Chris Nolan Saving Movie Theaters

[DLD]

This is a couple of months old. Tom Hanks' WWII film "Greyhound" was slated to open this summer but, due to the unforeseen events, was auctioned off to Apple+ for $70M (15 year streaming rights), with China excluded.

https://deadline.com/2020/05/tom-ha...ii-action-film-apple-wins-auction-1202938467/

Obviously, this doesn't bode well for movie theaters.

 

[John Brawley]

This is a couple of months old. Tom Hanks' WWII film "Greyhound" was slated to open this summer but, due to the unforeseen events, was auctioned off to Apple+ for $70M (15 year streaming rights), with China excluded.

https://deadline.com/2020/05/tom-ha...ii-action-film-apple-wins-auction-1202938467/

Obviously, this doesn't bode well for movie theaters.

I'm sure there are also residuals and a backend based on numbers which we will never know....

JB

 

[DLD]

I'm sure there are also residuals and a backend based on numbers which we will never know....

JB

But that's probably after the breakeven point. According to Wikipedia, the negatives were $50M. Plus, they were already advertising last winter. $70M leaves them with some profit but not a whole lot.

On the other hand, China loves WWII flicks. An absolutely awful Russian "Stalingrad" (2013) grossed about $20M there. With Hanks, "Greyhound" should do a lot more (but, Sony's cut off that will be about 30%).

 

[John Brawley]

But that's probably after the breakeven point. According to Wikipedia, the negatives were $50M. Plus, they were already advertising last winter. $70M leaves them with some profit but not a whole lot.

On the other hand, China loves WWII flicks. An absolutely awful Russian "Stalingrad" (2013) grossed about $20M there. With Hanks, "Greyhound" should do a lot more (but, Sony's cut off that will be about 30%).

The general rule so that a film breaks even at 4 times it’s budget.

That’s a rough rule but in my experience it’s a good one. That’s the cost of P&A as well (marketing)

JB

 

[filmguy123]

I'm very, very curious to see what will play out with Tenent & Top Gun 2. They're really pushing to keep Tenent launching this summer, pushing it back twice already now to August 12. But with the state of COVID getting worse than ever, I'm struggling to see how they're going to keep that date. Even if legally allowed, it seems it would be a lackluster turnout. And with fall/winter being high flu season, I'm doubtful theaters will be packed for the new Christmas air date of Top Gun Maverick.

Will they just hold these indefinitely till 2021? That could make for a crowded schedule (also not good for finances) as others projects are resuming (i.e., MI:7 has resumed production and targeting 2021 release date). Or will they pioneer a new model for home release? Really, if they dropped Tenent for in home purchase for $40 next month (with a planned price decrease in 6 months) I would buy it day 1. Hardly more than 2 theater tickets plus ownership.

That said, I feel for Nolan. First the fiasco with his logo (which was brilliant) and losing that. And then losing the perfect palindrome release date of 7.17 (and maybe 2020!), also fitting the theme. And now possibly trying to figure out whether his work will ever get screened properly to audiences in a theatrical setting. That's all got to be devastating.

 

[DLD]

4X is reasonable approximation but "Greyhound" won't hit the theaters and its P&A was, at some point, taken over by Apple+. So, "Greyhound" may not be a sinking ship yet but it is in uncharted waters (these are all the naval puns I could master and commander).

Or, simply put, it's the new reality. Apple may have overpaid but Hanks was also very unhappy since he probably had a huge chunk of profits after a certain point and that's all gone.

PS. 4X the budget is $200M, studio cut is half. Take out $50M in marketing expenses and you get the breakeven right on the button. So, it's a good rule of thumb.

 

[John Brawley]

Or, simply put, it's the new reality. Apple may have overpaid but Hanks was also very unhappy since he probably had a huge chunk of profits after a certain point and that's all gone.

There's no reason he wouldn't have negotiated his points to follow the numbers (downloads). That's what I was saying. He would still be pulling residuals / points out aside from the headline price. Streamers aren't just outright buying anymore...

