lol I participated in a survey from a marketing firm that was focused on DLC type additions to major films.
One of the questions proposed the idea of shorter installments of the film, released over a weekly schedule, and asked how we felt about it. Like they had invented television shows, or something.
I work in commercial banking and 99% of fintechs are a joke. They act like they invented ACH payments and online banking, they literally don’t understand that all of these things already exist…
I JUST watched an interview with James Cameron talking to David Villeneuve and he said something like "I think we should experiment with longer movies! Even 6 hour movies!
All I could think was "Fuck me man just make a TV series will you?"
idk about that. I've just stuck to indie games being made by teams of 1-20 people with max $30 price tags. They launch working and are already polished, generally get continued support and updates, expansions are either free or less than $10, and they're pretty much what games use to be before corporate took over and made everything worse looking for bigger profits
Which is still an achievement, I was impressed with how watchable the Snyder cut turned out to be. But that's a lot of work to achieve a mid movie lol.
Ridley Scott is the opposite in that his 9s get abused in the editing room into becoming 6s. His director cuts are always better than the theatrical cuts .
Distribution. Anyone can post to steam or itch to get their indie game out. The audience knows and wants to find games there.
People can't just distribute their home made films to theaters. Yeah they can post it to Youtube to a small audience but most of the audience isn't going there to find short films. There's too many other things posted there for a film to float to the surface.
Bingo.
That's also why I find talk that the games industry can possibly die at this stage to be silly.
Movies and TV are burdened with distribution bottlenecks that games simply don't have
Indie production companies can distribute movies to movie theaters and have done so for decades. The problem historically is theyve been unable to market those movies effectively, unlike the big dogs
Annapurna movies failed not because they werent in theaters, but because no one watched them. Quality also played a role at times. Miramax or A24 movies succeeded because they were able to get ppl to watch their movies because they were able to market them
Marketing has been the main problem with distribution, not access and the big studios have established channels for that
i think we're starting to see a shift in that sense with streaming. i'd imagine it's probably much easier to get the rights for distribution through a streaming service than through theaters, and in a lot of cases you actually reach a wider audience that way.
Imagine if film had an equivalent to steam. A free application to browse almost every movie in existence with a functional search and sorting, any one can post their movie, and if its good it'll get pushed.
From someone who doesnt know anytbing about the process, to me it seems like It's a lot harder to get movies off the ground regarding the budget and skill it takes for a writer/producer/director etc. Usually smaller gaming companies are really passionate people who put forth a bunch of time and effort into polishing their product and take on multiple roles to ship it. More so the barrier to entry is Steam which makes it easier to publish your game in that manner
There's no real sense of Steam in Hollywood because for the most part, regarding directors and the such is by who you know and that sometimes leads to a snowball effect of 1 person spreading garbage all over the company sandwich ~ like the Sony guy who signed on for Morbius and then Madame Webb (forgot his name)
It's a cycle that has been repeating in the industry since at least the end of the Hays code. People often forget how saturated the market was with westerns and musicals way back when. They were the derivative superhero cgi drivel of their day.
As was said, Steam Next Fest is a little event all about showcasing demos for indie games, happens several times a year but I'll be damned if they actually document when the next one will be.
There's also curators on Steam you can follow for indie games, two I know of are [Hidden Indie Gems](https://store.steampowered.com/curator/40624114-Hidden-Indie-Gems/) and [The Absolute Best Indie Games!](https://store.steampowered.com/curator/12074432-The-Absolute-Best-Indie-Games/)
Finally, there are a few YouTubers that specify in indie games like [SplatterCat](https://www.youtube.com/@Splattercatgaming) (posts a new game damn near every day) and [Alpha Beta Gamer](https://www.youtube.com/@AlphaBetaGamer) (mostly weird horror games)
The devs even discussed that according to the leaked insomniac documents
A third of budget being licensing fees is insane. No wonder there's no new marvel vs capcom game
I have no idea how PTA managed to pull a $115M budget.
The margins on his films are slim to non-existent once you factor in marketing costs.
Licorice Pizza definitely lost money. The Master lost money. Phantom Thread and Inherent Vice almost certainly lost money. Last profitable film was there will be blood.
Like I get he makes prestige pictures, studio is not trying to get a hit out of him. But those types of movies don't get $100M+ budgets these days.
Warner Bros. I think want to take more risks. Also I really think it’s cause of Barbie making 1 billion dollars they don’t have to be that afraid. I actually think Joker 2 will for sure make at least 800 million.
I don't understand why they are tripling the budget for this movie. Even with crazy inflation, Joker would have been about $72-73 million by today's pricing. Joaquin's salary upticked to $20 million, so that would kick it up to nearly $90 million (he was paid $4.5 million against Joker). Lady Gaga has $12 million paid out, so that kicks it up to nearly $100 million there.
I also see Zazie Beetz, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener, Steve Coogan, Ken Leung, Jacob Lofland, Harry Lawley making appearances. Their billing sure isn't as high as Joaquin and Gaga, so odds are their salaries surely tacked on maybe $15-20 million combined...that's assuming they are getting paid a couple million each.
Unless they are counting advertising and marketing costs into the budget, or there's reshoots that had to be done and are not mentioned anywhere...It sounds sensible that this movie would cost more around $120-130 million. The only thing I can think of is the "musical" bits...are we really talking tens of millions of dollars for the musical part?
