'Killers of the Flower Moon' takes a nosedive at the box office in second week

'Wolf of Wall Street' opened low and legged out huge returns. It sounds like experts no longer expect this from KotFM.

For as much publicity went into this film over the past 6-10 months, I find this quite stunning. It doesn't seem to be resonating with viewers in a meaningful way. Whether that's through storytelling and/or the absurd length, this might wind up being one of those cautionary tales years down the road.

I know Apple is using this to try to zap a pulse into Apple TV and isn't expecting major monetary returns out of this film, but, man, few expected this. The film made less than $10M in its second weekend and looks like it could struggle to get much past half its operating budget, not to mention finding a way to profitability or becoming a catalyst for streaming subscriptions. Most industry predictions had it pulling in around $100M-$130M domestic, which now looks like will be reflected in its worldwide numbers.

That coupled with the studio complaining theaters are inserting an intermission because the movie is too long for viewers seems to be making a technically sound, if not creatively bland, film more of a punchline.

We'll see here in the next couple of months if 'Napoleon" can insert a bit of zest into Apple's fall season.

Edit to add that this film cost $100M+ more to make than 'Oppenheimer', which goes to show what a magician Christopher Nolan is.

I don't think this movie was heavily publicized at all, especially compared to the Barbie blitz on tiktok/ig/twitter (Oppenheimer benefited a ton just by being associated with it).

Basically, not that many people have turned out because they've heard it's long and don't really care about the story. This century, stories/IP have ruled over directors/auteurs, which is why so much of the best talent prefers (or has been forced) to work in TV, though many who would have been great directors in the past now work in the video game industry. Which is sad because very few people play video games with each other (in person) post-college, but the entire entertainment industry is moving this way or has already arrived here (if possible - live music still must be seen/heard in person, but the rats in tech are trying their hardest to prove otherwise). If any in-person entertainment environment wants to succeed/thrive, there has to be a realistic possibility of sex/drugs in the air.

When lounging around, most younger (and many middle-aged/older) people would rather scroll through their fyp, ig/reels feed, fb feed, etc. than watch anything on TV/a large screen. "Rather" does a lot of work though, because (especially with tiktok) it's not as if this is a legitimate choice - this stuff holds attention, no matter what's being displayed, better than TV/theater screens could ever hope to.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

'Killers of the Flower Moon' takes a nosedive at the box office in second week

'Wolf of Wall Street' opened low and legged out huge returns. It sounds like experts no longer expect this from KotFM.

For as much publicity went into this film over the past 6-10 months, I find this quite stunning. It doesn't seem to be resonating with viewers in a meaningful way. Whether that's through storytelling and/or the absurd length, this might wind up being one of those cautionary tales years down the road.

I know Apple is using this to try to zap a pulse into Apple TV and isn't expecting major monetary returns out of this film, but, man, few expected this. The film made less than $10M in its second weekend and looks like it could struggle to get much past half its operating budget, not to mention finding a way to profitability or becoming a catalyst for streaming subscriptions. Most industry predictions had it pulling in around $100M-$130M domestic, which now looks like will be reflected in its worldwide numbers.

That coupled with the studio complaining theaters are inserting an intermission because the movie is too long for viewers seems to be making a technically sound, if not creatively bland, film more of a punchline.

We'll see here in the next couple of months if 'Napoleon" can insert a bit of zest into Apple's fall season.

Edit to add that this film cost $100M+ more to make than 'Oppenheimer', which goes to show what a magician Christopher Nolan is.

---

I'm with Capybara in that I didn't see it advertised a ton. I've seen the trailers plenty of times in theaters, but commercial play has been below average during sporting events, I haven't seen a ton of billboards for it around town, the stars haven't been able to promote it due to the strike, etc. Nor does Apple ultimately care how much money it makes - it was strictly an awards play investment - and the movie overall is the last thing from a "punchline." Yes, it's unfortunate that it's not lighting the box office on fire, but no one was expecting a three-and-a-half-hour period piece to do so. Everyone involved knew what they were getting into. That, and most critics love the movie, seeing it currently has a 93% RT score.

Personally speaking, the sold out audience we saw it with in IMAX last night broke out into applause at the end, I've listened to two podcasts since (The Watch and The Big Picture), who both endlessly raved about it, and a day later I can't stop thinking about it. For me, it's reached "masterpiece" level, and that I'm even debating putting it over Oppenheimer for the best movie of the year is something I never thought I'd consider (though Oppenheimer will probably remain number one).

Not to mention, it could very well be nominated for TWELVE Oscars...

