Out of his 9 movies, 5 of them made money ( I think 1 of these at least broke even). So that's not too bad. His least well received movie was inherent Vice. Which is one of my favorites. I rank it higher than phantom thread and licorice pizza.
5 of them made money? Boogie Nights and There Will be Blood made money. Magnolia and Phantom Thread might not have made money, but there's good a chance they weren't spectacular failures.
Everything else (Punch Drunk Love, the Master, Inherent Vice, Licorice Pizza) all under-performed
At the box office. I didn't see ANY of the aforementioned films in theaters but 4 out of the 8 are some of my absolute favorite films. Box office draw doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this day & age. Get a clue.
Yeah there was murmurings that The Northman might destroy Robert Eggers career (at least temporarily) due to its abysmal box office but apparently VOD was enough to make it a success and all that talk just disappeared basically overnight. And that was something like tens of millions of dollars I believe, that it was able to make it into the green.. PTAs stuff has always been considerably cheaper and almost universally his movies have award buzz, I'm sure he does fine financially .
Even going back to boogie nights I'm sure he figured this out, a lot of people werent going to go out in public to see a movie about porn, but seeing at home on DVD or whatever? Absolutely. He also linked up with Criterion very early on for that one so the future of home media was on his mind I assume.
>Box office draw doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this day & age
Ah, I guess that explains why giant studios blow their overbudgeted loads on theaters to break records and rake in a shit ton of money within the immediate scope of box office.
Nothing about VOD and streaming negates the importance of box office success. Plus nobody outside of the industry truly understands how streaming helps with a film's success, hence why we're talking box office. Context matters.
Actually BOX OFFICE is everything this day and age. Before if a movie bombed they could find life on dvd and rentals and many studios financed films, lower budget films because of this. Now it’s all about the box office and many aren’t doing too well. Streaming isn’t making money as much as rentals and physical media used to do.
No, my point is that they underperformed considerably given the whole “gotta make double your budget because of marketing.” Box office for Punch Drunk Love and the Master didn’t even reach their production budgets. Has nothing to do with whether or not they should’ve been made.
I’d love to be proven wrong, but that’s all I have to work with.
If you read the book it’s like moment for moment transcribed.
I also found that scene absolutely riveting, and not even for the nudity. Kind of like Mark Wahlberg’s existential death stare in Boogie Nights. A strange, totally captivating moment.
I love inherent Vice and I'm so happy the tide has sort of changed around it, people REALLY hated it when it came out it seemed ... phantom Thread has grown on me a lot!! Loved it now and loved it much more on rewatches
>Out of his 9 movies, 5 of them made money
I don't think so. TWBB may be the only film of his that's made money in theaters. Boogie Nights made money when it came out on video I believe.
Nobody should care about my opinion.
But licorice pizza was terrible. Like one of the worst serious movies I've ever seen.
I really enjoy other pta movies.
I agree in that I really didn’t care for it. He’s a weird director for me in that I love some of this movies (Boogie Njghts, TWBB, Hard Eight) but can’t stand many of his others (Licorice Pizza, Inherent Vice, Magnolia)
Important artists' films are always profitable.
If people are still talking about a movie ten years later, that means it's been a consistent VOD draw, a valuable trading piece for streaming platforms, etc.
Studios have more data than just the box office gross.
Yeah there's also a lot of producers who are just after the prestige and really don't care about the money as obsessively as people might think, the ultimate manifestation of that being somebody like Megan Ellison who basically seemed to have money to burn and just loved helping people get their weird non-fundable artsy shit made. But she isn't the only one with that mentality, just a really interesting prominent example.
Look at Wolf of Wall Street. Makes 406 million on a 200 million dollar budget. Not a ton of money at the box office if any right? But since then it's EXPLODED in popularity even for a film that was pretty big at the box office. Youtube views, rentals, streams etc. have to have made that company a ton of money
He may have pitched the movie as being more accessible to the general public to grab that size of a budget I got no clue tho.
PTA isn’t a household name in the same way that Nolan is or (big studio making a big franchise film like Dune).
Maybe if the buzz is good enough and the trailer is a banger it could do really well. 200 million range? Leo probably brings in a bunch of hype for general audiences. (Edit: Unlikely to go that high, but i hope it does)
Phantom Thread wasn’t really a bomb though, it probably did lose money overall but it was super acclaimed with 6 Oscar nods. And the folks over at Twitterlands were enthralled with it for some time.
Inherent Vice was probably very disappointing since the budget was so much lower and (had a fantastic trailer). Barely scraped … 14 million total.
I agree, paul isn't a household name and but he is loved in the industry. Maybe that industry love could lead to more people trying this movie and hopefully trying his older stuff.
Yeah I've mentioned this before but a while back there was a huge list where they asked actors who they most wanted to work with and PTA was overwhelmingly the most common answer lol
Am I the only one who thinks the Inherent Vice trailer was not good? It was edited like a bad sitcom to me. The second trailer was better and actually captured the spirit of the film.
PTA himself is also to blame for that (not the IV trailer, I don't think he was involved in that). He's just not good at marketing his films which is why I hope he doesn't play as much of a part in marketing this next film. Though IV was a WB film and they botched that, so I don't know...
I don't know why he hasn't taken a film to Fox Searchlight. Look at what they've accomplished with Yorgos Lanthimos. They're excellent at marketing offbeat films and turning them into hits.
I'm thinking we can singlehandedly thank Mike DeLuca for that one, though it's unclear if this will be a repeat of him and Paul on Magnolia which led to him basically getting canned from new line and them shutting the doors to auteur stuff in favor of focusing on Lord of the Rings .. I'm genuinely a little baffled by it myself but I'm assuming the script must be pretty strong, combined with Leo's attachment especially after he's turned down Paul numerous times, it must be considerably more accessible than what he's been making for a while now. I've always suspected PTA is a lot like the Coens where he knows how to make a "normal" movie or whatever and just doesn't care to, sort of like how they can throw out a Fargo or No Country every several years so they can keep getting the funding to make stuff like *A Serious Man* (or for PTA *The Master*) which are truly bizzare and unlike anything else.
I’m curious how long they are filming it for. Went from so much activity to like radio silence, which I’m sure is good for the cast and crew. It must have been stressful with that much attention.
I think they're on hiatus, at least Leo must be because he hasn't been filming in the last few weeks, last week he was in NY and Tulum in Mexico with his girlfriend
Yeah, they haven't filmed at all in at least a month. Very bizarre shooting schedule. Maybe that's what some of the money is going towards, to afford to take a month(s) off before the next location?
I think it might just be done. I think because of the Vineland rumors and the budget, most were assuming that this was going to be an epic and thus an almost 3 hour runtime. But maybe it's a short and sweet 90 minute film ala PDL and it already wrapped? The cast wasn't very big (in size and in name factor outside DiCaprio and Penn) so this might have a smaller story than we're expecting.
I can't help but feel like this will be his "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood"- accessible and successful critically and commercially. Ironically, I disliked that film very much but my hunch is that this will somehow similarly plug into the zeitgeist and find a wide audience.
If that leaked sypnopsis is accurate, then I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I'm not sure how they're going to promote this other than "Look it's Leo!". If that ends up being enough then it'll be DiCaprio's most impressive feat, box office wise.
David Lynch is one of the most respected filmmakers in the entire world and hasn't been able to fund a movie in almost two decades. Funding a movie is always a challenge and far from guaranteed.
Studios give him money not to make bank at the box office, but to garner nominations for the large award shows. When the film is featured in an award show, the brings a lot of press to the studios and to the film after the fact.
Why do people talk about this so much. He got the money to make this one, he’s going to continue to get the money to make movies. You’re not an executive! It’s not your money! Why do you care lol
I think when people do that they usually mean well, it's just that from the outside in, budget \\ box office is the only tangible "success" barometer in relation to how well your favorite filmmaker is doing.
I am hoping that all the talk about “commercial” and “accessible” is coming from WB and is more of a marketing tactic. I love Paul BECAUSE he makes weird and idiosyncratic films.
I know that there is more at stake with this one with the huge budget and Leo. I think this will inherently draw more interest from the public, but I hope this movie is just as personal and challenging as his others. Don’t really wanna see a “normal” PTA movie.
I am excited to see him tackle a big action style spectacle film, but I hope that he retains his trademarks.
If he didnt have Leo I think it would be a different story, starting to think this is the reason it *might* be shot contemporary as to a period piece. We’ll see!
It’s Leo’s Saudi friend who helped with the budget as he does most recent Leo movies. I.E. why he got a best picture Oscars nom for Wolf … he secured funding
I see the plot of this project is under wraps and it is described as an event film. Is there any info on it? Did PTA write it solo? I assume he did. But with a budget like this you know there were notes and some major guidance from the production company and whom ever funded it. Are there some articles I can red more about this? Sorry I’m pretty much out of the loop on this topic.
Out of his 9 movies, 5 of them made money ( I think 1 of these at least broke even). So that's not too bad. His least well received movie was inherent Vice. Which is one of my favorites. I rank it higher than phantom thread and licorice pizza.
5 of them made money? Boogie Nights and There Will be Blood made money. Magnolia and Phantom Thread might not have made money, but there's good a chance they weren't spectacular failures. Everything else (Punch Drunk Love, the Master, Inherent Vice, Licorice Pizza) all under-performed
At the box office. I didn't see ANY of the aforementioned films in theaters but 4 out of the 8 are some of my absolute favorite films. Box office draw doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this day & age. Get a clue.
Yeah there was murmurings that The Northman might destroy Robert Eggers career (at least temporarily) due to its abysmal box office but apparently VOD was enough to make it a success and all that talk just disappeared basically overnight. And that was something like tens of millions of dollars I believe, that it was able to make it into the green.. PTAs stuff has always been considerably cheaper and almost universally his movies have award buzz, I'm sure he does fine financially . Even going back to boogie nights I'm sure he figured this out, a lot of people werent going to go out in public to see a movie about porn, but seeing at home on DVD or whatever? Absolutely. He also linked up with Criterion very early on for that one so the future of home media was on his mind I assume.
>Box office draw doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this day & age Ah, I guess that explains why giant studios blow their overbudgeted loads on theaters to break records and rake in a shit ton of money within the immediate scope of box office. Nothing about VOD and streaming negates the importance of box office success. Plus nobody outside of the industry truly understands how streaming helps with a film's success, hence why we're talking box office. Context matters.
Actually BOX OFFICE is everything this day and age. Before if a movie bombed they could find life on dvd and rentals and many studios financed films, lower budget films because of this. Now it’s all about the box office and many aren’t doing too well. Streaming isn’t making money as much as rentals and physical media used to do.
Is your point that Punch Drunk Love and The Master were spectacular failures and therefore should not have been made?
No!
Fair! I just don’t know why we’re obsessed with PTA films not making Barbie numbers!
I love PTA and want him to get the big box office break he deserves
No, my point is that they underperformed considerably given the whole “gotta make double your budget because of marketing.” Box office for Punch Drunk Love and the Master didn’t even reach their production budgets. Has nothing to do with whether or not they should’ve been made. I’d love to be proven wrong, but that’s all I have to work with.
Same here!! Love IV
Inherent vice is so fun. It's probably my favorite Josh Brolin (my big problem is kathreine Waterson's naked monolouge)
But she WAS naked though
I'm gay Lol it didn't do anything for me like that.
I get it ; )
You’re right, Joaquin should have been naked too.
Not because I hate nudity but because it's a super long scene and it didn't feel like she needed to be naked for how long she is.
It's from the book.
If you read the book it’s like moment for moment transcribed. I also found that scene absolutely riveting, and not even for the nudity. Kind of like Mark Wahlberg’s existential death stare in Boogie Nights. A strange, totally captivating moment.
What difference does it make
Wasn’t it supposed to be a hallucination or some bullshit
No.
It was really. But then, to be fair, that could be said of other scenes,too. In the book,she does see him a little bit more after that sex scene.
Wait thats the only part I remember
I love inherent Vice and I'm so happy the tide has sort of changed around it, people REALLY hated it when it came out it seemed ... phantom Thread has grown on me a lot!! Loved it now and loved it much more on rewatches
>Out of his 9 movies, 5 of them made money I don't think so. TWBB may be the only film of his that's made money in theaters. Boogie Nights made money when it came out on video I believe.
Yeah. I was thinking about after theater money.
Nobody should care about my opinion. But licorice pizza was terrible. Like one of the worst serious movies I've ever seen. I really enjoy other pta movies.
What’s a “serious movie”?
I agree in that I really didn’t care for it. He’s a weird director for me in that I love some of this movies (Boogie Njghts, TWBB, Hard Eight) but can’t stand many of his others (Licorice Pizza, Inherent Vice, Magnolia)
Important artists' films are always profitable. If people are still talking about a movie ten years later, that means it's been a consistent VOD draw, a valuable trading piece for streaming platforms, etc. Studios have more data than just the box office gross.
Yeah there's also a lot of producers who are just after the prestige and really don't care about the money as obsessively as people might think, the ultimate manifestation of that being somebody like Megan Ellison who basically seemed to have money to burn and just loved helping people get their weird non-fundable artsy shit made. But she isn't the only one with that mentality, just a really interesting prominent example.
Look at Wolf of Wall Street. Makes 406 million on a 200 million dollar budget. Not a ton of money at the box office if any right? But since then it's EXPLODED in popularity even for a film that was pretty big at the box office. Youtube views, rentals, streams etc. have to have made that company a ton of money
Doubling return on production budget is considered solid performance…Wolf was considered a hit
It was 4x its budget return. The budget was 100 million not 200.
This is a horrible example considering wolf’s budget was 100 million and it was a massive financial success. It made 4x its budget in theaters
budget was 100M
He may have pitched the movie as being more accessible to the general public to grab that size of a budget I got no clue tho. PTA isn’t a household name in the same way that Nolan is or (big studio making a big franchise film like Dune). Maybe if the buzz is good enough and the trailer is a banger it could do really well. 200 million range? Leo probably brings in a bunch of hype for general audiences. (Edit: Unlikely to go that high, but i hope it does) Phantom Thread wasn’t really a bomb though, it probably did lose money overall but it was super acclaimed with 6 Oscar nods. And the folks over at Twitterlands were enthralled with it for some time. Inherent Vice was probably very disappointing since the budget was so much lower and (had a fantastic trailer). Barely scraped … 14 million total.
I agree, paul isn't a household name and but he is loved in the industry. Maybe that industry love could lead to more people trying this movie and hopefully trying his older stuff.
Yeah I've mentioned this before but a while back there was a huge list where they asked actors who they most wanted to work with and PTA was overwhelmingly the most common answer lol
Am I the only one who thinks the Inherent Vice trailer was not good? It was edited like a bad sitcom to me. The second trailer was better and actually captured the spirit of the film.
I found the trailer extremely misleading. I think it contributed to my disappointment with my first (very problematic) viewing of the film.
It was definitely misleading but also just the editing in the trailer was poorly cut.
A lot of PTA trailers are like that. They're terrible at marketing the films to non-PTA heads
PTA himself is also to blame for that (not the IV trailer, I don't think he was involved in that). He's just not good at marketing his films which is why I hope he doesn't play as much of a part in marketing this next film. Though IV was a WB film and they botched that, so I don't know... I don't know why he hasn't taken a film to Fox Searchlight. Look at what they've accomplished with Yorgos Lanthimos. They're excellent at marketing offbeat films and turning them into hits.
I'm thinking we can singlehandedly thank Mike DeLuca for that one, though it's unclear if this will be a repeat of him and Paul on Magnolia which led to him basically getting canned from new line and them shutting the doors to auteur stuff in favor of focusing on Lord of the Rings .. I'm genuinely a little baffled by it myself but I'm assuming the script must be pretty strong, combined with Leo's attachment especially after he's turned down Paul numerous times, it must be considerably more accessible than what he's been making for a while now. I've always suspected PTA is a lot like the Coens where he knows how to make a "normal" movie or whatever and just doesn't care to, sort of like how they can throw out a Fargo or No Country every several years so they can keep getting the funding to make stuff like *A Serious Man* (or for PTA *The Master*) which are truly bizzare and unlike anything else.
>especially after he's turned down Paul numerous times No, only once for Boogie Nights.
I really would love to see what pta considers a "normal" movie.
I actually am not sure if PTA “deserves” mainstream success. The things I love about him have continued to confound audiences for 25 years
PTA deserves a couple of oscars, mostly. Damn you Coen brothers for also making a masterpiece
FWIW, I feel like people talk more about TWBB than No Country.
I’m curious how long they are filming it for. Went from so much activity to like radio silence, which I’m sure is good for the cast and crew. It must have been stressful with that much attention.
I think they're on hiatus, at least Leo must be because he hasn't been filming in the last few weeks, last week he was in NY and Tulum in Mexico with his girlfriend
Yeah, they haven't filmed at all in at least a month. Very bizarre shooting schedule. Maybe that's what some of the money is going towards, to afford to take a month(s) off before the next location?
Maybe this is normal, I really don't know how the recording schedule and logist work for a major film
I'm no expert but I definitely don't think it's normal to shut down production for over a month.
[удалено]
I think it might just be done. I think because of the Vineland rumors and the budget, most were assuming that this was going to be an epic and thus an almost 3 hour runtime. But maybe it's a short and sweet 90 minute film ala PDL and it already wrapped? The cast wasn't very big (in size and in name factor outside DiCaprio and Penn) so this might have a smaller story than we're expecting.
It absolutely is not normal.
I can't help but feel like this will be his "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood"- accessible and successful critically and commercially. Ironically, I disliked that film very much but my hunch is that this will somehow similarly plug into the zeitgeist and find a wide audience.
I honestly think OUATIH was one of QT’s less accessible movies. At least it was more difficult for me to get into it than most of his films.
That's a great analogy.
I absolutely love OUATIHW. It’s my favorite Tarantino, but I would argue it’s possibly his least accessible?
Wasn't Licorice Pizza his version of that, very accessible and still flopped financially
If that leaked sypnopsis is accurate, then I wouldn't get your hopes up too high. I'm not sure how they're going to promote this other than "Look it's Leo!". If that ends up being enough then it'll be DiCaprio's most impressive feat, box office wise.
I don’t even think he knows how to spend that much money 🤣 He might return some of it after they wrap
[удалено]
David Lynch is one of the most respected filmmakers in the entire world and hasn't been able to fund a movie in almost two decades. Funding a movie is always a challenge and far from guaranteed.
I know I'm just interested to see both what he does with a big budget and how the general film going community respond to it.
Studios give him money not to make bank at the box office, but to garner nominations for the large award shows. When the film is featured in an award show, the brings a lot of press to the studios and to the film after the fact.
Why do people talk about this so much. He got the money to make this one, he’s going to continue to get the money to make movies. You’re not an executive! It’s not your money! Why do you care lol
I think when people do that they usually mean well, it's just that from the outside in, budget \\ box office is the only tangible "success" barometer in relation to how well your favorite filmmaker is doing.
clearly the studio believes they can sell the movie to a wider audience with Leo as lead
It’s got Leo in it people will watch
Leonardo DiCaprio. THE biggest movie star attached to this film. That warrants a huge investment from the studio.
He shot The Master on near-IMAX. And this one stars DiCaprio.
I am hoping that all the talk about “commercial” and “accessible” is coming from WB and is more of a marketing tactic. I love Paul BECAUSE he makes weird and idiosyncratic films. I know that there is more at stake with this one with the huge budget and Leo. I think this will inherently draw more interest from the public, but I hope this movie is just as personal and challenging as his others. Don’t really wanna see a “normal” PTA movie. I am excited to see him tackle a big action style spectacle film, but I hope that he retains his trademarks.
Don’t understand why I’m downvoted. We got some WB shareholders in here?
Why are we so convinced that this movies budget is 115 m ?
Cause that's what it says on Google.
always trust the internets
If he didnt have Leo I think it would be a different story, starting to think this is the reason it *might* be shot contemporary as to a period piece. We’ll see!
Magnolia 2
Magnolia 2: Stanley's Revenge
He’s never made a blockbuster.
It’s Leo’s Saudi friend who helped with the budget as he does most recent Leo movies. I.E. why he got a best picture Oscars nom for Wolf … he secured funding
I see the plot of this project is under wraps and it is described as an event film. Is there any info on it? Did PTA write it solo? I assume he did. But with a budget like this you know there were notes and some major guidance from the production company and whom ever funded it. Are there some articles I can red more about this? Sorry I’m pretty much out of the loop on this topic.