Only generated $120 million globally after three weekends of release but cost over $200 million to make.
1. Why did it cost so much to make? They had to know this topic wasn’t going to earn it back.
2. Why do studios keep investing in Scorsese films? His last few films have bombed.
I don't think the movie ever would've made its budget back in theaters. I think nobody expected this movie to gross $600 million+ in October. Marty's highest-grossing film ever made $350 million. Evidence says it was always understood that the movie would recoup its budget on streaming. So no, it will end up not bombing in the end, unless NOBODY streams it, which is impossible.
shareCan’t imagine a service will pay $200 mill for it.
share...they already did.
shareReally? Who?
shareApple Tv+.
sharehave you seen this?
shareYes. I went and saw it a couple days ago. My review: Excellent performances from Leonardo DiCaprio, Lily Gladstone, and Robert De Niro. I don't think the film needed to be 3 hours and 26 minutes though. It felt too long. Although this isn't top tier Scorsese, it is still a very good film. 8/10 is my rating.
shareTheatrically it is a bomb, this is Scorsese's fourth bomb in a row. It needs about 400 million more to be deemed somewhat of a success but apparently this is the only film that can never be labelled a bomb, if this were any other film by any other director it would be labeled a bomb.
Delusionally, in the minds of avid Scorsese defenders, this movie is "not" a bomb and doing horribly at the box office was all part of Apple's genius plan to gamble 200 million for the possibility of some Oscar noms because this will garner Apple billions of subscribers and make its 400 million dollars back magically through the sheer "prestige" of Martin Scorsese!!!!! Everyone who unsubscribed due to the price hike of their Apple TV subscription will have no choice but to resubscribe and be happy to pay double for this MAGICAL PRESTIGE.
Apple has somehow the secret recipe to make their streaming profitable that others haven't figured out yet, successfully turning a low grossing movie in BO from a profitable streaming phenomenon because it has the Apple logo stuck onto it, which again no other movie has managed to achieve yet. And anyone who defies this notion will feel the wrath of his PRESTIGIOUS MINIONS!!!!
Anyway did i mention how disney is a bad boy for throwing all these shitty high budget flops at us lately? It's too bad they didn't learn to lose money with style like Apple, ALL OTHER STREAMERS SUCK3497507243 ONLY APPLE PREVAILZ BECAUSE THEY PAID MARTY. I'm surprised Marty fanboys don't attack Netflix, who shut their wallet to Scorsese after the box office disaster of The Irishman. Netflix denied their Lord Scorsese. Selective memory.
Imagine making an alt account because Marty criticized superhero movies.
shareImagine not having any original thoughts of your own and having to parrot "superhero" crap whenever someone makes a valid criticism of your SCAMMER idol. I never mentioned superhero anything anywhere but I know most Marty fans are incapable of critical thought and valid discussion.
shareYet here you are showing your inability to critically think on full display.
"Marty fanboys"...you mean 70-year-old movie critics? If Marty truly had as ravenous and as obnoxious a fanbase as you claim, this movie would've made over a billion and most of his work would've done even better.
Just admit that you'd adore this film if it were somehow crammed into the MCU.
And what are you contributing to this conversation other than parroting the same tired MCU argument? Where is the "display" of YOUR critical thought? I know its dumb of me to ask since most Marty fans also have no original thoughts or minds of their own, just dogpiling and repetition. Marty fans love trailing behind Scorsese because headlines force us to believe he's "America's greatest director" and it feels safer to follow hype than to think for yourselves and risk opposition. If it were any other director with this kind of hype you would just trail behind them. It's that simple.
shareIf you're trying to rile up people with your troll account then you've picked the wrong "fanbase" to target. I am curious to know who you'd call "America's Greatest Director"...the Russo twins, perhaps?
share"You've picked the wrong fanbase to target" you basically prove my point that Scorsese fans operate with a dumb mob mentality and its pretty ironic that Scorsese fans don't have any knowledge or valid arguments about films, just an "us vs. them" crap mindset, attacking anyone who says anything remotely negative when that is how adults have discussions. You still haven't contributed anything useful to this convo, and stating the truth about the box office bomb and mediocrity of this film doesn't make me a troll, unless you think every poster on this board is also a troll. I'm bored of arguing with a teenager.
shareKeep going. This is getting funny.
shareYet you’re the the one that made such a ridiculous alt account name to yell at Scorsese “fanboys” on the internet. This reminds me of the old days at IMDb boards 😂
shareIt's a bomb only in your eyes, my friend.
shareApple was never expecting this to make its money back in theaters. They did this for the prestige and the awards buzz.
share‘Cause prestige and buzz can buy a lot of stuff.
shareApple is a massive company. Film and television aren’t even their primary source of revenue. They’re a tech company first and foremost. They can afford to take a financial loss on this if it means building up their streaming service.
shareYou don’t build a streaming service with shitty content.
And I love Apple with all my heart.
poor Marty
sharepoor Marty
sharepoor Marty
shareI think Apple TV+ wants a prestige picture and hopes that it will attract people to the service.
shareI'm looking forward to seeing it on streaming (for free, of course).
shareThis "bomb" analysis of Killers of the Flower Moon seems to be missing an element that I can only address on the basis of the "Netflix" movies -- like Scorsese's own "The Irishman" -- which Apple seems to be trying to emulate here(by bankrolling the movie made by the famous guy who made "The Irishman," natch.)
Bear with me on this idea, but it goes like this, and I'll use Netflix as the more relevant player:
Netflix released "The Irishman" to theaters for about 2 weeks before bringing it to Netflix. Two reasons: (1) to qualify the movie for Oscars and (2) at Scorsese's personal request -- he wanted at least SOME audiences to see "The Irishman" on the big screen theatrical experience.
But here's the thing: even with the theatrical release Netflix officials DID NOT WANT The Irishman to make ANY money at theaters.
Because the deal was originally: Netflix wanted people to have access to "The Irishman" ONLY on Netflix. They wanted viewers to SUBSCRIBE to Netflix so as to see "The Irishman" there. They didn't want viewers to go pay at the theater.
Indeed, as I recall, Scorsese rather "double crossed on his original deal" with Netflix in convincing them to let The Irishman play in more theaters (not just Oscar towns LA and NYC) and for a longer week or so.
So now Scorsese cuts a similar deal with Apple but -- supposedly the "wider and longer release" of Killers of the Flower Moon WAS meant in some way to bring some more money in -- once it was clear that Leo was playing a bad guy and the story was pretty depressing.
I'm not sure how to take this but the bottom line is that the "streaming movie model" has broken down a bit. Again: profits at the theaters doesn't help Apple(or Netflix) make money with "exclusive content" as contracted for by their services.