...while Scorsese, Kubrick, PTA, Coens, Eggers, Coppola, Mann, Altman, lumet, Aster, Wes Anderson, Godard, Bergmann, Truffaut and scores of more auteurs struggled to deliver a major hit let alone something that grosses over 500 million.
I mean it's a 3 hour r-rated drama something which critics, cinephiles and other sycophants of these directors have always maintained is a hard sell to the audiences. Yet, here we are. Should we consider the possibility that these people were just boring hacks?
Box office success and the popularity of a film are based solely on luck.
I mean PTA can't be THAT unlucky. Don’t think he delivered anything that grossed more than 100 milly.
People are more likely to see films that are cultivated for a more mainstream audience, but that's just one factor and I swear it feels like it's randomized as to which movies become successful.
No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are practically sister films. They were filmed near each other, made with the same budget, released in the same year, and neither has a mainstream vibe. Critics have ranked PTA's movie among the 100 greatest of all time, yet the Coen brother's film made more than twice as much at the box office and is still a very popular movie even today.
Nothing makes sense.
The reality you don't want to hear is that you are way overrating the midwit mcdonalds arthouse film and critic opinion in general.
I'm not claiming he's an eminent auteur who challenges viewers or is immensely deserving of all the praise, but acknowledging the disparity between how these two movies performed commercially and socially due to pure chance.
I just chose those two based on production similarities and how frequently they get compared. They were even nominated for the same amount of Oscars.
You might be right about more people watching NCFOM based on what they heard about it, but the vast majority of people know few directors so they very rarely choose to see movies because of them. The main directors who get numbers based off of their name are probably Tarantino and Spielberg.
The most recent Coen brothers movie to be distributed in theaters grossed less than the PTA film released nearest to it despite being a Coen brothers film that features significantly more recognizable stars
Why does PTA make you feel so insecure anon?
>Nothing makes sense
Director recognition plays a big part, the Coens have cemented themselves in the industry with solid and fun flicks that audiences generally tend to enjoy, also because they're easier to digest than PTA's. Comparing two movies that share similarities in production and asking "Why didn't they do equally well at the BO?" is moronic, when the movies themselves are not even alike, both in story and tone. The average movie goer would rather go see the new Coen bros movie than PTA's because they're udually an easier watch, and in this case, because they heard NCFOM had more action to it than TWBB. DDL alone isn't enough of a draw compared to a very good thriller, PTA isn't on par with the Coens in popularity, and honestly, I don't blame people for choosing to go see a picture that looks like something happens in it over what from the ads looked like a DDL one man show.
>also because they're easier to digest than PTA's.
Lmao, PTA is not more intellectual than the Coens(who themselves are a bit too overrated). He's just more boring.
Maybe PTA just makes bad flicks, ever thought of that?
It’s carried by Nolan’s recognition since he made accessible films people liked like Inception and the dark knight trilogy and Cillian Murphy’s Peaky Blinders’ fame, it’s simple really
He could literally set any trend at this point as long as he played his cards right. He made a biopic worth billion dollars insane.
japs are hatewatching it.
Number of tickets sold is a better metric
Movies are complete dogshit now
Kubrick was competing with Hollywood in its prime
But that holds no weight because "Oppiebomber: The quest for peace (or total Jap anihilation)" is dogshit as well
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king
>Movies are complete dogshit now
This. When you have manchildren leaping to watch Barbie and idiots shilling Oppenheimer as if it's the best movie ever, you know the Hollywood film industry is dead.
>Kubrick was competing with Hollywood in its prime
Man, you had him, Sidney Lumet, Peter Weir, Spielberg, Scorsese, De Palma, Based Lucas, Coppola... The list can go on. And who do we have now?
> Based Lucas
And you have the gall to call others manchildren. Is there anything more manchildish than worshipping Lucas who played one of if not the most important role in making Hollywood what it is today with Star Wars.
>Star Wars is manchildren shlock! xDDDD
American Graffiti was a major hit that kicked off the teen movie trend and the addition of a music soundtrack as opposed to a traditional orchestra. Better widen your horizons, anon. There's a bigger world out there.
>American Graffiti was a major hit that kicked off the teen movie trend and the addition of a music soundtrack as opposed to a traditional orchestra.
Ignoring Easy Rider are we? But what makes you think this bit of trivia in any way contradicts or disproves the negative effect he had on the industry with Star Wars. What did you want to prove? That he had made something other than proto-capeshit? That he made something meaningful and had some positive effect before he fricked up the whole industry?
>Ignoring Easy Rider are we
Easy Rider isn't a teen movie, but rather a counterculture rebellion statement. What are you on?
I'm talking about the prominent use of songs in the movie moron.
>But what makes you think this bit of trivia in any way contradicts or disproves the negative effect he had on the industry with Star Wars. What did you want to prove? That he had made something other than proto-capeshit? That he made something meaningful and had some positive effect before he fricked up the whole industry?
It sounds like you're a butthurt prequel trasher. Well regardless of how you feel, George Lucas is a major pioneer and important filmmaker in history. Accept it, kind sir.
I don't care if you like the prequels but I find it odd that you despair at the state of modern cinema while overrating Lucas. I'll take the filmography of "overrated" filmbro directors like Nolan, Tarantino and Fincher over him.
>American Graffiti was a major hit that kicked off the teen movie trend
rebel without a cause was earlier, and even earlier still where teenage b-movies no one remembers. look into it and widen your horizons and knowledge
>And you have the gall to call others manchildren
If you (a man, and well over the age that Barbie is catered to) were excited to see Babrie, kindly off yourself.