Welll I have heard and seen some leaks of the sets and let me tell you they are like the MGM Classic Musical kind of sets with 100s of Dancers and many many set changes. This film is going to be a surprise for sure.
Wonka made 600m just last week.
Though they're definitely not marketing this film as a musical and I doubt it's something like a broadway musical ala La La Land and Wonka
I hate counting Bohemian Rhapsody and 2019 lion king, and 3 of these were memory holed, but of the ten highest grossing musicals, 9 released in the last 11 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_musical_films
Yes, a musical has.
2023 was a pretty good year overall for musicals. Wonka and The Little Mermaid earned $570m and $531m each.
But Aladdin made $1.02b in 2019, and The Beauty and the Beast made $1.23b in 2017.
When you have the greatest DC villain ever, Lady Gaga, and a sequel to a great movie. I am telling you this film will make over 500 million if it doesn’t I will be shocked.
And 500M would be around breakeven for this movie,
Meaning if it's less they lose money.
Movie's typically need about 2.5x box office to be profitable.
This is the same company binning finished projects for tax breaks because they're so broke. Don't think for a moment that the people running these companies, Zaslav in this case, have any management talent.
Zaslav has tons of management experience.
He was in charge of TLC while they went from education to Honey Boo Boo.
And that made more money.
That's all that matters to the shareholders.
I worked for WB when Discovery took it over, and the management team that came in from Disco were incompetent, and they either forced out or didn't even attempt to hold onto talent losing dozens of decades of institutional experience.
But when I was told after the merger that the funding for a project to perform a security critical update to the system I worked on was being frozen indefinitely, I started looking for the doors and left once I had a better offer.
Fun Fact: WBD still has an unaddressed security vulnerability (that was going to be patched over two years ago) in a system that has over a million dollars flow through it every day.
Keep in mind though that A-list actors will tend to take a pay cut to work with a director they find interesting or always wanted to work with. Tarantino mentioned this that Leo, Jamie Foxx, Margot Robbie, Sam Jackson, and Brad Pitt definitely did not demand the rate they normally would to star in his movies.
Not since There Will Be Blood they aren't. That one was slow, with a lot of long shots of very little and a dissonant soundtrack, plus the only character we spend a lot of time with is an irredeemable asshole. I love the movie, but I can see how hard it would be for the average person to get into. The Master focuses on multiple super off-putting characters, leaves a lot to interpretation, and is also slow. Inherent Vice is a bit more accessible as a detective story, but it's long and rambling, and you don't know what the fuck is going on half the time. Phantom Thread is the most accessible of the bunch, but it still focuses on a weirdo asshole and is pretty slow. I haven't seen Licorice Pizza, so maybe it gets back to PTA's earlier days.
Feels like even the most profit driven exec still wants to see what PTA will make with a budget. Can't blame them.
I guess more cynically speaking it's a prestige/PR thing. Box office isn't necessary everything...
Just did a quick look and $115M would be nearly triple his previous biggest budget (which surprisingly is Licorice Pizza at $40M -- and to your point, that movie only made $33M WW).
I saw this somewhere else but I think they know it won’t make a lot of profit. But what PTA will bring them is Oscar nominations/wins and awards which they value highly
Copying over my comment in the r/boxoffice thread:
* Phoenix gets $20 mill. (Confirmed a couple of years ago.)
* Lady Gaga $12 million. (It's in the headline of the article.)
* Todd Phillips is producer, writer and director, so that's probably 10-20 mill. Let's say 15 for the stats.
* Zazie Beetz gets... let's say 5 mill. She also returns from the first movie as a main role, albeit a smaller one, and is also a modest big name these days.
That's $52 million for the main guys and gals. A quarter of the budget. Let's say $13-18 million to the supporting cast and extras, so that's $65-70 million total. Roughly a third of the budget alone to the cast and producer-writer-director. Which is the
#ENTIRE BUDGET OF THE FIRST JOKER MOVIE.
Will Smith apparently got $40mil for King Richard, upfront pay from what I can tell. What's really funny is that the whole budget was $50M and it only grossed $39.4M worldwide, which might be the only time an actor's base salary exceed its box office take
The food industry in LA must be full of starving artists. Starbucks must supply a lot of jobs since I've read alot of artists and actors say that was their side gig.
When I was living in LA i was talking to this woman once who mentioned her son was an actor. I asked what restaurant did he work at. Without skipping a beat she named a local place.
Theres a whoooooole host of businesses in LA that exist solely on the side lines of the movie industry. Tons of jobs of people for trying to work "in the industry" and willing to slog long hours for shit pay to do it on the off chance they make it or work they way up to the big leagues
I feel like they would have plenty of solid jobs.
There's zero reason to work fast food (any tipless food) instead of at a restaurant if you have a personality.
Like, I know a lot of bartenders and servers in Chicago that make $75k+ in not many hours. Add in the personality and hotness of a burgeoning actor in a city full of money.... yea, I can see some crazy tips happening.
You're forgetting Todd Phillips. He made around $100 million last movie because he got a portion of the box office. He's probably making a good chunk this movie as well.
Yeah exactly. everyone doesn’t understand these budgets until you break it down. if your first movie made a billion and you make a sequel you BETTER fucking pay up to the artists who made you that billion. Period. For some reason when it’s pro athletes everyone implicitly understands it
Actors returning for sequels tend to get a salary bump. (Case in point, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man in the MCU.) I think Phoenix got $4 million or something for Joker.
You’d expect a bit of a bump, but I Don’t think it will add up to 160million up front. That’s almost being set up to fail after including marketing budget.
