Warner Bros and Costner are about to lose millions on this movie
You think Furiosa was a flop just wait.
shareBig budget westerns are always a gamble these days. 'Django Unchained' and 'The Revenant' being the exception.
share
MovieChat Forums > Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1 (2024) Discussion > Warner Bros and Costner are about to los...
lol it's a movie with white men. it's gonna do fine.
shareThey are betting on the audience from Yellowstone will show up to see it and they're probably right.
shareYeah, I think that's correct, and I sure hope they do show up. I would really like to see Parts I and II do very well so that Costner can finish up the story. If it ends up unfinished, without being able to see Costner's complete vision, that will seem like a real shame.
I am hoping for a lot here. I really want to see this not only be great but also be a big financial success.
apparently, he wanted to do it in 1988 and then 2003 - and then he decided to extend it to 4 parts and create it now.
I would have preferred to see the 1988 version that's not extended to 4 parts @@
1988 was before Dances with Wolves so that's interesting.
He had winners with both Dances with Wolves and Open Range so I'm hoping for the triple-crown here. I'm good with four parts as long as the story can actually sustain that kind of run time. If it would work better as a tightened-up two-parter or whatever, of course that is what I would prefer.
generally speaking.... from what I've observed, directors do not improve with time like fine wine. So... I am rather skeptical. This is particularly true, given that this is a 4 part series which may or may not ever get finished. If he wanted to do a limited series - he should have done just that - release it over the course of a year. 4 part film series though? We're looking at this being released over 10 years or so. Maybe I'll watch it then ^^
shareSupposedly part of 3 has already been shot but he needs money to complete it. I think that if Parts I and II do well and he gets the funding he needs, we'll see the rest within three years. But that's just a guess.
I agree though that director's usually do their best work early in their careers. While from one angle that makes sense, because when they're young they have that youthful enthusiasm and vitality and they probably have ideas that have been gestating for years, on the other hand the more films a director makes, the more experienced he is and you would expect that experience to result in better films over time.
Indeed - you'd think that with time and experience, their films would get better, but it seems like that's only true up to a certain age. James Cameron was getting on board of the woke train with his comment in the link below, but he may have inadvertently revealed what it was that made his early films great. One has to wonder if decrease in testosterone production is precisely the cause. I still see actors do fairly decent work as they age - but directors basically fall off the cliff, as far as their work is concerned.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/12/04/james-cameronavatar-director-calls-testosterone-a-toxin-heres-the-response/
Cameron is a weird dude. The guy has made some of the best, most ground-breaking films of all time but his personal opinions are often garbage. Also, Avatar sucks.
In regard to your theory about testosterone production, hey, it's possible.
There are at least some directors that continue to work at a high level on into their later years. I think that Clint Eastwood has done some of his best work in the back half of his career and Martin Scorsese has been pretty consistent in all eras. Or to mention a director who now seems almost forgotten, I think that some of Robert Altman's best films came late. I'd take Gosford Park or A Prairie Home Companion over Nashville any day.
But yeah, generally speaking, it does seem like most directors make their most important films early on.