JB

 

[ahalpert]

I just hope Tenet is better than Inception and Interstellar. Regardless of how/when it's released. (I'm sure many will disagree with me.)

 

[Guest]

I just hope Tenet is better than Inception and Interstellar. Regardless of how/when it's released. (I'm sure many will disagree with me.)

If you want a movie about family, self, the community, and opportunity, duty, and regrets, I think Interstellar hits a little harder. But all Sci-Fi is a little disappointing, in particular time travel. And Nolan being a film maker seems intent on exploring the manipulation of time. I think American audiences want to be dazzled and mind blown too much. Left over vestige of the nickelodeon circus show heritage that is the roots of the American Industrial Film experience.

ymmv.

 

[ahalpert]

Sci-fi? Disappointing? My HOME this is!

Interstellar didn't hit home for me. I thought Gravity was a way better movie. Which I compare because they're both space adventures with similar themes ("to move ahead, you've gotta leave something behind" or whatever McConaughey said, nowhere better manifested than the shot of Clooney setting himself adrift in space to save Bullock). If anything, Gravity was a little too neatly packaged. But it was thrilling and moving and had powerful themes. Chivo's winding spinning shooting was...amazing. I'm sure Kubrick would have loved it. I barely remember Interstellar, which is not good. Something about love being the 4th dimension or something dumb like that.

Nolan's problem isn't that he's making American movies. It's that he's too English. He's very clever and he's obsessed with being clever (like the English are). But cleverness isn't an end in itself in showbusiness. There was a scene in Inception where the characters were asleep in a car doing a barrel roll. And it was cutting between 2 other states of consciousness that were happening simultaneously like "SEE - THIS small amount of time here takes THIS MUCH MORE time over HERE." I get it! You shouldn't be able to bore me with that many effects and stars.

Memento and the Prestige were such fantastic films. Perhaps in part because they were more limited in scope.

And don't knock sci-fi again! Every genre has its pitfalls, but you can find just as many masterpieces and strokes of genius in sci-fi as anywhere else. And time travel, when it's done right (Primer and Time Crimes come to mind) is a joy to contemplate.

 

[Guest]

Sci-fi? Disappointing?

Yes, a little. Always. There is something that is always a little off, maybe the film makers break the rules of their universe, or maybe something just doesn't seem all that plausible to people. Throw time travel in the mix and you create even more possible stumbling blocks for audiences. I've never watched a Sci-Fi where someone doesn't try to pick it apart or struggle with plot holes. More so than any other genre, and it is typically the sci-fi fans that are doing the picking.

Gravity was a way better movie.

It is a mind blowing spectacle with a tidy little narrative. Perfect for American audiences' taste.

Nolan's problem isn't that he's making American movies. He's very clever and he's obsessed with being clever.

I cleaned up your quote, that is what you should have said. I suppose you have some claim to some heritage that you're more willingly criticize the British in broad unanimous strokes. You didn't even qualify as "some" British.

But cleverness isn't an end in itself in showbusiness. There was a scene in Inception where the characters were asleep in a car doing a barrel roll. And it was cutting between 2 other states of consciousness that were happening simultaneously like "SEE - THIS small amount of time here takes THIS MUCH MORE time over HERE." I get it!

Perils of mass media, omit the obvious and leave half the audience in the dark, or keep the obvious in and annoy the other half. At least the slomo of the car looked better than most exposition.

You shouldn't be able to bore me with that many effects and stars.

Why am I defending a sci-fi fantasy film to the sci-fi fan?

Memento and the Prestige were such fantastic films. Perhaps in part because they were more limited in scope.

Right, but you also don't like Nolan's two sci-fi films, but seem to like his other stuff.

And don't knock sci-fi again! Every genre has its pitfalls, but you can find just as many masterpieces and strokes of genius in sci-fi as anywhere else. And time travel, when it's done right (Primer and Time Crimes come to mind) is a joy to contemplate.