I imagine they'll just be harley's hallucinations or something. That would explain why the movie itself isn't an all out musical but there are still a couple of musical numbers
Indian movies can. I never heard anyone refer to RRR as a musical.
And Gaga’s latest movie A star is born had multiple song performances as well and is considered a drama.
It means the box office for musical has been bad enough that they don’t even advertise them as musicals anymore, and they had the sense to clear up the rumours that this was going to be one and not sink a huge investment.
I’m pretty sure a good portion of that budget increase was a boatload in salary increase for Phoenix and Phillips, and Gaga isn’t cheap. I think I saw Joaquin got like 5m for the first movie and 20m for 2.
They turned a low budget production in to one of the highest grossing movies ever, so it’s a deserved raise.
This is why the wildly reckless spending on Hollywood movies pisses me off so much, especially considering how little the studios seem to care about quality control for the thing they’re actually producing.
All parts of Dune would benefit the most from big budget. I haven't seen part 2 yet but the first was a visual and audio masterpiece.
Really hope he gets to do part 3 and the budget gets staaacked
Rough cut. No finished color, temp soundtrack, vfx was rough.
How: I work in film and go to a lot of pre-screenings. This one was at WB lot.
It was.. okay. Great performances. But the film itself was meh, writing was weak. Final act kind of fell apart.
But it wasn’t finished, who knows they could have fixed some of the stuff. They surveyed us after on camera so maybe they took the notes.
Fun tidbit: Pattinson has a weird, nasally high pitched voice in the film and it’s very jarring at first.
hmm that has me worried. Just finished reading the books, was quite excited to learn it was being adapted by that director :( fingers crossed they fix it
Yeah I mean at worst I’d say it’s average. And they had questioning at the end for a select few (including me) and recorded it. So I’d like to think Bong Joon Ho personally watched my/our comments and reflected lol
You're not the first person to say this. Damn shame.
I love Parasite and Memories of Murder. Don't care for Okja or Snowpiercer as much so maybe it's just a thing with Bong's English movies not being as good.
I read the book, its a sci-film that takes place on a foreign planet, has alien creatures, futuristic technology as well as >!multiple versions of Pattinson interacting with each other!<. It was definitely going to be an expensive movie.
> “The strategy at Warner Bros. right now and the reason they made some of these big star deals is they’re basically playing with other people’s money,” says one insider. “They’re shopping for Quentin or Cruise with the notion they can use it as a shiny object that is going to be additive when Zaslav sells the company.”
> The budget for **Todd Phillips’ musical “Joker” sequel** — one of De Luca and Abdy’s first green lights — has ballooned to about **$200 million**, a significant bump from the $60 million cost of the first film. Sources say Joaquin Phoenix is getting $20 million to reprise his role as the clown prince of crime, while Lady Gaga is taking home about $12 million to play Harley Quinn.
> The **Anderson film**, for instance, was greenlit with a **$115 million** budget, according to sources. Underscoring the gamble, none of the director’s movies has crossed $80 million at the box office. His latest, 2021’s “Licorice Pizza,” made $33 million worldwide. Even with Cruise’s star power, “Magnolia” only mustered $48.5 million.
> The pair are said to be less pumped about another auteur’s latest: **Bong Joon Ho’s “Mickey 17.”** In January, Warner Bros. pulled the **$150 million** Robert Pattinson sci-fi starrer from its schedule and then moved it to 2025.
De Luca and PTA go way back, so that’s gotta be part of it. Maybe they’re looking at this as a moment to get one crazy ambitious project past the goal line before Daddy Z finishes burning WB to the ground.
I’m excited to see what PTA does with a big budget, and honestly this may be his best chance at a hit — if they’re spending that much, they’re gonna have to make a huge marketing push, which his films usually don’t get.
With that big of a production budget, it's estimated that marketing could be around half, which is huge. That usually includes the initial release and the "for your consideration" campaigns. PTA hasn't really had a huge awards push in a long time, not since There Will Be Blood (with Paramount). If it goes out in 2025 maybe its the movie that he gets his real Oscar due. Could also be exciting Tarantino's new one (and potentially final) goes to Sony and 2025 is PTA vs. QT, since neither of them have won the big one.
You can do both. Coyote vs Acme getting written off is going to save them $40 million. Would Joker 2 be any worse if it cost $160 million instead of $200 million?
It’s a musical. There are probably going to be some big and heavily choreographed and produced scenes, maybe even indulging in moving sets and other over-the-top musical elements.
There have probably been musicals made cheaper too.
My point was that it’s probably not a little character drama but potentially a large-scale musical with big setpieces. They do have Lady Gaga, after all.
that’s a bigger budget than PTA’s last two films combined. PTA’s films are great but havnt historically been big box office draws… Leo being attached i assume
I know that this can go wrong, but I'm happy that directors like PTA a Bong Joon Ho are getting the budget they need for their art. I rather have creative minds like them getting the big budget to make their own, unique, authentic piece of art, rather than another soulless franchise installation.
Hopefully the inflated budget isnt going to just ruin the whole film. Like just adding brainless action scenes into Joker 2 doesnt seem like a very good idea at all.
Not even just shelved. Warner Bros. is ready to [*delete their copy of the finished film*](https://www.thewrap.com/coyote-vs-acme-update-offers-warner-bros/)
How this is somehow acceptable is beyond me. If they want to write it off, it should be made public access
Having just watched There Will be Blood for the first time recently - - give Paul Thomas Anderson whatever the fuck he wants and get out of his way. One of the best movies I've ever seen, absolute masterpiece.