- Best Picture
- Director
- Actress in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Supporting Role
- Adapted Screenplay
- Cinematography
- Film Editing
- Original Score
- Sound
- Production Design
- Costume Design

Throw in the fact that it'll be on Apple TV+ here in a month or so (which most people are waiting for), and it's at least going to have on-and-off buzz all the way through March, when the Oscars finally air, at which point even more people will swarm to Apple TV+ to check it out.

Capybara said:

---

I don't think this movie was heavily publicized at all, especially compared to the Barbie blitz on tiktok/ig/twitter (Oppenheimer benefited a ton just by being associated with it).

Basically, not that many people have turned out because they've heard it's long and don't really care about the story. This century, stories/IP have ruled over directors/auteurs, which is why so much of the best talent prefers (or has been forced) to work in TV, though many who would have been great directors in the past now work in the video game industry. Which is sad because very few people play video games with each other (in person) post-college, but the entire entertainment industry is moving this way or has already arrived here (if possible - live music still must be seen/heard in person, but the rats in tech are trying their hardest to prove otherwise). If any in-person entertainment environment wants to succeed/thrive, there has to be a realistic possibility of sex/drugs in the air.

When lounging around, most younger (and many middle-aged/older) people would rather scroll through their fyp, ig/reels feed, fb feed, etc. than watch anything on TV/a large screen. "Rather" does a lot of work though, because (especially with tiktok) it's not as if this is a legitimate choice - this stuff holds attention, no matter what's being displayed, better than TV/theater screens could ever hope to.

---

While I think this is definitely a problem, the extreme length of this film and its slow pacing seem to be an issue for all people. I know numerous peeps in their 50s and 60s who won't go see this, because it's just too long to sit in one place. Oppenheimer is in a bit of a different boat, because it's 3 hours that feels like two, with snappy editing and a frenetic intensity. KotFM is 3.5 hours and feels like 4.5 hours. That's not a knock on the film; there are great slow burners out there. But you can only slow burn for so long, and this film never really picks up.

Now, will that change when it's released on Apple? I'm betting it will. It's definitely an easier viewing that can get cut into two or three nights for most people. (It took me three days to get through The Irishman) But simply blaming the youth for not wanting to sit through a 3.5-hour film with no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action feels a bit shortsighted in this case.

TCTTS said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

'Killers of the Flower Moon' takes a nosedive at the box office in second week

'Wolf of Wall Street' opened low and legged out huge returns. It sounds like experts no longer expect this from KotFM.

For as much publicity went into this film over the past 6-10 months, I find this quite stunning. It doesn't seem to be resonating with viewers in a meaningful way. Whether that's through storytelling and/or the absurd length, this might wind up being one of those cautionary tales years down the road.

I know Apple is using this to try to zap a pulse into Apple TV and isn't expecting major monetary returns out of this film, but, man, few expected this. The film made less than $10M in its second weekend and looks like it could struggle to get much past half its operating budget, not to mention finding a way to profitability or becoming a catalyst for streaming subscriptions. Most industry predictions had it pulling in around $100M-$130M domestic, which now looks like will be reflected in its worldwide numbers.

That coupled with the studio complaining theaters are inserting an intermission because the movie is too long for viewers seems to be making a technically sound, if not creatively bland, film more of a punchline.

We'll see here in the next couple of months if 'Napoleon" can insert a bit of zest into Apple's fall season.

Edit to add that this film cost $100M+ more to make than 'Oppenheimer', which goes to show what a magician Christopher Nolan is.

---

I'm with Capybara in that I didn't see it advertised a ton. I've seen the trailers plenty of times in theaters, but commercial play has been below average during sporting events, I haven't seen a ton of billboards for it around town, the stars haven't been able to promote it due to the strike, etc. Nor does Apple ultimately care how much money it makes - it was strictly an awards play investment - and the movie overall is the last thing from a "punchline." Yes, it's unfortunate that it's not lighting the box office on fire, but no one was expecting a three-and-a-half-hour period piece to do so. Everyone involved knew what they were getting into. That, and most critics love the movie, seeing it currently has a 93% RT score.

Personally speaking, the sold out audience we saw it with in IMAX last night broke out into applause at the end, I've listened to two podcasts since (The Watch and The Big Picture), who both endlessly raved about it, and a day later I can't stop thinking about it. For me, it's reached "masterpiece" level, and that I'm even debating putting it over Oppenheimer for the best movie of the year is something I never thought I'd consider (though Oppenheimer will probably remain number one).

Not to mention, it could very well be nominated for TWELVE Oscars...

- Best Picture
- Director
- Actress in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Supporting Role
- Adapted Screenplay
- Cinematography
- Film Editing
- Original Score
- Sound
- Production Design
- Costume Design

Throw in the fact that it'll be on Apple TV+ here in a month or so (which most people are waiting for), and it's at least going to have on-and-off buzz all the way through March, when the Oscars finally air, at which point even more people will swarm to Apple TV+ to check it out.