Sure, but when I watch a rom-com, I am not typically worried about Rian Johnson destroying the Star Wars universe with the misuse of hyperspace. When I watch a period piece I am not worried about if John Connor from Terminator 2 could have been born. Sci-Fi inherently has those issues, and even if it does well, they often become dated more quickly than other genres. It doesn't take away from how good they can be, but it is just part of the inherent flaw of fiction in general, just that sci-fi is full of things that don't exist but need to have a logical explanation. Harry Potter is magic....

So, yeah, all sci-fi is a little disappointing at the end of the day. If it isn't, then maybe it isn't really sci-fi. Because I think sci-fi should push the boundaries of disbelief, otherwise, where's the fun or value?

 

[ahalpert]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply, James. I love film discussions like this.

TL;DR = sci-fi technology is a fun puzzle but the social commentary of sci-fi is really what counts. Nolan's sci-fi failed me on a basic storytelling level

Yes, a little. Always. There is something that is always a little off, maybe the film makers break the rules of their universe, or maybe something just doesn't seem all that plausible to people. Throw time travel in the mix and you create even more possible stumbling blocks for audiences. I've never watched a Sci-Fi where someone doesn't try to pick it apart or struggle with plot holes. More so than any other genre, and it is typically the sci-fi fans that are doing the picking.

Well, Star Wars was a bigger blockbuster than Jaws, right? Back to the Future did OK and I think there was some time travel in there. I dont even believe it's possible to travel back in time (although I think some physicists have speculated that you could build a machine that could be used to travel back as far as the moment of its own creation).

But it's fun to imagine "what if" and to acknowledge that I dont know the limits of what's possible.

Then it's like a puzzle. You have to figure out what the rules are and how it would unfold. Determining if the movie broke the rules is part of the fun. If it bent them, that might be ok. If it bends them too far, that might be dissatisfying, and then we call it "fantasy" lol.

A lot of the technology in Star Trek might be infeasible. But books have been written ("The Science of Trek") trying to answer that question. Fun!

It is a mind blowing spectacle with a tidy little narrative. Perfect for American audiences' taste.

I cleaned up your quote, that is what you should have said. I suppose you have some claim to some heritage that you're more willingly criticize the British in broad unanimous strokes. You didn't even qualify as "some" British.

I didn't mean to slur the English (who are "some" of the British). But you didn't qualify "some" American audiencemembers' taste, either.

Of course, not all Englishmen are obsessed with intelligence. But I've met many who are and it seems like a pervasive cultural influence. I get the impression that Nolan is trying to one-up himself in complexity.

Perils of mass media, omit the obvious and leave half the audience in the dark, or keep the obvious in and annoy the other half. At least the slomo of the car looked better than most exposition.

I'm in the half that was annoyed. I don't care what other people thought. Part of what makes 2001 great is the mystery and the lack of explixit explanation. I still don't get it. Memento and the Prestige didn't need to hit us over the head.

Why am I defending a sci-fi fantasy film to the sci-fi fan?

I have a lower bar for movies with laser guns and spaceships and a higher potential reward. But disappoint me and feel my wrath!

Right, but you also don't like Nolan's two sci-fi films, but seem to like his other stuff.

The Prestige was sci-fi, just less loudly. Prestige turned on a cloning/teleportation machine invented by Nikola Tesla. Batman is arguably sci-fi. He has no superpowers.

Interstellar and Inception failed for me because I didn't find the character and situations compelling. But they might have succeeded with a different execution.

Sure, but when I watch a rom-com, I am not typically worried about Rian Johnson destroying the Star Wars universe with the misuse of hyperspace. When I watch a period piece I am not worried about if John Connor from Terminator 2 could have been born. Sci-Fi inherently has those issues, and even if it does well, they often become dated more quickly than other genres. It doesn't take away from how good they can be, but it is just part of the inherent flaw of fiction in general, just that sci-fi is full of things that don't exist but need to have a logical explanation. Harry Potter is magic....