The Godfather was a 3 hour R rated historical drama that once held the box office record moron
fewer options nowadays
Oppenheimer is the one big mainstream movie this summer for midwits that don’t care for capeshit. there’s nothing else.
>not understanding how modern movies backed by Hollywood investors work
Can you prove that $800 million came from legitimate ticket holders?
There used to be world class movies released every month. Now we're lucky to get 2 decent movies a year.
When's that new Terrence Malick movie about Jesus coming out?
T. Revisionist boomer
>t.wienersuckinghomosexual
its ">t." you brown zoomer newbie. If you say "t. joke" it means the signature is for your reply not his
Lurk for 3 more years
Marketing. You think all of those Oppenheimer memes started popping up organically? Same reason Barbie is so successful
>Should we consider the possibility that these people were just boring hacks?
Yup. Only reason Scorcese's Wolf of Wall Street made money was because it was a theme park ride
>bigger number means better
THe absolute state of the Americapitalist mind
But when you can combine critical AND commercial success, then you have a stand-out project
Who even cares about a film about some guy who helped make nukes, wow so exciting literally who gives a frick
But he said that edgy line that hipsters like to interrupt your concentration with, by saying 'err well akshually he misquoting a sacred text...'
Have made 0 effort to even look at the breakdown of where Oppenheimer made its revenue but is there something to be said for the world having a higher population now and poorer countries being more developed? Kubrick's most acclaimed film, 2001, came out in 1968 when the world population was half of what it is now and places like China/India had a lot less people watching Western films
It was also a time when streaming services, VOD, and videogames didn't exist, meaning there was way less competition for people's time and you HAD to see a movie in theaters if you ever wanted to see it at all. Selling tickets is easy when people have no alternatives.
the numbers are made up
>comparing movie gross instead of number of tickets sold
lol
people are cattle who are desperate to consume entertainment and the israelites know this. stop caring.
>Price of a movie ticket in Kubrick's time: 3$
>Price in Nolan's time: 20$
>OP: yesterday number smol number! today number big number! HOW??
Nolan is a whole another level honestly. He is an industry God, studios basically suck his wiener and beg him to make a movie about anything he wants with a blank check waving infront of his head constantly, because they know whatever they make it will end up being both critically and financially successful and loved by the general audience, same exact case with any film he ever made. Even if literal nukes are flying he'll make money.
Literally no one on this planet right now could go make a film like Oppenheimer and get the absurd high budget for it like Nolan did AND then get such high box office as well, no one.
>same exact case with any film he ever made
*cough* Tenet *cough*
To be fair that film came out right in the middle of Covid and still raked in $300 million. Obviously low for a Nolan film but given the circumstances still impressive.
Even for Tenet, there is no other director on the planet who would get 200 damn million for a budget for an original convoluted movie with non A list main actors but Nolan. And then release it in the middle of a scam pandemic where barely any cinemas where even open and still get almost double of the budget.
And then after such a film he manages to get a 100 million dollar budget for a 3 hour R rated biography film about an old scientist. It's crazy really, studios basically kneel to whatever Nolan says.
He's essentially a perfect director as far as the studios are concerned. His movies are always on schedule and on budget, he does almost no reshoots, his sets have no drama, and he can guarantee the general audience will come to see his movie no matter how outlandish or niche the premise.
If you're a studio exec, this is something you normally only dream about.
Warner Bros showed him the door and told him to frick off after Tenet sucked
It's literally why Barbie (made by WB) and Oppenheimer were in this giant dick waving contest for so long before they were even released
>Warner brothers overcorrected and made a stupid decision that they will inevitably regret
The market is larger now. You know the world population increases each year right? You know that more people transition from poverty to middle class each year right?
You can litrially produce trash and it it'll make a billion as long the Chinese watch your film, or there's no other movies out competing for the same audience.
25 years ago you had to be the best of 30 films in order to make cash... look as what movies were made in 1997, 98 or 99. A lot are classics now, and didn't make shit at the time becuase of competition
are any threads more obvious fricking shills than ticket grossing threads?
Internet memes and accessibility. Also comparing fricking Nolan to someone like Bergman or Kubrick is moronic. Nolan is not an auteur, neither is James Cameron
Uhmmm sweatie you should probably check the definition of auteur. Michael Bay is an auteur as well btw.
Sarcasm doesn't change you (and the homosexual you're responding to) are indeed ignorant about what auteur means. It means you have a unique vision and authorship over the movie instead of the studio committee. It doesn't mean great or sophisticated. Cameron and Nolan are definitely auteurs.
>It means you have a unique vision and authorship over the movie instead of the studio committee
Yeah, you are right
>Cameron and Nolan are definitely auteurs.
...
Because as we all know studio committees tell Nolan and Cameron what to do, lol.
Because movie tickets are more expensive now.
Nolan is the premium provider of npc slop
Why is mcdonalds more profitable than a nice restaurant with good cooks? Why is walmart more profitable than a fine furniture store?
people have more spending money, less movies on screens, admission ticket is bigger (and inflation boosts the number), and most of these directors didn't have the "global" market to boost the ticket sales.
>Aster
Fricking frick off dude
all of those directors insist upon themselves, whereas Nolan made a few Batmans
lmao this thread really made the films chuds seeth
Nolan hasnt made a bad film and no other director could make a 3 hour biopic about oppenheimer into a summer blockbuster, they didnt even show the japs getting vaporized or any single scene of war and people still flocked to it
5 imax showings a day were sold out at the cinema near me, thats like marvel level hype for historic drama, unreal scenes
based Nolan, frick Black folk, frick trannies, frick jannies and most of all frick film chuds lmao
no one else is making movies right now