---

This is definitely what Apple is banking on, and as I mentioned in my post moments after yours, it's probably a better way to view something like this.

Also, it'll do the classic Scorsese where it gets a bunch of noms and doesn't win. I know the big-budget films never win anymore, but, to me, Oppenheimer is the best film this century, and I think it's going to crush at the Oscars. There's rumors it could get 15 nominations, tying the record.

Gladstone has a for-sure win, and I could see costume design and production design. I was unimpressed by most of the score, and there will be SNL skits on it if it gets an editing nod, because, lol, what editing? (I don't disagree though, the Academy could totally do it)?

Quote:

---

But simply blaming the youth for not wanting to sit through a 3.5-hour film with no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action feels a bit shortsighted in this case.

---

Dude, come on. To each his own, but it's laughable to say the movie has "no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action." It might not have the versions of those things you wanted, based on the book and your expectations going in, but it had all of that and more, just in a different, more subtle, more unnerving package, one that I thought made for something far more interesting than the standard whodunit murder mystery procedural this could have been, and almost was. They literally wrote that version, all involved decided it wasn't working, and that's when they pivoted to the version we got. DiCaprio was all set to play Tom White, and the deeper they got even he agreed that it wasn't the right way to tell the story. So he suggested he play Earnest instead, Eric Roth came on board to rewrite the script, and they ultimately found something so much more haunting and compelling, IMO.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

'Killers of the Flower Moon' takes a nosedive at the box office in second week

'Wolf of Wall Street' opened low and legged out huge returns. It sounds like experts no longer expect this from KotFM.

For as much publicity went into this film over the past 6-10 months, I find this quite stunning. It doesn't seem to be resonating with viewers in a meaningful way. Whether that's through storytelling and/or the absurd length, this might wind up being one of those cautionary tales years down the road.

I know Apple is using this to try to zap a pulse into Apple TV and isn't expecting major monetary returns out of this film, but, man, few expected this. The film made less than $10M in its second weekend and looks like it could struggle to get much past half its operating budget, not to mention finding a way to profitability or becoming a catalyst for streaming subscriptions. Most industry predictions had it pulling in around $100M-$130M domestic, which now looks like will be reflected in its worldwide numbers.

That coupled with the studio complaining theaters are inserting an intermission because the movie is too long for viewers seems to be making a technically sound, if not creatively bland, film more of a punchline.

We'll see here in the next couple of months if 'Napoleon" can insert a bit of zest into Apple's fall season.

Edit to add that this film cost $100M+ more to make than 'Oppenheimer', which goes to show what a magician Christopher Nolan is.

---

I'm with Capybara in that I didn't see it advertised a ton. I've seen the trailers plenty of times in theaters, but commercial play has been below average during sporting events, I haven't seen a ton of billboards for it around town, the stars haven't been able to promote it due to the strike, etc. Nor does Apple ultimately care how much money it makes - it was strictly an awards play investment - and the movie overall is the last thing from a "punchline." Yes, it's unfortunate that it's not lighting the box office on fire, but no one was expecting a three-and-a-half-hour period piece to do so. Everyone involved knew what they were getting into. That, and most critics love the movie, seeing it currently has a 93% RT score.

Personally speaking, the sold out audience we saw it with in IMAX last night broke out into applause at the end, I've listened to two podcasts since (The Watch and The Big Picture), who both endlessly raved about it, and a day later I can't stop thinking about it. For me, it's reached "masterpiece" level, and that I'm even debating putting it over Oppenheimer for the best movie of the year is something I never thought I'd consider (though Oppenheimer will probably remain number one).

Not to mention, it could very well be nominated for TWELVE Oscars...

- Best Picture
- Director
- Actress in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Supporting Role
- Adapted Screenplay
- Cinematography
- Film Editing
- Original Score
- Sound
- Production Design
- Costume Design

Throw in the fact that it'll be on Apple TV+ here in a month or so (which most people are waiting for), and it's at least going to have on-and-off buzz all the way through March, when the Oscars finally air, at which point even more people will swarm to Apple TV+ to check it out.

---

This is definitely what Apple is banking on, and as I mentioned in my post moments after yours, it's probably a better way to view something like this.

Also, it'll do the classic Scorsese where it gets a bunch of noms and doesn't win. I know the big-budget films never win anymore, but, to me, Oppenheimer is the best film this century, and I think it's going to crush at the Oscars. There's rumors it could get 15 nominations, tying the record.

Gladstone has a for-sure win, and I could see costume design and production design. I was unimpressed by most of the score, and there will be SNL skits on it if it gets an editing nod, because, lol, what editing? (I don't disagree though, the Academy could totally do it)?

---

Thelma Schoonmaker is a legendary editor, and has been editing Scorsese's movies since Raging Bull. Also, editing is far more than just telling a tight, two-hour story. It's where, when, and how you choose to cut, call back, freeze frame, etc, and even in a three-and-a-half-hour movie there were all kinds of brilliant editing choices here - especially the hard cuts she and Scorsese are known for - and I would be shocked not to see her nominated once again. She holds the record for the most Film Editing Oscar wins (three), and has been nominated eight times total.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I don't think this movie was heavily publicized at all, especially compared to the Barbie blitz on tiktok/ig/twitter (Oppenheimer benefited a ton just by being associated with it).

Basically, not that many people have turned out because they've heard it's long and don't really care about the story. This century, stories/IP have ruled over directors/auteurs, which is why so much of the best talent prefers (or has been forced) to work in TV, though many who would have been great directors in the past now work in the video game industry. Which is sad because very few people play video games with each other (in person) post-college, but the entire entertainment industry is moving this way or has already arrived here (if possible - live music still must be seen/heard in person, but the rats in tech are trying their hardest to prove otherwise). If any in-person entertainment environment wants to succeed/thrive, there has to be a realistic possibility of sex/drugs in the air.

When lounging around, most younger (and many middle-aged/older) people would rather scroll through their fyp, ig/reels feed, fb feed, etc. than watch anything on TV/a large screen. "Rather" does a lot of work though, because (especially with tiktok) it's not as if this is a legitimate choice - this stuff holds attention, no matter what's being displayed, better than TV/theater screens could ever hope to.

---

While I think this is definitely a problem, the extreme length of this film and its slow pacing seem to be an issue for all people. I know numerous peeps in their 50s and 60s who won't go see this, because it's just too long to sit in one place. Oppenheimer is in a bit of a different boat, because it's 3 hours that feels like two, with snappy editing and a frenetic intensity. KotFM is 3.5 hours and feels like 4.5 hours. That's not a knock on the film; there are great slow burners out there. But you can only slow burn for so long, and this film never really picks up.

Now, will that change when it's released on Apple? I'm betting it will. It's definitely an easier viewing that can get cut into two or three nights for most people. (It took me three days to get through The Irishman) But simply blaming the youth for not wanting to sit through a 3.5-hour film with no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action feels a bit shortsighted in this case.

---

Oh, I'm not blaming the youth or anyone else for not wanting to see it. Just saying that it's now a de facto requirement to heavily push any wide release via every SM channel possible if a return is the number one goal. Like many have said, this wasn't the goal for Apple, and won't be for a while.

Personally, I think this was a good, quality movie. I still think the last great wide-release was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but many would counter with some combination of Oppenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse, Asteroid City, Tar, TG Maverick, Dune, Licorice Pizza, EEAAO, The Fabelmans, The Irishman, Uncut Gems, etc. All solid to very good movies imo, but Tarantino managed to both show and say much more than he ever has, somehow.

TCTTS said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

'Killers of the Flower Moon' takes a nosedive at the box office in second week

'Wolf of Wall Street' opened low and legged out huge returns. It sounds like experts no longer expect this from KotFM.

For as much publicity went into this film over the past 6-10 months, I find this quite stunning. It doesn't seem to be resonating with viewers in a meaningful way. Whether that's through storytelling and/or the absurd length, this might wind up being one of those cautionary tales years down the road.

I know Apple is using this to try to zap a pulse into Apple TV and isn't expecting major monetary returns out of this film, but, man, few expected this. The film made less than $10M in its second weekend and looks like it could struggle to get much past half its operating budget, not to mention finding a way to profitability or becoming a catalyst for streaming subscriptions. Most industry predictions had it pulling in around $100M-$130M domestic, which now looks like will be reflected in its worldwide numbers.

That coupled with the studio complaining theaters are inserting an intermission because the movie is too long for viewers seems to be making a technically sound, if not creatively bland, film more of a punchline.

We'll see here in the next couple of months if 'Napoleon" can insert a bit of zest into Apple's fall season.

Edit to add that this film cost $100M+ more to make than 'Oppenheimer', which goes to show what a magician Christopher Nolan is.

---

I'm with Capybara in that I didn't see it advertised a ton. I've seen the trailers plenty of times in theaters, but commercial play has been below average during sporting events, I haven't seen a ton of billboards for it around town, the stars haven't been able to promote it due to the strike, etc. Nor does Apple ultimately care how much money it makes - it was strictly an awards play investment - and the movie overall is the last thing from a "punchline." Yes, it's unfortunate that it's not lighting the box office on fire, but no one was expecting a three-and-a-half-hour period piece to do so. Everyone involved knew what they were getting into. That, and most critics love the movie, seeing it currently has a 93% RT score.

Personally speaking, the sold out audience we saw it with in IMAX last night broke out into applause at the end, I've listened to two podcasts since (The Watch and The Big Picture), who both endlessly raved about it, and a day later I can't stop thinking about it. For me, it's reached "masterpiece" level, and that I'm even debating putting it over Oppenheimer for the best movie of the year is something I never thought I'd consider (though Oppenheimer will probably remain number one).

Not to mention, it could very well be nominated for TWELVE Oscars...

- Best Picture
- Director
- Actress in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Leading Role
- Actor in a Supporting Role
- Adapted Screenplay
- Cinematography
- Film Editing
- Original Score
- Sound
- Production Design
- Costume Design

Throw in the fact that it'll be on Apple TV+ here in a month or so (which most people are waiting for), and it's at least going to have on-and-off buzz all the way through March, when the Oscars finally air, at which point even more people will swarm to Apple TV+ to check it out.

---

This is definitely what Apple is banking on, and as I mentioned in my post moments after yours, it's probably a better way to view something like this.

Also, it'll do the classic Scorsese where it gets a bunch of noms and doesn't win. I know the big-budget films never win anymore, but, to me, Oppenheimer is the best film this century, and I think it's going to crush at the Oscars. There's rumors it could get 15 nominations, tying the record.

Gladstone has a for-sure win, and I could see costume design and production design. I was unimpressed by most of the score, and there will be SNL skits on it if it gets an editing nod, because, lol, what editing? (I don't disagree though, the Academy could totally do it)?

---

Thelma Schoonmaker is a legendary editor, and has been editing Scorsese's movies since Raging Bull. Also, editing is far more than just telling a tight, two-hour story. It's where, when, and how you choose to cut, call back, freeze frame, etc, and even in a three-and-a-half-hour movie there were all kinds of brilliant editing choices here - especially the hard cuts she and Scorsese are known for - and I would be shocked not to see her nominated once again. She holds the record for the most Film Editing Oscar wins (three), and has been nominated eight times total.

---

Agreed on that point. As someone who edits for a living, I do not knock her one bit (and would kill to work with DaVinci Resolve and 12-bit color).

Capybara said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I don't think this movie was heavily publicized at all, especially compared to the Barbie blitz on tiktok/ig/twitter (Oppenheimer benefited a ton just by being associated with it).

Basically, not that many people have turned out because they've heard it's long and don't really care about the story. This century, stories/IP have ruled over directors/auteurs, which is why so much of the best talent prefers (or has been forced) to work in TV, though many who would have been great directors in the past now work in the video game industry. Which is sad because very few people play video games with each other (in person) post-college, but the entire entertainment industry is moving this way or has already arrived here (if possible - live music still must be seen/heard in person, but the rats in tech are trying their hardest to prove otherwise). If any in-person entertainment environment wants to succeed/thrive, there has to be a realistic possibility of sex/drugs in the air.

When lounging around, most younger (and many middle-aged/older) people would rather scroll through their fyp, ig/reels feed, fb feed, etc. than watch anything on TV/a large screen. "Rather" does a lot of work though, because (especially with tiktok) it's not as if this is a legitimate choice - this stuff holds attention, no matter what's being displayed, better than TV/theater screens could ever hope to.

---

While I think this is definitely a problem, the extreme length of this film and its slow pacing seem to be an issue for all people. I know numerous peeps in their 50s and 60s who won't go see this, because it's just too long to sit in one place. Oppenheimer is in a bit of a different boat, because it's 3 hours that feels like two, with snappy editing and a frenetic intensity. KotFM is 3.5 hours and feels like 4.5 hours. That's not a knock on the film; there are great slow burners out there. But you can only slow burn for so long, and this film never really picks up.

Now, will that change when it's released on Apple? I'm betting it will. It's definitely an easier viewing that can get cut into two or three nights for most people. (It took me three days to get through The Irishman) But simply blaming the youth for not wanting to sit through a 3.5-hour film with no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action feels a bit shortsighted in this case.

---

Oh, I'm not blaming the youth or anyone else for not wanting to see it. Just saying that it's now a de facto requirement to heavily push any wide release via every SM channel possible if a return is the number one goal. Like many have said, this wasn't the goal for Apple, and won't be for a while.

Personally, I think this was a good, quality movie. I still think the last great wide-release was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but many would counter with some combination of Oppenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse, Asteroid City, Tar, TG Maverick, Dune, Licorice Pizza, EEAAO, The Fabelmans, The Irishman, Uncut Gems, etc. All solid to very good movies imo, but Tarantino managed to both show and say much more than he ever has, somehow.

---

Agreed, obviously.