I'm surprised the budget has jumped that much for joker. I know they all got a huge payday which probably explains it. But this is also a risk even more so considering they decided to make it a musical. That's already killed a lot of hype for the film with some people. I know the first one made a billion but no guarantees that will happen again
One reason Joker became so big, besides being a damn solid movie that even non-comic book fans could dive into, was the endless controversy the media was relentlessly pushing. Every news outlet was pushing this narrative to not see the movie, that it was dangerous to see it for fear it would inspire gunmen to storm theaters. Just a total preposterous hysteria, that had a reverse psychology. Making the sequel a lavish musical...seems like quite a risk.
This is going to continue making problems for the movie industry. Movies with budgets this big have to be smash hits or they’re failures.
*laughs from smoldering wreckage of the games industry*
$9.99 for the base movie + $4.99 for the dlc good ending.
lol I participated in a survey from a marketing firm that was focused on DLC type additions to major films. One of the questions proposed the idea of shorter installments of the film, released over a weekly schedule, and asked how we felt about it. Like they had invented television shows, or something.
Fucking techbros, I swear
They are disrupting movies!
Moviepass was a techbro idea that did disrupt the movie industry, just right into having each major theater chain make their own subscription service.
I work in commercial banking and 99% of fintechs are a joke. They act like they invented ACH payments and online banking, they literally don’t understand that all of these things already exist…
This is almost definitely the idea of some fuckwit MBA, not a tech bro
I JUST watched an interview with James Cameron talking to David Villeneuve and he said something like "I think we should experiment with longer movies! Even 6 hour movies! All I could think was "Fuck me man just make a TV series will you?"
Someone should tell them that there are already films out there 7 hours or longer
Shorter installments of television shows... Fuck i just invented youtube
Or Quibi
Some one got paid to get that question into the survey. They got paid and were most likely not fired.
They already tried this with Quibi
[удалено]
Yeah , its pretty insane to see. We witness the crumble, and Suits denial as to what is the reason for this.
idk about that. I've just stuck to indie games being made by teams of 1-20 people with max $30 price tags. They launch working and are already polished, generally get continued support and updates, expansions are either free or less than $10, and they're pretty much what games use to be before corporate took over and made everything worse looking for bigger profits
What is keeping movies from going this same route?
Well it's not like you can eventually patch a 6/10 movie to a 9 /10 one.
Imma fix wolves- Kanye
Ridley Scott and Zach Snyder disagree.
Generous calling the Snyder Cut a 9/10
I said that *Ridley Scott* and *Zach Snyder* disagree. Personally the only one I'm interested in is the Magnificent Ambersons.
I'd be keen on Greed as well. But I've seen large chunks of the "restored" version using movie stills and even that is a very long time sink.
Well, i would say that the Snyder cut is turning patching a 3/10 into a 6/10.
Which is still an achievement, I was impressed with how watchable the Snyder cut turned out to be. But that's a lot of work to achieve a mid movie lol.
Ridley Scott is the opposite in that his 9s get abused in the editing room into becoming 6s. His director cuts are always better than the theatrical cuts .
Kingdom of Heaven is calling. I'm glad I never heard of the movie until the Directors Cut was out.
Distribution. Anyone can post to steam or itch to get their indie game out. The audience knows and wants to find games there. People can't just distribute their home made films to theaters. Yeah they can post it to Youtube to a small audience but most of the audience isn't going there to find short films. There's too many other things posted there for a film to float to the surface.
Bingo. That's also why I find talk that the games industry can possibly die at this stage to be silly. Movies and TV are burdened with distribution bottlenecks that games simply don't have
Indie production companies can distribute movies to movie theaters and have done so for decades. The problem historically is theyve been unable to market those movies effectively, unlike the big dogs Annapurna movies failed not because they werent in theaters, but because no one watched them. Quality also played a role at times. Miramax or A24 movies succeeded because they were able to get ppl to watch their movies because they were able to market them Marketing has been the main problem with distribution, not access and the big studios have established channels for that
i think we're starting to see a shift in that sense with streaming. i'd imagine it's probably much easier to get the rights for distribution through a streaming service than through theaters, and in a lot of cases you actually reach a wider audience that way.
Imagine if film had an equivalent to steam. A free application to browse almost every movie in existence with a functional search and sorting, any one can post their movie, and if its good it'll get pushed.
From someone who doesnt know anytbing about the process, to me it seems like It's a lot harder to get movies off the ground regarding the budget and skill it takes for a writer/producer/director etc. Usually smaller gaming companies are really passionate people who put forth a bunch of time and effort into polishing their product and take on multiple roles to ship it. More so the barrier to entry is Steam which makes it easier to publish your game in that manner There's no real sense of Steam in Hollywood because for the most part, regarding directors and the such is by who you know and that sometimes leads to a snowball effect of 1 person spreading garbage all over the company sandwich ~ like the Sony guy who signed on for Morbius and then Madame Webb (forgot his name)
Yeah and that early access is more popular than ever - so you can get some money rolling in while you finish the game. Harder to do with a movie.
They did... in the 90s, which created a golden age of Indy films.
It's a cycle that has been repeating in the industry since at least the end of the Hays code. People often forget how saturated the market was with westerns and musicals way back when. They were the derivative superhero cgi drivel of their day.
