Epic 'Killers of the Flower Moon' flops at the box office

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member
    I’m waiting to stream it.

    Apple is saying “maybe February” for a streaming release. 
    Huh? Why so long?
    Yeah I wish they'd do what HBO Max was doing last year with simultaneous theatrical and streaming releases.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 35
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member
    And another clickbait headline from Apple Insider. 

    So the move flopped because ticket sales were down 61%... okay... So the Taylor Swift movie that was number dropped 63% from its first week to it's second... So I guess that is a flop as well? Large drops after an initial opening are not terribly unusual and even with the large drop, Killers of the Flower Moon was still the third highest grossing moving in its second weekend. Maybe Apple Insider should refrain from commenting on industries that it really doesn't know much about but at this rate one has to wonder what AI actually has any sort of expertise in. 
    The Eras Tour earned over $90 million in its first weekend, so even with a drop, its second-weekend take was greater that Flower Moon's opening.
    You mean there's a bigger market for teeny-bopper pop music than Native American history drama? Noo!
    edited October 2023
    ronnwilliamlondon
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 35
    StrangeDaysstrangedays Posts: 13,220member
    SHK said:
    Another WOKE FLOP.
    History is woke? Definite "woke" for us please.

    Idiotic nonsense.
    mknelsonGraeme000ronnnarwhalwilliamlondonroundaboutnow
     6Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 35
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 1,179member
    SHK said:
    Another WOKE FLOP.
    History is woke? Definite "woke" for us please.

    Idiotic nonsense.
    Well, you have to understand it's a historically based movie by a white guy, about a bunch of other white guys killing native Americans to steal their land for oil.

    You know, "woke".  :p
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 35
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    john.b said:
    The only reason I haven’t seen it in a movie theater is that it’s 3 hours and 27 minutes long.
    It's a long time to sit in a movie theater. Some theaters have added short bathroom breaks in the middle:

    https://www.insider.com/killers-of-the-flower-moon-intermission-debate-divides-moviegoers-2023-10

    Scorsese made The Irishman 3.5 hours long too and that felt overly long. Goodfellas was 2.5 hours, that's long enough to tell an epic story.

    Apple doesn't need to make a lot at the box office though, it can help boost their streaming service. Each subscriber is $10/month. If they get a couple of million new subs because of it, it's worth the budget.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/why-killers-of-the-flower-moon-s-44-million-box-office-is-a-success-despite-its-200m-budget/ar-AA1iLF8L

    The trailer looks good but I can imagine a lot of the 3.5 hours moves quite slowly:


    watto_cobraronnwilliamlondon
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 35
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,780member
    A, As another poster pointed out, movies ROUTINELY drop hugely on their second week.

    B. It’s not in cinemas to make money, it’s in there for award eligibility — and it will almost certainly get some.

    C. If it gets some of the more prestigious noms, it will certainly be back in theatres.

    D. Scorsese has gone bonkers if he thinks mainstream audiences will sit through a 3.5 film in a cinema. That era is LONG gone.

    E. His insistence on no intermissions is further proof that he’s gone bonkers.

    F. I sincerely hope the movie is great, because it covers an important moment in US history, but if your movie “needs” to be 3.5 hours long, it “needs” to be made as a mini-series, not a single movie.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondonmattinoz
     3Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 35
    Japhey said:
    Perhaps the large drop in revenue has something to do with the $30 increase for an annual Apple TV+ subscription happening the same week? Coincidence? 
    Last night I was listening to a Killers album, smelling a flower, while staring at the moon.  Coincidence?  Not bloody likely.
    watto_cobrawilliamlondon
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 35
    I just saw it at the IMAX and thought it was very good. But as RedLetterMedia was saying about Scorsese’s previous film, The Irishman, if it wasn’t for streaming a movie like it or Killers of the Flower Moon wouldn’t have a chance of making a profit with today’s modern theater going audiences. It is amazing that Oppenheimer did so well at the box office.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 35
    chasm said:
    A, As another poster pointed out, movies ROUTINELY drop hugely on their second week.

    B. It’s not in cinemas to make money, it’s in there for award eligibility — and it will almost certainly get some.

    C. If it gets some of the more prestigious noms, it will certainly be back in theatres.

    D. Scorsese has gone bonkers if he thinks mainstream audiences will sit through a 3.5 film in a cinema. That era is LONG gone.