Capybara said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I don't think this movie was heavily publicized at all, especially compared to the Barbie blitz on tiktok/ig/twitter (Oppenheimer benefited a ton just by being associated with it).

Basically, not that many people have turned out because they've heard it's long and don't really care about the story. This century, stories/IP have ruled over directors/auteurs, which is why so much of the best talent prefers (or has been forced) to work in TV, though many who would have been great directors in the past now work in the video game industry. Which is sad because very few people play video games with each other (in person) post-college, but the entire entertainment industry is moving this way or has already arrived here (if possible - live music still must be seen/heard in person, but the rats in tech are trying their hardest to prove otherwise). If any in-person entertainment environment wants to succeed/thrive, there has to be a realistic possibility of sex/drugs in the air.

When lounging around, most younger (and many middle-aged/older) people would rather scroll through their fyp, ig/reels feed, fb feed, etc. than watch anything on TV/a large screen. "Rather" does a lot of work though, because (especially with tiktok) it's not as if this is a legitimate choice - this stuff holds attention, no matter what's being displayed, better than TV/theater screens could ever hope to.

---

While I think this is definitely a problem, the extreme length of this film and its slow pacing seem to be an issue for all people. I know numerous peeps in their 50s and 60s who won't go see this, because it's just too long to sit in one place. Oppenheimer is in a bit of a different boat, because it's 3 hours that feels like two, with snappy editing and a frenetic intensity. KotFM is 3.5 hours and feels like 4.5 hours. That's not a knock on the film; there are great slow burners out there. But you can only slow burn for so long, and this film never really picks up.

Now, will that change when it's released on Apple? I'm betting it will. It's definitely an easier viewing that can get cut into two or three nights for most people. (It took me three days to get through The Irishman) But simply blaming the youth for not wanting to sit through a 3.5-hour film with no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action feels a bit shortsighted in this case.

---

Oh, I'm not blaming the youth or anyone else for not wanting to see it. Just saying that it's now a de facto requirement to heavily push any wide release via every SM channel possible if a return is the number one goal. Like many have said, this wasn't the goal for Apple, and won't be for a while.

Personally, I think this was a good, quality movie. I still think the last great wide-release was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but many would counter with some combination of Oppenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse, Asteroid City, Tar, TG Maverick, Dune, Licorice Pizza, EEAAO, The Fabelmans, The Irishman, Uncut Gems, etc. All solid to very good movies imo, but Tarantino managed to both show and say much more than he ever has, somehow.

---

Yeah, while I was obviously disappointed by what the movie did to change the focus and narrative of the book, this isn't schlock. It's a technically sound film. Yet, as a cinephile who loves going to the movies and loves the big-budget epic, I really thought Oppenheimer was signaling a return to form. KotFM's $200M price tag and reported $300M advertising budget, of which it's looking like it'll barely make 1/4 back, is going to make studios grasp their laurels even tighter. Can Napoleon get things back on track? Hopefully (albeit with a significantly lower price tag than KotFM). An epic about a controversial man and time in history that's sure to have broad appeal to multiple nations and cultures.

I thought Once Upon a Time... was the best film that year. Saw it four times in theaters.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Capybara said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I don't think this movie was heavily publicized at all, especially compared to the Barbie blitz on tiktok/ig/twitter (Oppenheimer benefited a ton just by being associated with it).

Basically, not that many people have turned out because they've heard it's long and don't really care about the story. This century, stories/IP have ruled over directors/auteurs, which is why so much of the best talent prefers (or has been forced) to work in TV, though many who would have been great directors in the past now work in the video game industry. Which is sad because very few people play video games with each other (in person) post-college, but the entire entertainment industry is moving this way or has already arrived here (if possible - live music still must be seen/heard in person, but the rats in tech are trying their hardest to prove otherwise). If any in-person entertainment environment wants to succeed/thrive, there has to be a realistic possibility of sex/drugs in the air.

When lounging around, most younger (and many middle-aged/older) people would rather scroll through their fyp, ig/reels feed, fb feed, etc. than watch anything on TV/a large screen. "Rather" does a lot of work though, because (especially with tiktok) it's not as if this is a legitimate choice - this stuff holds attention, no matter what's being displayed, better than TV/theater screens could ever hope to.

---

While I think this is definitely a problem, the extreme length of this film and its slow pacing seem to be an issue for all people. I know numerous peeps in their 50s and 60s who won't go see this, because it's just too long to sit in one place. Oppenheimer is in a bit of a different boat, because it's 3 hours that feels like two, with snappy editing and a frenetic intensity. KotFM is 3.5 hours and feels like 4.5 hours. That's not a knock on the film; there are great slow burners out there. But you can only slow burn for so long, and this film never really picks up.