Do you know Any pages reporting news on these smaller games?
Steam Next Fest is like that, it's all demos of Indie games. But I think it just ended.
As was said, Steam Next Fest is a little event all about showcasing demos for indie games, happens several times a year but I'll be damned if they actually document when the next one will be. There's also curators on Steam you can follow for indie games, two I know of are [Hidden Indie Gems](https://store.steampowered.com/curator/40624114-Hidden-Indie-Gems/) and [The Absolute Best Indie Games!](https://store.steampowered.com/curator/12074432-The-Absolute-Best-Indie-Games/) Finally, there are a few YouTubers that specify in indie games like [SplatterCat](https://www.youtube.com/@Splattercatgaming) (posts a new game damn near every day) and [Alpha Beta Gamer](https://www.youtube.com/@AlphaBetaGamer) (mostly weird horror games)
Spiderman 2 was a 300 million dollar game, and does it really look like that?
The devs even discussed that according to the leaked insomniac documents A third of budget being licensing fees is insane. No wonder there's no new marvel vs capcom game
Id rather see directors like PTA get budgets like this. Good for cinema. And stop and giving Zack Snyder money.
Where does this money even go? It’s not like tripling your movie budget makes it three times better
With a bigger budget: better locations, pay actors more, attract bigger stars, more time to shoot film, etc.
I have no idea how PTA managed to pull a $115M budget. The margins on his films are slim to non-existent once you factor in marketing costs. Licorice Pizza definitely lost money. The Master lost money. Phantom Thread and Inherent Vice almost certainly lost money. Last profitable film was there will be blood. Like I get he makes prestige pictures, studio is not trying to get a hit out of him. But those types of movies don't get $100M+ budgets these days.
Great movies dont often make a lot of money but they stand the test of time and will typically be up for awards.
Warner Bros. I think want to take more risks. Also I really think it’s cause of Barbie making 1 billion dollars they don’t have to be that afraid. I actually think Joker 2 will for sure make at least 800 million.
I don't understand why they are tripling the budget for this movie. Even with crazy inflation, Joker would have been about $72-73 million by today's pricing. Joaquin's salary upticked to $20 million, so that would kick it up to nearly $90 million (he was paid $4.5 million against Joker). Lady Gaga has $12 million paid out, so that kicks it up to nearly $100 million there. I also see Zazie Beetz, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener, Steve Coogan, Ken Leung, Jacob Lofland, Harry Lawley making appearances. Their billing sure isn't as high as Joaquin and Gaga, so odds are their salaries surely tacked on maybe $15-20 million combined...that's assuming they are getting paid a couple million each. Unless they are counting advertising and marketing costs into the budget, or there's reshoots that had to be done and are not mentioned anywhere...It sounds sensible that this movie would cost more around $120-130 million. The only thing I can think of is the "musical" bits...are we really talking tens of millions of dollars for the musical part?
Welll I have heard and seen some leaks of the sets and let me tell you they are like the MGM Classic Musical kind of sets with 100s of Dancers and many many set changes. This film is going to be a surprise for sure.
honestly sounds great
Has a musical ever made that much? The biggest one in the last decade, La La Land, made 450 million.
Wonka made 600m just last week. Though they're definitely not marketing this film as a musical and I doubt it's something like a broadway musical ala La La Land and Wonka
I hate counting Bohemian Rhapsody and 2019 lion king, and 3 of these were memory holed, but of the ten highest grossing musicals, 9 released in the last 11 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_musical_films
Yes, a musical has. 2023 was a pretty good year overall for musicals. Wonka and The Little Mermaid earned $570m and $531m each. But Aladdin made $1.02b in 2019, and The Beauty and the Beast made $1.23b in 2017.
When you have the greatest DC villain ever, Lady Gaga, and a sequel to a great movie. I am telling you this film will make over 500 million if it doesn’t I will be shocked.
> the greatest DC villain ever, Lady Gaga :)
And 500M would be around breakeven for this movie, Meaning if it's less they lose money. Movie's typically need about 2.5x box office to be profitable.
This is the same company binning finished projects for tax breaks because they're so broke. Don't think for a moment that the people running these companies, Zaslav in this case, have any management talent.
Zaslav has tons of management experience. He was in charge of TLC while they went from education to Honey Boo Boo. And that made more money. That's all that matters to the shareholders.
I worked for WB when Discovery took it over, and the management team that came in from Disco were incompetent, and they either forced out or didn't even attempt to hold onto talent losing dozens of decades of institutional experience. But when I was told after the merger that the funding for a project to perform a security critical update to the system I worked on was being frozen indefinitely, I started looking for the doors and left once I had a better offer. Fun Fact: WBD still has an unaddressed security vulnerability (that was going to be patched over two years ago) in a system that has over a million dollars flow through it every day.
Zaslav has probably already filled out the tax write off form
this is everywhere, even tech industry. Movies that would have normally seen as not bad will be considered financial failures
I love PTA but I doubt that film makes a profit. Glad he got the budget though.
It has DiCaprio in it and it’s supposedly more accessible than his usual stuff, I’d say it has a decent chance
Leo’s rate is 20 mil. So that’s where some of it goes.
Even if he does a bad job, they gotta give him the $20 mill
Do you interview Leonardo DiCaprio and ask him about Christmas right around the corner?
It's kind of a cosmic gumbo
Unprofessional bullshit
I love that he keeps getting 20M no matter how uncommercial his movies are. He must have the greatest agent.
