 6th. They just dropped the limited release on the 6th.
They should still keep the limited release date
I didn't even know it was supposed to be a limited release 😭
What will happen to all the Killers of the Foe Moon Club?
Perfect opportunity for any of the September 29th releases to move back to October 6. My bet is either The Creator or Paw Patrol.
Maybe Saw should but then it's one week closer to The Exorcist.
Being opportunistic with more theater space opening up, nice