Martin Scorsese Courts Apple and Netflix to Rescue Costly DiCaprio Film
- Thread starter OrangeAtlas
- Start date
This—this is the most likely reason. They were supposed to shoot in March, so they surely spent December to Feb setting up all the sets, gathering (and relocating where necessary) a crew, so on. On a film production you spend an obscene amount of money getting everything set up, keeping everyone on hand, and then taking everything down. the outbreak came at just the right time to cost the shoot a maximum amount of money as they now have to pay to keep some crew around in some capacity and have likely had to scratch sets or pay to keep them up.
but you're comparing it to a production. correct, in those cases they bought a finished movie and distributed it. and did not pay near $50 million dollars. that looks to be the production budget of those two movies. in this case they would be funding the production. not buying a finished movie. so the comparison doesn't make sense because distribution =/= production. edit: and for the record when a company buys distribution rights, they don't like, buy out the entire movie and then keep all profit going forward. netflix paid to distribute annihilation and cloverfield paradox and Paramount got some percentage of the revenue back, according to whatever distribution deal they worked out.
I dont think the budget has anything to do with the coronavirus. There's been rumors of $225m back in February.
IDK, that seems like a lot of fuckin money for a western. I didnt think it was even true but now with this WSJ thing I guess it is.
IDK, that seems like a lot of fuckin money for a western. I didnt think it was even true but now with this WSJ thing I guess it is.
Ok damn! even with the asking price for De Niro and DiCaprio that's huge and I'm not sure why.
There's been rumors and/or about this movie going well over budget (enough that Paramount was gonna drop it) well before corona hit.
All of this seems incredibly unnecessary though. Scorsese cut his teeth in the 70s and his movies were always visually striking without CG. I don't really understand why he'd make movies this way if it really is more expensive.
Who writes this stuff? Blinding light? Drunken sailor? It's like reading NY Post headlines in paragraph format.
To be fair, it took 5 years of filming to make Tiger King. I imagine they just bought it from the production company so the cost would have been baked into the acquisition fee at some point, but either way.. not exactly a lean production. The fact it pulled in the numbers it has though (greater than the Irishman in the first week) does speak to whether it's worthwhile to spend that much on a movie.
I was referring to traditional Hollywood studios. If this goes to Netflix, then it's all funny money.
For what? It is a period drama in the oil fields. Unless they are building period correct oil drills and mining for real oil, it shouldn't be that much
He's earned it. I'd rather artists become self-indulgent near the end if the other option is to do hack work.
I hope it pulls through, this is actually a pretty cool thing to be happening for us here in Oklahoma. I know we're a shitty state, but there's still a good amount of arts and liberal people here, such as my brother who is in film school as an aspiring editor.
Adam Sandler pulls bigger viewership numbers at a tiny fraction of the cost, so if the argument is that Netflix has a lot to gain by throwing nine more digits at Scoresese it doesn't hold much weight. This $200M+ boondoggle is just 'who wants to look good next to a famous director?' and nothing more.17 million viewers in 5 days:
Netflix's 'The Irishman' was completed by only 18% of US viewers who watched it on the first day, but that's on par with some other Netflix releases
About 3.9 million viewers watched Martin Scorsese's "The Irishman" on its first day on Netflix, and 17.1 million people watched it over the first five days.www.businessinsider.com
I imagine those numbers went up significantly after the oscar buzz.
The Irishman was incredible and my heart says give the man all the money in the world.
But being in a post corona world ravaging the world economy, I can see companies being hesitant on large productions.
But being in a post corona world ravaging the world economy, I can see companies being hesitant on large productions.
Avengers Endgame cost $350m and this Scorsese film will probably be better in its first 5 mins than the entirety of Endgame lol.
I can imagine Leo commanding a hefty fee, over 25 million which is a fair chunk and who knows what other actors are on the film. Maybe he could cut down on the CGI, who knows if that's cheaper, I think he does tend to go grand with some shots and they do come off a little fake so I don't know why he bothers, maybe he could reign it in.
Apple TV+ needs more subscribers, it'll be a greater benefit with less of a financial strain for Apple to fund this compared to Netflix.
Does he? The Departed, his highest grossing movie made $290 million worldwide. He makes great movies but they're not known for a massive box office.
Period pieces are done all the time, they don't require that amount of money.
Over reliance? That's amazing use of CG! It's so refreshing seeing it used more subtly as scene enhancement than entire reason for the movie to exist. I had no idea that these scenes were so manipulated. Props to that FX company!
With regards to the new film, the subject based on the Wiki synopsis seems very interesting. It's the kind of historic truth to light that the world needs to see. Like what Watchmen tried to do for Black Wall Street. Having somebody like Martin and Leo do it give it eyeballs and credibility. I hope that it's funded!
Even though Netflix bent over backwards to try and make him happy with the most expensive drama ever made that had a running time of over three and a half hours (and spent $50m + on award campaigning and walked away with a grand total of ZERO Oscars for their trouble), watch Scorsese happily move over to Apple for this new film.
Personally I want to see Apple really jump into the streaming wars by stepping up and financing a full slate of (12, 15, hell 20) studio level pictures every year. What better way to start than paying waaaaaay over the odds for this picture?
Personally I want to see Apple really jump into the streaming wars by stepping up and financing a full slate of (12, 15, hell 20) studio level pictures every year. What better way to start than paying waaaaaay over the odds for this picture?
Yeah, but lets be real you think Tiger King costed Netflix a lot? And small production companies are doing this shit all the time. Netflix can write a quick check and maybe get 35 million views and weeks of press.
You have to balance in the "prestige" element. Putting up Oscar numbers, even just nominations, means something to certain people. There is more than one kind of audience for Netflix. And maybe Sarandos just wants to say he was part of film history other than just the money-making side. Producing a Scorsese film that no one else would make will do that.
I agree the difference between Oscar "nominated" and "winning" is largely academic, but that distinction becomes more difficult to ignore as the cost of it climbs past $200 million. There's never any guarantee that you'll get there, even with Scorsese and Leo involved. Only the Indianapolis Colts proudly put "Finalist" or "Participant" up on their shelf.
Tbf a lot of the issues Irishman had were pacing. It would have been heavily edited in theaters. Netflix clearly didn't care.
I thought it wasn't long enough. It didn't to enough to flesh out the early relationship between Deniro and Pachino. It should have been a mini series.
I mean, Netflix are going to need some top-rate theatrical content to woo audiences into the cinemas that they'll take over from AMC's insolvency.