• beefbotEnglish
    3·
    7 hours ago

    Hot take here and I havent seen it but it has all the signs of being that one late in life misunderstood film that everyone realizes later is completely genius 🤷‍♂️

  • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    9 hours ago

    Factoring in marketing costs and the theaters taking their cut of the profits, Megalopolis would need to make at least $300 million to break even. I think it’s safe to say that’s not happening.

    While the basic point still stands that this is a financial disaster for somebody, I would be seriously surprised if the usual blockbuster math regarding marketing comes into play here. No way Lionsgate paid $100M marketing a vanity project with “commercial flop” buzz from the beginning. If anything, it seems more like they picked it up on the cheap when everyone else passed, as a gesture to a legend (if apparently a creepy one), and a low-risk bet.

  • SineSwiper@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    2·
    10 hours ago

    Why would anybody spend $300 million on a movie nowadays? If this isn’t Avatar or Deadpool, it’s not going to make it back.

    • beefbotEnglish
      1·
      7 hours ago

      Idk, bc he’s Francis Fordckin Coppola, it’s his money, he’s 800yo, & wanted to just do a giant crazy flight of fancy on his own terms on his way out?

    • sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
      3·
      10 hours ago

      I think for someone like that, it isn’t about the money, it’s about making your artistic vision happen, using the clout you built elsewhere to push through a project that was never financially viable but it’s your dream as a filmmaker.

      Sometimes those stories end up becoming some of the biggest movies of all time, but often they just end up being a big waste of money except for the guy who gots to make his dream movie.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lolEnglish
    25·
    1 day ago

    I saw it and the theater had 6 Gen-X/Boomer white men in it, my weird self and SO (who wanted to leave), and a group of 4 millenials mocking the movie in it.

    First hour was pretty engrossing and the end is wild but I get why it’s hard to review. It’s definitely a mashup of all of Francis Ford Coppola’s favorite things and complaints he has.

    But it’s an optimists dream like view of reality. It’s akin to Inside by Bo Burnham, except far more hopeful and less pointed, and more like a club to bludgeon you with the message with.

    I kinda wish he had an even more limited budget to work with to inspire some real avant garde creativity but I’ll take what we got.

    I don’t think it needs to make it’s money back. I don’t think that’s what Coppola was going for. I’m not sure it will even be a cult classic (kinda depends what society does next) and I think that side thought is basically all of Coppola’s point. His medium to talk is just that of film.

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zoneEnglish
    4·
    22 hours ago

    We truly seem to be living in a time of entertainment correction.

    All the millions of dollars spent on monies video games and TV shows only for them to flop over and over.

    What a time to be alive.

      • phdepressed@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        9·
        22 hours ago

        Honestly, don’t think he has much acting chops from what I’ve seen him in. Largely unexpressive and when he is expressing something it doesn’t make me actually feel any connection to that emotion. Mostly, just another gloomy stoic white man. He’s got a weird face and decent fitness but that’s about it imo.

  • Don_Dickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    1 day ago

    While it may be panned now like Shawshank Redemption was I expect this to become a favorite down the road. Calling it here now.