HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI SIZED BOMB! - Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) Discussion

[–] Filmtenk2 (4052) a year ago

Apple makes so much money this $200 million project is pocket change. They're trying to get into prestige movies and having one of Scorsese's last is all positive for them.

reply

[–] PayMeScorsese (42) a year ago

Mmmm right money means so little to them that's why they bumped up the cost of the subscription to Apple TV to hand the bill for this nuclear bomb onto the consumer. To which most people have responded by cancelling their subscription... all part of Apple's genius plan for streaming dominance!!! But we'll see, maybe KOTFM can win Apple TV billions of subscribers and billions of dollars and everything will be all right in the end and Marty can demand 400 million for his next film :D :D :D who's gonna pay up???

reply

[–] Filmtenk2 (4052) a year ago

https://youtu.be/qhIAMXTSF_g?si=xk39PjdJpmcpvRDU

My man James Hancock explains it in this review. Apple makes $90 billion a quarter. $200 million on a movie that makes what KOTFM did in theaters would be considered a flop in the traditional studio system. Apple is playing by a different set of rules.

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

Quite possibly Apple again. They aren't a traditional studio. That's not their business model. They don't care about the box office. They just want premium content for their app.

Scorsese will have negotiated for a general theatrical release. If it were just down to Apple, the film probably would have received a much more limited one only in order to make it eligible for certain awards.

Of course, this didn't really work out for Netflix and The Irishman. They regretted having spent so much money on it and have subsequently changed their business strategy... but Apple has deeper pockets than Netflix.

reply

[–] PayMeScorsese (42) a year ago

"Magical Apple... save us... everyone is cancelling their subscription to Apple TV after the announcement of the price hike... Magical Apple... When Magical Killers of the Flower Moon releases on Apple TV, billions of subscribers will flock in... this is what we wish for Magical Apple TV+. Shun Netflix who shut their wallet to the great Scorsese. Don't let Magical Apple do the same. Magical Apple is the ultimate streaming service that has everything figured out, we will hang onto this belief until the bitter end. Amen" - Scorsese fans praying for their lives!!!!!

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

Can't make much sense of that bizarre little rant, to be frank.

I've simply stated that theatrical distribution is not an important element in Apple's business model -- they're a tech company, not a traditional film studio -- and therefore the film will not be not be judged as a failure by Apple on its box office returns. They will have already known it was unlikely to wash its face in cinemas. It's all about having premium content for their app -- and that's the basis on which they'll judge it.

reply

[–] PayMeScorsese (42) a year ago

Ok, thanks for the reply. Apple can judge it however they want to. I judge it as a bomb, not only financially, but also based on the fact that it did not live up to the hype. As a glorified ad for Apple TV+ we'll see how it fares after the price increase for the subscription has already put people off. And I think box office numbers are showing that people are still willing to go to the theatre and watch movies (contrary to the excuses defenders come up with for the dismal box office performance)... they're just... not going to this one....

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

Well, you're not really in a position to judge it as a bomb overall, because you aren't privy to Apple's financial spreadsheets.

You'd be right to judge it a bomb at the box office. If Apple were a traditional film studio committed to theatrical distribution, $60m against a $200m outlay would be nothing short of disastrous. But they're not a traditional film studio. The film doesn't need 'defenders' of its box office performance. It was never going to make its money back at the box office. That isn't the business model.

Of course, what is true of Apple is also becoming true of the traditional film companies as well. Box office performance is just one of the revenue streams by which a film's performance is now judged. It remains the most visible revenue stream to observers -- so it's understandable that people still glom on to those figures -- but the industry is changing rapidly and it's no longer of the same importance it was even five years ago.

reply

[–] CraigJamesReview (1720) a year ago

It will have legs leading up to the Oscars. If it takes home some awards, which it no doubt will, Apple will judge it as a success.

If anyone's interested, I reviewed the movie on my youtube channel. Appreciate any feedback. Trying to improve - https://youtu.be/yPw8aQ8KDiw

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

It will have legs leading up to the Oscars. If it takes home some awards, which it no doubt will, Apple will judge it as a success.

Indeed. It's about having prestige 'content' for their app to drive traffic and subscriptions. It's not about box office. As I said in an earlier post, I suspect it was Scorsese -- committed to the theatrical experience as he is -- who insisted on a general release rather than Apple, who probably would have been happy with a limited release (like Netflix had for The Irishman) to ensure award eligibility.

reply

[–] PayMeScorsese (42) a year ago

Honestly defending the budget by saying the "prestige" of the film is worth the 200M and Apple is thrilled about it because they have endless money makes no sense when they just increased the price of their subscription. Prestige not really quantifiable AND I honestly don't see a lot of people rushing to subscribe to Apple TV.