    E. His insistence on no intermissions is further proof that he’s gone bonkers.

    F. I sincerely hope the movie is great, because it covers an important moment in US history, but if your movie “needs” to be 3.5 hours long, it “needs” to be made as a mini-series, not a single movie.
    What was the last movie released with an actual intermission? Grindhouse had a fake intermission when it was released in 2007. The only times I see movies with intermission is on TCM.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 35
    Japheyjaphey Posts: 1,773member
    Japhey said:
    Perhaps the large drop in revenue has something to do with the $30 increase for an annual Apple TV+ subscription happening the same week? Coincidence? 
    Last night I was listening to a Killers album, smelling a flower, while staring at the moon.  Coincidence?  Not bloody likely.
    Yeah, I don’t get your weird little reference there. And I didn’t realize anybody still listened to The Killers. 

    I know 2 people that decided to forgo the film because they didn’t want to give Apple anymore of their money. Surely there were others. It’s a valid point to raise. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 35
    AniMillanimill Posts: 196member
    I don’t think Apple really cares it didn’t perform in theatrical release. It was intended to become an Oscar contender that would garner accolades - then push view-ship to Apple+. There’s nothing bad about this, it keeps theatres alive and relevant, and boosts streaming numbers. I do believe that the excessive duration of 3:30 put audiences off (though Oppenheimer was 3:20 and I had no issues sitting through that). From the reviews it sounds like too much power was given to Scorsese - a common mistake production companies allow the big names, then getting burned. Restraint usually makes for better performances.
    williamlondon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 35
    1348513485 Posts: 400member
    AniMill said:
    I don’t think Apple really cares it didn’t perform in theatrical release. It was intended to become an Oscar contender that would garner accolades - then push view-ship to Apple+. There’s nothing bad about this, it keeps theatres alive and relevant, and boosts streaming numbers. I do believe that the excessive duration of 3:30 put audiences off (though Oppenheimer was 3:20 and I had no issues sitting through that). From the reviews it sounds like too much power was given to Scorsese - a common mistake production companies allow the big names, then getting burned. Restraint usually makes for better performances.
    I think you're right. And it's why they don't let authors, for instance, edit their own books, because they feel so invested in every word that they can't see what the reader sees. Scorsese is just too involved (with just a slightly bloated ego) with the process to see that many minutes of a film are not needed. I also agree with others that it will be fine as a mini-series.
    williamlondon
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 35
    chasm said:
    A, As another poster pointed out, movies ROUTINELY drop hugely on their second week.

    B. It’s not in cinemas to make money, it’s in there for award eligibility — and it will almost certainly get some.

    C. If it gets some of the more prestigious noms, it will certainly be back in theatres.

    D. Scorsese has gone bonkers if he thinks mainstream audiences will sit through a 3.5 film in a cinema. That era is LONG gone.

    E. His insistence on no intermissions is further proof that he’s gone bonkers.

    F. I sincerely hope the movie is great, because it covers an important moment in US history, but if your movie “needs” to be 3.5 hours long, it “needs” to be made as a mini-series, not a single movie.
    What was the last movie released with an actual intermission? Grindhouse had a fake intermission when it was released in 2007. The only times I see movies with intermission is on TCM.
    Oppenheimer would seem to contradict the length comment.  Although I would agree that this movie didn't need 3.5 hours to tell a comprehensive story.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 35
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,780member
    Update: Killers of the Flower Moon has been in cinemas for exactly two weeks now.

    Total worldwide income: $119M

    Hardly a “flop.”
    ronnHonkers
     1Like 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 35 of 35
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,688member
    chasm said:
    A, As another poster pointed out, movies ROUTINELY drop hugely on their second week.

    B. It’s not in cinemas to make money, it’s in there for award eligibility — and it will almost certainly get some.

    C. If it gets some of the more prestigious noms, it will certainly be back in theatres.

    D. Scorsese has gone bonkers if he thinks mainstream audiences will sit through a 3.5 film in a cinema. That era is LONG gone.

    E. His insistence on no intermissions is further proof that he’s gone bonkers.

    F. I sincerely hope the movie is great, because it covers an important moment in US history, but if your movie “needs” to be 3.5 hours long, it “needs” to be made as a mini-series, not a single movie.
    Everyone knows it will hit streaming soon enough that you can add your own intermissions or mini-series breaks. 

    3 and half hours and still sold over $100M in tickets and climbing which isn't bad in my book. 
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.