I mean, rom coms are full of fake stuff. ("Sure, the empire state building is closed but you can go back up.") I get what you're trying to argue and there may be some truth to it. But...Frankenstein is pretty damn eternal. It's all about theme. I don't sci-fi films age any worse than other genres. The GUIs in the Trek movies I'm currently watching were current in 1985. But it doesn't ruin the movie.

So, yeah, all sci-fi is a little disappointing at the end of the day. If it isn't, then maybe it isn't really sci-fi. Because I think sci-fi should push the boundaries of disbelief, otherwise, where's the fun or value?

I think I see what you're getting at. There's an inherent contradiction in presenting impossible technology in a realistic way. But let's remember that a lot of science fiction becomes reality. (Voyage to the Moon, anyone? How about how Star Trek communicators look like flip phones?)

But I dunno. I just generally like science fiction. It works for me on several levels that I can identify:

1. Technophoria. The joy of new technology. Today it's smartphones. Tomorrow, light travel. I would like to travel faster than light and be able to teleport. It's a liberation fantasy and the logical extension of current technological progress.

2. Dreaming of a better world. It's nice to imagine a better future or, at least a future with manichean moral clarity. Helps one escape from what one dislikes about the current state of affairs

3. Holds a mirror to our society. This is the biggest reason to like sci-fi. Science fiction is typically a commentary on the times of its writing (1984 a critique of communism, Brave New World a critique of state capitalism). A typical scientific fiction story goes like "imagine a world where the population survives by eating the elderly who have been turned into soylent green." What does that say about our social values? What should our values be?

Star Trek was a clear reaction to WWII and the Cold War. The bridge crew included a guy from Kansas, a Russian, a Japanese man, an African woman, and a half-human half-Vulcan man.

The show featured the first interracial kiss ever shown on television (spock and uhura).

Martin luther king was a fan of the show:. He told the actress whi played Uhura: "King explained that her character signified a future of greater racial harmony and cooperation.[11] King told Nichols, "You are our image of where we're going, you're 300 years from now, and that means that's where we are and it takes place now. Keep doing what you're doing, you are our inspiration."[12] As Nichols recounted, "Star Trek was one of the only shows that [King] and his wife Coretta would allow their little children to watch. And I thanked him and I told him I was leaving the show. All the smile came off his face. And he said, 'Don't you understand for the first time we're seen as we should be seen. You don't have a black role. You have an equal role.'"

On some level, science fiction isn't about technology. It's a chance to explore ourselves by pretending it's not about us

 

[Guest]

Nolan's sci-fi failed me on a basic storytelling level

people say this kind of stuff with zero backing.

You have said: "I barely remember Interstellar, which is not good. Something about love being the 4th dimension or something dumb like that."

Which to me is all part of that inherent disappointment in sci-fi, when some technical/scientific aspect doesn't logically satisfy the viewer. Sometimes it is big and destroys the film, and sometimes it is insignificant and people gloss over it, and often it lies somewhere in between.

But, start throwing around the "Bad writing" with no follow up, and I gotta call you on that. I'm not disagreeing, but if you're going to start saying things like that, at least back up the statements a little.

 

[Run&Gun]

The Prestige was sci-fi, just less loudly. Prestige turned on a cloning/teleportation machine invented by Nikola Tesla. Batman is arguably sci-fi. He has no superpowers.

Do you consider James Bond sci-fi, as well?

 

[ahalpert]

Love is the 4th dimension strikes me as fantasy, not science.

I thought it worked in the 5th element because it was an input in a machine that was designed intelligently. It wasn't a natural phenomenon.

I came to Interstellar ready to invest in the story. In fact, I had high Hope's. I found the movie boring and convoluted. The fact that I dont remember it that well is a symptom of it failing to captivate me. I wanted to be captivated but it failed me.