I also think the film bombed in terms of expectations. It simply did not meet the expectations of the producers nor the audience. Scorsese clearly wanted to appear very self important with this film, yet audiences cut through his BS by patronizing what they wanted to see and experience at the movie theatre. His "what is and is not cinema" argument bombed with the audience reaction this time around.

reply

[–] CraigJamesReview (1720) a year ago

It didn't bomb in terms of expectation. Its a great film, audiences have been giving it glowing reviews. Are a lot of people prone to want to go back and experience the three hours again on the big screen. Maybe not, not that type of film. But hopefully awards season will get more people to see it cause it is A GREAT FILM

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

audiences cut through his BS by patronizing what they wanted to see and experience at the movie theatre.

Well, you're right inasmuch as contemporary mainstream audiences are highly selective about the films they'll pay to watch in cinemas, especially post-pandemic. And Killers of the Flower Moon isn't an escapist comic book film, a franchise instalment or a sequel, a remake or a familiar brand... but that's precisely why no-one involved would have anticipated it turning blockbuster figures despite its blockbuster budget.

It was always going to play to a smaller audience than your average MCU film. In cinemas. But it'll probably do considerably better on streaming, especially if it gets some major award nominations.

reply

[–] PayMeScorsese (42) a year ago

It's worth noting that even if we excuse the poor box office because "it's made by Apple" (despite also receiving a full scale theatrical release), it's difficult to see the film generating enough revenue to justify a $200M budget. Apple TV+ doesn't have a particularly high number of subscribers (they won't even officially reveal it, but 3rd party estimates put it at 25M), and it's unreasonable to expect an individual film to single handedly bring in a ton of new subs (and even more so for those subs to stick around even if they sign up to watch the film).

We will have some viewership estimates from Nielsen, but I have a feeling those numbers are gonna be embarrassing too. It remains to be seen what happens once this film hits streaming.

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

it's difficult to see the film generating enough revenue to justify a $200M budget.

Given Netflix's experience with The Irishman, I think that's a reasonable point -- but it is one that I've already touched upon when I also explained that Apple has deeper pockets than Netflix, so can play a longer strategy of pouring resources into content for their app.

But I'm not 'excusing' the poor office. Neither am I 'defending' the budget as you claim in a different response to me. I'm just stating the facts of the matter.

Personally, I don't give a crap one way or the other if Apple makes money from Killers of the Flower Moon. If it's a financial failure, it's a financial failure. If it's a financial success, it's a financial success. I haven't lost money on it, nor do I stand to gain any -- so I can be entirely dispassionate about the subject.

Yet again, I'm simply telling you that the box office doesn't matter in this instance. That is simply not the business model.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) a year ago

It’s a bitter nonsense post. We have a lot of lonely people on this site.

reply

[–] BKB (9987) a year ago

Personally, I would have no problem if they simply did away with Streaming to begin with

reply

[–] moviebuff00 (823) a year ago

can you link to where netflix said they regretted it?

reply

[–] capuchin (3195) a year ago

No. Because Netflix didn't release a statement saying they 'regretted' The Irishman. Companies don't do that kind of thing.

They did, however, lose an estimated $275m on the film by some reports. And they have changed their business strategy since its release. And sources at Netflix have been quoted as saying the company would no longer be funding 'expensive "vanity projects" such as The Irishman.'

So characterising the situation as them 'regretting it' is, I think, justified editorial.

However, here's two of the many articles about the situation: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/netflix-movies-knives-out-gray-man-red-notice-1235156868/

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/6/netflix-will-no-longer-spend-money-on-directors-vanity-projects-2xlup

reply

[–] CMX (265) a year ago

154 million against a budget of 204 million is not bad for a movie made for a streaming service in the first place.

reply

[–] MrEdofCourse (33) a year ago

I totally agree, but people should keep in mind that "Streaming" isn't really the right term here. There's subscription service, online rental and online sales, all of which could be downloaded or streamed. The key difference here is that it's not like The Irishman on Netflix where it's only providing value to Netflix on one of those three (subscription) and that only counts on impact of acquiring or retaining users.

Apple will get the subscription value, but for now is getting the online rental and sales revenue. This is direct on their own service and shared on others.

If this ends up getting Oscar nominations, which seems a certainty, that subscription value is going to be well worth it for Apple considering the position its in with Apple TV+

reply

[–] einstein (2561) a year ago

Scorcese has been putting out pure trash for decades now.

reply