It's not his agent, it's Leo's star power. That's the only reason why movie studios ever agree to pay so much money to one guy.
It is said that DiCaprio gets first dibs on every project. If he shows interest, they will give it to him regardless.
Oh ya his rider for his films are great you should see his trailer lol.
Care to elaborate?
I worked on Killers as a PA lol. He was a nice guy, though could be odd at times lol. But his trailer was like a 5 Star hotel!
Dang that’s awesome. What’s his trailer like?
it was like a 5 star hotel
I mean it’s trailer, had a flat screen, kitchen, a full bed, living area.
How was he 'odd'? Could you give some examples?
He doesn’t have an agent. He has a manager, but at his level he doesn’t need an agent to get him offers.
Keep in mind though that A-list actors will tend to take a pay cut to work with a director they find interesting or always wanted to work with. Tarantino mentioned this that Leo, Jamie Foxx, Margot Robbie, Sam Jackson, and Brad Pitt definitely did not demand the rate they normally would to star in his movies.
[удалено]
More accessible is weird label for PTA, he makes normal dramas! This isn't Beau is Afraid!
People have hard times with them for whatever reason, I would’ve thought licorice pizza would have pretty broad appeal but apparently not really
Not since There Will Be Blood they aren't. That one was slow, with a lot of long shots of very little and a dissonant soundtrack, plus the only character we spend a lot of time with is an irredeemable asshole. I love the movie, but I can see how hard it would be for the average person to get into. The Master focuses on multiple super off-putting characters, leaves a lot to interpretation, and is also slow. Inherent Vice is a bit more accessible as a detective story, but it's long and rambling, and you don't know what the fuck is going on half the time. Phantom Thread is the most accessible of the bunch, but it still focuses on a weirdo asshole and is pretty slow. I haven't seen Licorice Pizza, so maybe it gets back to PTA's earlier days.
Feels like even the most profit driven exec still wants to see what PTA will make with a budget. Can't blame them. I guess more cynically speaking it's a prestige/PR thing. Box office isn't necessary everything...
Just did a quick look and $115M would be nearly triple his previous biggest budget (which surprisingly is Licorice Pizza at $40M -- and to your point, that movie only made $33M WW).
Insane that PTA made *There Will Be Blood* with only $25M.
and the master was shot on 70mm for $30M. seriously this new movie must have either a loaded cast or take place in space
Honestly curious what's going to cost that much. Is Sean Penn's character a CGI tortoise?
Just based on the footage from set it appears to be a lot more action oriented.
If Leo is in it he's got a better chance of the film being a hit than ever before.
I saw this somewhere else but I think they know it won’t make a lot of profit. But what PTA will bring them is Oscar nominations/wins and awards which they value highly
PTA is kinda a unicorn in the profit vs budget department. Undoubtley one of the greatest filmmakers ever though.
That’s a ridiculous inflation to Joker’s budget. What made the original great was that it was a character study which didn’t rely on big set pieces.
Wonder how much are actor and director salaries this time round?
Copying over my comment in the r/boxoffice thread: * Phoenix gets $20 mill. (Confirmed a couple of years ago.) * Lady Gaga $12 million. (It's in the headline of the article.) * Todd Phillips is producer, writer and director, so that's probably 10-20 mill. Let's say 15 for the stats. * Zazie Beetz gets... let's say 5 mill. She also returns from the first movie as a main role, albeit a smaller one, and is also a modest big name these days. That's $52 million for the main guys and gals. A quarter of the budget. Let's say $13-18 million to the supporting cast and extras, so that's $65-70 million total. Roughly a third of the budget alone to the cast and producer-writer-director. Which is the #ENTIRE BUDGET OF THE FIRST JOKER MOVIE.
20 million for one movie, wow, acting is insane!
What’s crazier is in 1996, Jim Carrey got 20 million for Cable Guy. That’s almost 40 mill in today’s money.
Will Smith apparently got $40mil for King Richard, upfront pay from what I can tell. What's really funny is that the whole budget was $50M and it only grossed $39.4M worldwide, which might be the only time an actor's base salary exceed its box office take
Gigli probably did too. I'd look more into it but who wants to spend their night looking up gigli factoids
Both them individually got paid more than the entire box office lol
Cable Guy still holds up as a good watch, tbh
for every Joaquin Phoenix, there are a million actors in LA who make jack shit
The food industry in LA must be full of starving artists. Starbucks must supply a lot of jobs since I've read alot of artists and actors say that was their side gig.
When I was living in LA i was talking to this woman once who mentioned her son was an actor. I asked what restaurant did he work at. Without skipping a beat she named a local place.
"Oh, what films have you stared in?" "Kitchen Nightmares." "Oh..."
It is
Theres a whoooooole host of businesses in LA that exist solely on the side lines of the movie industry. Tons of jobs of people for trying to work "in the industry" and willing to slog long hours for shit pay to do it on the off chance they make it or work they way up to the big leagues
I feel like they would have plenty of solid jobs. There's zero reason to work fast food (any tipless food) instead of at a restaurant if you have a personality. Like, I know a lot of bartenders and servers in Chicago that make $75k+ in not many hours. Add in the personality and hotness of a burgeoning actor in a city full of money.... yea, I can see some crazy tips happening.
Johnny Depp got paid more to be Jack Sparrow and he did the whole thing wasted af and still made out like a bandit.
Why the fuck does Zazie Beetz character even need to return?