Now, will that change when it's released on Apple? I'm betting it will. It's definitely an easier viewing that can get cut into two or three nights for most people. (It took me three days to get through The Irishman) But simply blaming the youth for not wanting to sit through a 3.5-hour film with no mystery, conundrum, suspense, or action feels a bit shortsighted in this case.

---

Oh, I'm not blaming the youth or anyone else for not wanting to see it. Just saying that it's now a de facto requirement to heavily push any wide release via every SM channel possible if a return is the number one goal. Like many have said, this wasn't the goal for Apple, and won't be for a while.

Personally, I think this was a good, quality movie. I still think the last great wide-release was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but many would counter with some combination of Oppenheimer, Across the Spider-Verse, Asteroid City, Tar, TG Maverick, Dune, Licorice Pizza, EEAAO, The Fabelmans, The Irishman, Uncut Gems, etc. All solid to very good movies imo, but Tarantino managed to both show and say much more than he ever has, somehow.

---

Yeah, while I was obviously disappointed by what the movie did to change the focus and narrative of the book, this isn't schlock. It's a technically sound film. Yet, as a cinephile who loves going to the movies and loves the big-budget epic, I really thought Oppenheimer was signaling a return to form. KotFM's $200M price tag and reported $300M advertising budget, of which it's looking like it'll barely make 1/4 back, is going to make studios grasp their laurels even tighter. Can Napoleon get things back on track? Hopefully (albeit with a significantly lower price tag than KotFM). An epic about a controversial man and time in history that's sure to have broad appeal to multiple nations and cultures.

I thought Once Upon a Time... was the best film that year. Saw it four times in theaters.

---

If that ad budget is accurate, then I wonder how they managed to spend so much, considering I saw very few ads for it anywhere. I don't really watch sports though, so that's a huge blind spot.

These movies have to find a way to pump out interactive/meta advertising in this age. Tough for a movie like this, to be fair.

Unfortunately, the (global) cinephile population is decreasing as movies no longer have much cultural capital. It's a shame, because it's great for anyone to reflect on anything they've just watched/read - to consider how these things, seemingly far out of our reach, affect us today. Tough ask when you can easily get on demand, quick peeks into the lives of those you may or may not know. Look, I do this too, but it's evident that because of this, far too many people now feel validated for having entrenched views and smaller circles than their parents/grandparents likely had. Fewer (legitimate) friends, more acquaintances. The natural outcome of increased anxiety, even if most everything in your life or those of your loved ones seems to be going well.

$300M advertising budget? that doesn't sound right.

Barbie was half of that.

There's absolutely no way it had a $300M advertising budget. The movie's production budget was "only" $200M. And the general rule of thumb is that the marketing budget is half the production budget (though it can be a lot more for bigger blockbusters). Either way, it was likely $300M total - production and advertising combined. Also, just FYI, Apple and Paramount split the costs. Apple paid the production budget while Paramount paid the advertising budget, and we know Apple had way more skin in the game.

To add to the discussion regarded why the box office was low.

I personally really wanted to see it in theater's, but have a toddler and my wife and I's date night opportunities are limited. Sitting for 3+ hours for a movie was not her idea of fun date night, especially when she knew it would be on Apple+ in several months. So I am one of the people in the camp who is really interested in the movie, but am waiting for it to hit streaming all because of the long run time.

Is this thing going to be limited run?

I want to take a day off work and go check out the imax release in peace, but realistically that won't be for another week or so.

Do we think it will still be playing on imax or will some new comic book tripe take over by then?

Yeah, The Marvels will take over most IMAX screens on Thursday, November 9th. So if you're going to try and see this in IMAX, I'd do so before then.

that was my worry. next week is a ****show, but i've been wanting to see this one

TexjbA&M said:

---

To add to the discussion regarded why the box office was low.

I personally really wanted to see it in theater's, but have a toddler and my wife and I's date night opportunities are limited. Sitting for 3+ hours for a movie was not her idea of fun date night, especially when she knew it would be on Apple+ in several months. So I am one of the people in the camp who is really interested in the movie, but am waiting for it to hit streaming all because of the long run time.

---

You missed absolutely nothing by not seeing this in the theater. Except saving yourself $$.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, The Marvels will take over most IMAX screens on Thursday, November 9th. So if you're going to try and see this in IMAX, I'd do so before then.

---

To be fair, this isn't a movie that screams IMAX. Larger /smaller screen doesn't make a huge difference here.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/killers-of-the-flower-moon-box-office-martin-scorsese-hit-flop-1235783109/amp/

According to Variety, experts are guessing the film needs to hit $500M-$600M to break even for Apple, which it won't do. Apple will then, as we've discussed, bank on this increasing subscriptions to Apple+, but a severe underperformance we're seeing now makes that difficult. It also isn't a huge deal in terms of loss for Apple, unless its films continue to underperform and gain a negative connotation with audiences. For that reason, even more is riding on Napoleon.

