criterionforum.org

CSM126 wrote:Probably about as long as it'll take Terrence Malick to work up the "hit maker" status necessary to have stroke with studio brass enough to make them do what he wants. Which is to say forever and a day.

Malick has more pull with studios than just about anybody. He's the ultimate prestige director. Any actor will offer his balls on a plate to work with him and he has final cut.

GringoTex wrote:Malick has more pull with studios than just about anybody. He's the ultimate prestige director. Any actor will offer his balls on a plate to work with him and he has final cut.

Malick couldn't even get a studio to back THE TREE OF LIFE with Pitt and Penn attached. Prestige and having every actor at your fingertips does not give you pull with the studios if you can't make money.

jaredsap wrote:Malick couldn't even get a studio to back THE TREE OF LIFE with Pitt and Penn attached. Prestige and having every actor at your fingertips does not give you pull with the studios if you can't make money.

??? Malick got a huge budget. What do you mean?

GringoTex wrote:Malick got a huge budget. What do you mean?

What was unclear about my statement? You said "Malick has more pull with studios than just about anybody." I responded Malick couldn't even get a studio to finance THE TREE OF LIFE with Pitt and Penn attached. In other words, the film has no studio attached to it. In other words, even with two of the biggest movie stars in the world, no studios would pay for the film. In other words, Malick does not have any pull with the studios because he makes brilliant, difficult art films that studios believe they cannot make enough, if any, money on.

Jared posted more or less what I was just about to. The Tree of Life was financed by some very wealthy dudes in India, not by any Hollywood Studios (who would ultimately be licensing to Criteiron). The film still does not have a North American distributor.

jaredsap wrote:

GringoTex wrote:Malick got a huge budget. What do you mean?

What was unclear about my statement? You said "Malick has more pull with studios than just about anybody." I responded Malick couldn't even get a studio to finance THE TREE OF LIFE with Pitt and Penn attached. In other words, the film has no studio attached to it. In other words, even with two of the biggest movie stars in the world, no studios would pay for the film. In other words, Malick does not have any pull with the studios because he makes brilliant, difficult art films that studios believe they cannot make enough, if any, money on.

You're not understanding the negotiating behind the scenes. Of course Malick could get studio funding. Except that he wanted 90 mil and they were only willing to put up 70 mil. So he gets overseas financing in exchange for foreign distribution and them comes back and sells the finished film to Hollywood. It has nothing to with his brilliance or his difficulty (both which are overstated by the Hollywood establishment). Everybody will be paid off and the Hollywood studio that picks up the film will have their nice prestige product.

I'm sure I'll be booted out of this thread, but...

GringoTex wrote:Of course Malick could get studio funding.

For certain projects, yes.

Except that he wanted 90 mil and they were only willing to put up 70 mil.

I don't believe that for a second. