No ones gonna be talking about it in a couple of years, but thats all movies now, isnt it? Very few movies have staying power because its an overblown market
I’m not into the irishman either, main character choice and everything with the De Niro character was pretty bizarrely handled. I will say I feel like Marty’s earned the right to do what he pleases with the money studios give him considering what he’s done for the film industry big picture wise. And considering his age, I’m fine with him doing slower movies to close out his career.
Agree I hated that movie it was boring and blatantly yay union crap regardless if the union actually helped workers De Niro has been an old fart coasting on his reputation for 15 years now
I feel like Scorsese is enjoying the same position that Lucas did. No one is there to tell him no. Otherwise this would have been a $50 million movie that made money.
That's literally not what he said. Marvel movies are not cinema. They're disposable content that sometimes end up being legitimately good, but in the grand scheme of things, they've been terrible for film making as an art form and mostly mediocre. I don't think I've ever had an urge to rewatch a Marvel film since Infinity War. This is coming from someone who reads comics and has been a fan since he was a kid. @@hussarzwei6223
Her film's box office dropped 66% from its first week and still beat Marty 🤭 He was so focused on Marvel he didn't see Taylor Swift coming at him from behind 😁
Oppenheimer is not a comp lol. Oppenheimer follows a HISTORICAL titan, a person taught about in American schools and a name known around the world, directed by Mr. Blockbuster himself, Christopher Nolan, and released in the height of the summer box office. (Also, let's not pretend Barbenheimer didn't DRAMATICALLY raise the film's profile - if it were released any other weekend, it wouldn't have the same buzz). Flower Moon is a disappointment financially, but the Apple argument is valid. They want a big name film to legitimize their studio; this film is a loss leader and I'm sure they're fine with it opening to $23.4 million. It's a movie about a little known, localized historical phenomenon that indicts American society and copium regarding the country's dark history re racial minorities, especially American Indians. It's really not the same sell as "the biopic about the guy who invented the atomic bomb."
The Apple argument is only valid if this somehow boosts subs to Apple TV+, which I'm going to assume it won't do. For them, I think the Coda approach was a smarter bet. Buy an indie film that can win best picture and cost you very little. Spending 200 million on a movie that is going to lose money isn't a good way to legitimize yourself. My biggest issue being that the movie didn't need to cost anywhere near what it did. Oppenheimer only costing half of that puts things even more into perspective.