3/3- They never expected it would be profitable from its theatrical run alone. In the case of something like The Exorcist sequel, they were obviously banking on a big enough theatrical success to launch a whole series of films, so similar box office in that case is a failure.

— Rick Worley (@bloodoftheland) November 7, 2023

TCTTS said:

---

3/3- They never expected it would be profitable from its theatrical run alone. In the case of something like The Exorcist sequel, they were obviously banking on a big enough theatrical success to launch a whole series of films, so similar box office in that case is a failure.

— Rick Worley (@bloodoftheland) November 7, 2023

---

While I suspect it won't be the case, I wonder if Apple not needing its films to succeed could allow for bigger-budget films that might not ordinarily get approved. Studios are scared to take chances these days, but if you're willing to take a $200M-$300M loss on one film for the prestige or awards, maybe they'll bite a smaller bullet for a good, original action film or two. Doubt it, but a guy can hope.

Maybe for the next two or three of years at least? Whatever it takes to build their subscriber base. Then, when and if Apple TV+ ever sees profitability, they'd of course start taking fewer chances at that point.

Paramount has deleted their post about Robert De Niro’s #KillersOfTheFlowerMoon character, who murdered Osage tribe members

“You know he had to do it em 😎” pic.twitter.com/4q6etA2Zim

— Culture Crave 🍿 (@CultureCrave) November 10, 2023

Thought about seeing this this weekend, but this thread convinced me not to

Sounds like it's just not very good.

Between this and The Marvels, I'll just wait for Napoleon on Thanksgiving before my next theater visit. Good riddance

To each his own, but it has a 93% critics score and 84% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact, the only people I've come across who didn't like it, in real life or online, are a few way-too-online uber liberals who failed it according to their culturally sensitive purity tests, and a handful of people in this thread, who were expecting more of a traditional murder mystery adaptation of the book. Everyone else ranges from being in awe of it to at least appreciating it. If anything, it's a Scorsese movie, which, technically speaking, makes it the absolute peak of the craft. I totally get the subject matter not being everyone's cup of tea, or the runtime keeping a number of people away, which is completely reasonable, especially considering it'll be on Apple TV+ at some point in the next few weeks. I just hate that anyone who's even mildly interested in seeing it might be missing out on what the majority of people, myself included, consider an incredible theatrical experience, just because of a few negative book-reader reactions in this thread.

(I don't know how I hit the laugh cry emoji, but that wasn't intentional.)

Ghost of Bisbee said:

---

Thought about seeing this this weekend, but this thread convinced me not to

Sounds like it's just not very good.

Between this and The Marvels, I'll just wait for Napoleon on Thanksgiving before my next theater visit. Good riddance

---

While I didn't like it (and just thinking about how it abortioned the book makes me angry), I'd still encourage people to watch, whether that be at home or at the movies. Might make a good matinee showing if you're on the fence and want to kill a morning. Im one of those "see everything" guys. Scorsese is very hit or miss for my personal taste.

TCTTS said:

---

To each his own, but it has a 93% critics score and 84% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact, the only people I've come across who didn't like it, in real life or online, are a few way-too-online uber liberals who failed it according to their culturally sensitive purity tests, and a handful of people in this thread, who were expecting more of a traditional murder mystery adaptation of the book. Everyone else ranges from being in awe of it to at least appreciating it. If anything, it's a Scorsese movie, which, technically speaking, makes it the absolute peak of the craft. I totally get the subject matter not being everyone's cup of tea, or the runtime keeping a number of people away, which is completely reasonable, especially considering it'll be on Apple TV+ at some point in the next few weeks. I just hate that anyone who's even mildly interested in seeing it might be missing out on what the majority of people, myself included, consider an incredible theatrical experience, just because of a few negative book-reader reactions in this thread.

---

To me, RT scores are a lot like the SAT. They can tell you how bad something is, but necessarily how good it is. Shape of Water, a movie glorifying bestiality and one of the worst theater experiences of my life, has a 92% on RT. Easily the most uncomfortable I've ever been in a theater, lol. On the other side, Gladiator sits at 80%, and I'd slaughter livestock to honor that film.

So I really don't like westerns. I've never liked them.
This seemed to be a bit different though when I first heard about it

I probably wait for it to drop on Apple TV+

This is before it eventually hits Apple TV+…

Martin Scorsese’s ‘KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON’ will be available to purchase on digital and on-demand streaming beginning Tuesday, December 5. pic.twitter.com/JFtgxZWFdm

— Film Updates (@FilmUpdates) December 4, 2023