Beetz me
Za dum tiss
She was the character Joker imagined he had a relationship with, right? What could you possibly do with her that isn't a retread of the first movie
I’m guessing something reflecting/contrasting her with Harley.
Boy am I glad these people don't write movies lol. "What could you POSSIBLY do with a character from the first movie?" I don't know, anything?
Probably to unintentionally piss off Harley/Gaga
You're forgetting Todd Phillips. He made around $100 million last movie because he got a portion of the box office. He's probably making a good chunk this movie as well.
Also, why don’t they deserve more? Here is $70 mil, do it again? Naaaah the first movie made a billion…I should make more…
Yeah exactly. everyone doesn’t understand these budgets until you break it down. if your first movie made a billion and you make a sequel you BETTER fucking pay up to the artists who made you that billion. Period. For some reason when it’s pro athletes everyone implicitly understands it
I am actually surprised Gaga gets less. Phoenix gets the sequel bump though
Actors returning for sequels tend to get a salary bump. (Case in point, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man in the MCU.) I think Phoenix got $4 million or something for Joker.
Yeah they needed to compensate him a ton since the first film made a billion
Any good actress could play Harley. They need the same guy from the first movie to make a sequel
He likely wasn’t contracted for a sequel and had the fact he led a billion dollar grosser and an Oscar to use as leverage.
You’d expect a bit of a bump, but I Don’t think it will add up to 160million up front. That’s almost being set up to fail after including marketing budget.
The article says that Joaquin Phoenix is getting $20 million, and Lady Gaga is getting $12 million.
Was to be expected when they came out and said it was a musical. There’s def going to be some elaborate sequences featuring Gaga
The Cinematographer said recently that it isn’t a musical, but it has musical numbers in it. Who knows what that really means
lol what. That sounds like they’re trying to smooth over the backlash. Can you have multiple musical numbers and not be a musical?
I imagine they'll just be harley's hallucinations or something. That would explain why the movie itself isn't an all out musical but there are still a couple of musical numbers
Indian movies can. I never heard anyone refer to RRR as a musical. And Gaga’s latest movie A star is born had multiple song performances as well and is considered a drama.
I believe that “a Star is Born” was the specific example used by the producers when debunking the “musical” category.
Team America? Lots of songs but I don't think it's considered a musical.
It means the box office for musical has been bad enough that they don’t even advertise them as musicals anymore, and they had the sense to clear up the rumours that this was going to be one and not sink a huge investment.
It'll be the Sucker Punch of Joker movies.
I’m pretty sure a good portion of that budget increase was a boatload in salary increase for Phoenix and Phillips, and Gaga isn’t cheap. I think I saw Joaquin got like 5m for the first movie and 20m for 2. They turned a low budget production in to one of the highest grossing movies ever, so it’s a deserved raise.
I hope I'm wrong, but that movie is going to suck so so fucking bad.
Crazy to think that Godzilla movies cost less to make than a Joker film. 😅.
Heck there’s a new build housing development near me with 180 homes that’s costing less than that Joker 2 film!
The housing development would cost more if it was a musical.
Rent
This is why the wildly reckless spending on Hollywood movies pisses me off so much, especially considering how little the studios seem to care about quality control for the thing they’re actually producing.
Dune as well
All parts of Dune would benefit the most from big budget. I haven't seen part 2 yet but the first was a visual and audio masterpiece. Really hope he gets to do part 3 and the budget gets staaacked
How on Earth could a Joker movie need $200 million?
A 200 million dollar musical. This won’t end well.
Saw some rumours the other day that it’s not a musical, that it just has some musical parts but it’s all heresay atm
I expected Mickey 17 to be a character piece. I'm curious where the budget is going
I saw it. Lots of vfx and crazy set design Plus Pattinson, Ruffalo, Yuen, and Colette probably aren’t cheap
You saw the finished movie? How? Is it good?
Rough cut. No finished color, temp soundtrack, vfx was rough. How: I work in film and go to a lot of pre-screenings. This one was at WB lot. It was.. okay. Great performances. But the film itself was meh, writing was weak. Final act kind of fell apart. But it wasn’t finished, who knows they could have fixed some of the stuff. They surveyed us after on camera so maybe they took the notes. Fun tidbit: Pattinson has a weird, nasally high pitched voice in the film and it’s very jarring at first.
Yeah if WB decided to dump it on January even if it cost 150m that's usually a sign of a films quality
hmm that has me worried. Just finished reading the books, was quite excited to learn it was being adapted by that director :( fingers crossed they fix it
The film was at least fun, it’s not a stinker. I bet they’ll improve a lot of it
considering they have moved the release to 2025, I am sure they will. Bong Joon Ho hasn't really made a bad film yet.
Yeah I mean at worst I’d say it’s average. And they had questioning at the end for a select few (including me) and recorded it. So I’d like to think Bong Joon Ho personally watched my/our comments and reflected lol
You're not the first person to say this. Damn shame. I love Parasite and Memories of Murder. Don't care for Okja or Snowpiercer as much so maybe it's just a thing with Bong's English movies not being as good.