To analyze why - from what I remember, the plot was a bit hard to follow. There was some business about whispers from behind bookshelves or messages drawn in dust. These turned out to come from McConaughey from the future after he fell into a black hole. Ok maybe I could buy that. But there was some explanation about love itself being the technical reason for time travel or something. I didn't buy that.

I enjoyed when mcconaughey fell into the black hole. That was exciting. I didnt like the line he gave before he went in (something about newton's third law of motion and that to move ahead you had to leave something behind or something). I was down with the idea, but not the explicitness of how he said it. I liked the idea that he sacrificed himself heroically. I wasn't crazy about what happened when he fell into the black hole. Reality is more interesting - you get "spaghetiffied" as you fall into a blackhole because of the difference in gravity on different parts of your body. You get drawn out into pieces of spaghetti. And time slows to a virtual standstill from the point of view of outside observers who race ahead of you in time.

Or sure, you go back in time. Who really knows.

But I dont remember much else of the film. I saw it once and I saw gravity once. I remember gravity far better but was much more excited to see interstellar because I love scifi epics but I'm not a huge Clooney or Bullock fan.

 

[ahalpert]

Do you consider James Bond sci-fi, as well?

Wasn't there an invisible car in one of the bad ones?

I guess I would say these are cross-genre films. Prestige was mystery/period with sci-fi elements. Batman was superhero with sci-fi elements. James bond is thriller/spy with sci-fi elements. But you're right that sci-fi is not the dominant genre for those films

 

[Guest]

Love is the 4th dimension strikes me as fantasy, not science.

I thought it worked in the 5th element because it was an input in a machine that was designed intelligently. It wasn't a natural phenomenon.

I came to Interstellar ready to invest in the story. In fact, I had high Hope's. I found the movie boring and convoluted. The fact that I dont remember it that well is a symptom of it failing to captivate me. I wanted to be captivated but it failed me.

To analyze why - from what I remember, the plot was a bit hard to follow. There was some business about whispers from behind bookshelves or messages drawn in dust. These turned out to come from McConaughey from the future after he fell into a black hole. Ok maybe I could buy that. But there was some explanation about love itself being the technical reason for time travel or something. I didn't buy that.

I enjoyed when mcconaughey fell into the black hole. That was exciting. I didnt like the line he gave before he went in (something about newton's third law of motion and that to move ahead you had to leave something behind or something). I was down with the idea, but not the explicitness of how he said it. I liked the idea that he sacrificed himself heroically. I wasn't crazy about what happened when he fell into the black hole. Reality is more interesting - you get "spaghetiffied" as you fall into a blackhole because of the difference in gravity on different parts of your body. You get drawn out into pieces of spaghetti. And time slows to a virtual standstill from the point of view of outside observers who race ahead of you in time.

Or sure, you go back in time. Who really knows.

But I dont remember much else of the film. I saw it once and I saw gravity once. I remember gravity far better but was much more excited to see interstellar because I love scifi epics but I'm not a huge Clooney or Bullock fan.

You are picking on the sci-fi elements, and less on the writing though. But I guess it could be argued that it is all one and the same. But in any case, I think it is a part of the little disappointments that are inherent to Sci-fi. Much like when historical films are disappointing because of historical accuracies, but historical films do no guarantee glaring inaccuracies, but sci-fi is likely to ruffle someone's feathers by not delivering on the "science" or world logic.


You could have said something like how the perspective shift from McConaughey's father characters perspective to Chastain's daughter character's perspective was a little jarring. The movie went a long time telling the story sticking close to the Matthew's view, and then 30-40mintues in asks us to jump into another character... that took me out of the story, and it was also when all the pseudo science started getting heavier, and that to me was bad timing, if you want the audience to buy into the world. I feel like they should have introduced the multi character story telling device earlier in the film so that it wasn't so surprising mid way through.


But if you are hung up on the black hole and time travel, that is part of the science fiction trappings. Someone is going to disagree with the logic, even if it doesn't ruin the movie.

 

[ahalpert]

The problem is I don't remember any of the perspective jumping you're talking about. I think I just started forming memories again when we got to the black hole because I got excited.

Vs gravity-

I remember Clooney talking about her eyes as he faded away and I remembered feeling really sad. I remembered feeling excited when he showed up at her door after she had given up on life. But it seemed too good to be true - and, satisfyingly, he was a figment of her oxygen-starved imagination.

I remember him (her mind) telling her that landing was launching and she could use the launch thrusters to land. Smart.

I remember her telling herself (his words) that whatever happened coming down, she would have some stories to tell. A nice metaphor for life being a journey, good or bad, that we are privileged to enjoy and try to make the best of.

After all - she lost her only child. That must have been devastating. I dont know how you move on from that. That was part of the reason she threw herself into her work, as clooney mentioned that few scientists get to launch their experiments to space.

I remember the shot of her rotating like a fetus after she got back inside the ship and barely survived.

I remember the opening long shot of their shuttle coming around the planet, with Clooney darting about on his thrusters, wasting fuel (as we later learned). He was almost going to but not quite beat the record for most time in space. Which, ironically, he achieved as he was dying.

I remember the hole in their colleagues face after being hit by shrapnel. I remember her using a fire extinguisher to thrust herself barely back onto the ship (needing to throw it away at the end for the last bit of momentum).

I remember that it was lucky that her vessel had part of it break off, sending her into a wild spin on reentry. It seemed like bad luck, but surely it kept any one part of it from overheating and exploding (like a sidewinder snake).

I remember thinking the last shot of her setting food on land was a little overdone, although I liked the theme and metaphor. I remember a lot more than Interstellar and I experienced more and stronger emotions, only seeing each one once.

 

[Guest]

Wasn't there an invisible car in one of the bad ones?

I guess I would say these are cross-genre films. Prestige was mystery/period with sci-fi elements. Batman was superhero with sci-fi elements. James bond is thriller/spy with sci-fi elements. But you're right that sci-fi is not the dominant genre for those films

'Clueless' was sci-fi because they used cellphones.

I don't think technology in itself defines sci-fi. And not even fake technology. 'Gravity' is sci-fi, and a lot of Black mirror is sci-fi. I think it is a bit more about the exploration than the fact that gadgets are used. And in that sense, 'Dark Knight' is solidly not a sci-fi. It is a Super Hero genre film, because he is a super hero fighting super villains. Him and Wolverine are tech super heroes, but they aren't really exploring much beyond using it as window into the human soul, or whatever. James Bond and Mission Impossible, it is more about the events, and the tools they use are periphery cool toys.

'Gravity' and 'Stalker'. two drastically different sci-fi films, but neither one uses some unheard of technology for the most part. I'm not even sure that 'Gravity' is true Sci-fi. Feels more like it defaulted to Sci-fi because it was in space. But it felt more like a survival drama, like 'Castaway' or 'Apocalypto'. Andrei Tarkovsky's 'Stalker' was a little on the supernatural side, and I think it was lovely sci-fi, as well, but the ambiguity of it all, and the way it ties into science and an alternate version of the future allows it to still fit firmly in the sci-fi genre. Much of the ambiguity and lack of tech is because Tarkovsky wasted to make a timeless sci-fi film and avoided as many tappings of looking dated as possible. The irony is that the filming technology used looks much older than the film actually was. But at the end of the day, I think he succeeded fairly well in that regard.

 

[Guest]

I remember her telling herself (his words) that whatever happened coming down, she would have some stories to tell. A nice metaphor for life being a journey, good or bad, that we are privileged to enjoy and try to make the best of.

After all - she lost her only child. That must have been devastating. I dont know how you move on from that. That was part of the reason she threw herself into her work, as clooney mentioned that few scientists get to launch their experiments to space.

I remember the shot of her rotating like a fetus after she got back inside the ship and barely survived.

I forgot about this stuff, and there were traces of sci-fi in the ending.