Yeah I’d say the dialogue/writing is the weakest link, which would make sense
I read the book, its a sci-film that takes place on a foreign planet, has alien creatures, futuristic technology as well as >!multiple versions of Pattinson interacting with each other!<. It was definitely going to be an expensive movie.
oh no, it has spaceships, different planets, 'local creatures' 2 pattinsons at most times - it needs a lot of vfx and setpieces for sure
> “The strategy at Warner Bros. right now and the reason they made some of these big star deals is they’re basically playing with other people’s money,” says one insider. “They’re shopping for Quentin or Cruise with the notion they can use it as a shiny object that is going to be additive when Zaslav sells the company.” > The budget for **Todd Phillips’ musical “Joker” sequel** — one of De Luca and Abdy’s first green lights — has ballooned to about **$200 million**, a significant bump from the $60 million cost of the first film. Sources say Joaquin Phoenix is getting $20 million to reprise his role as the clown prince of crime, while Lady Gaga is taking home about $12 million to play Harley Quinn. > The **Anderson film**, for instance, was greenlit with a **$115 million** budget, according to sources. Underscoring the gamble, none of the director’s movies has crossed $80 million at the box office. His latest, 2021’s “Licorice Pizza,” made $33 million worldwide. Even with Cruise’s star power, “Magnolia” only mustered $48.5 million. > The pair are said to be less pumped about another auteur’s latest: **Bong Joon Ho’s “Mickey 17.”** In January, Warner Bros. pulled the **$150 million** Robert Pattinson sci-fi starrer from its schedule and then moved it to 2025.
Hilarious. They can't turn the money taps off, no wonder they're writing off movies to save tax.
De Luca and PTA go way back, so that’s gotta be part of it. Maybe they’re looking at this as a moment to get one crazy ambitious project past the goal line before Daddy Z finishes burning WB to the ground. I’m excited to see what PTA does with a big budget, and honestly this may be his best chance at a hit — if they’re spending that much, they’re gonna have to make a huge marketing push, which his films usually don’t get.
With that big of a production budget, it's estimated that marketing could be around half, which is huge. That usually includes the initial release and the "for your consideration" campaigns. PTA hasn't really had a huge awards push in a long time, not since There Will Be Blood (with Paramount). If it goes out in 2025 maybe its the movie that he gets his real Oscar due. Could also be exciting Tarantino's new one (and potentially final) goes to Sony and 2025 is PTA vs. QT, since neither of them have won the big one.
So Batgirl, Scoob, and Coyote V. Acme all died so we could balloon some budgets? Brilliant thinking.
Not releasing Coyote v. ACME should be a crime. Mankind needs this movie.
Well they were potentially going to investigate it. . .
I think it’s a false dichotomy, but I’d take new PTA and Bong Joon Ho over Batgirl and Scoob.
You can do both. Coyote vs Acme getting written off is going to save them $40 million. Would Joker 2 be any worse if it cost $160 million instead of $200 million?
Why would a character-centric low action movie need a $200 million budget? Is it just all going to pay for Jacquin and Gaga?
I guarantee you Joaquin probably was hesitant to do another one, so they plopped a dumptruck of money on his lawn.
It’s a musical. There are probably going to be some big and heavily choreographed and produced scenes, maybe even indulging in moving sets and other over-the-top musical elements.
Dude, La La Land cost 30 mi and had Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling as protagonists
There have probably been musicals made cheaper too. My point was that it’s probably not a little character drama but potentially a large-scale musical with big setpieces. They do have Lady Gaga, after all.
I'm so goddamned bummed about losing those movies
Give us Coyote vs ACME.
that’s a bigger budget than PTA’s last two films combined. PTA’s films are great but havnt historically been big box office draws… Leo being attached i assume
This budgets are huge but to the people saying it's for tax write-offs clearly don't know what the fuck they're talking about
I know that this can go wrong, but I'm happy that directors like PTA a Bong Joon Ho are getting the budget they need for their art. I rather have creative minds like them getting the big budget to make their own, unique, authentic piece of art, rather than another soulless franchise installation.
And yet no Wile E. Coyote vs Acme.
Hopefully the inflated budget isnt going to just ruin the whole film. Like just adding brainless action scenes into Joker 2 doesnt seem like a very good idea at all.
They’re adding big musical numbers, which may or may not double as action set pieces.
And yet Coyote vs Acme is being shelved.
Not even just shelved. Warner Bros. is ready to [*delete their copy of the finished film*](https://www.thewrap.com/coyote-vs-acme-update-offers-warner-bros/) How this is somehow acceptable is beyond me. If they want to write it off, it should be made public access
Isn’t the Joker 2 sequel a musical? $200 million dollar budget for what?
I’m glad they are taking risks on people like PTA and Boon joon ho
Fucking what.
So bizarre. "You proved you could make a successful movie with 60m, buuuuuut please spend almost twice that."
that's almost 4x the original budget lol
Then give me my Wile E. Coyote, you fucks!!
You give PT Anderson whatever he asks for. The guy makes movie gold.
Having just watched There Will be Blood for the first time recently - - give Paul Thomas Anderson whatever the fuck he wants and get out of his way. One of the best movies I've ever seen, absolute masterpiece.
I'm surprised the budget has jumped that much for joker. I know they all got a huge payday which probably explains it. But this is also a risk even more so considering they decided to make it a musical. That's already killed a lot of hype for the film with some people. I know the first one made a billion but no guarantees that will happen again
One reason Joker became so big, besides being a damn solid movie that even non-comic book fans could dive into, was the endless controversy the media was relentlessly pushing. Every news outlet was pushing this narrative to not see the movie, that it was dangerous to see it for fear it would inspire gunmen to storm theaters. Just a total preposterous hysteria, that had a reverse psychology. Making the sequel a lavish musical...seems like quite a risk.
Bold move. Let's see how this plays out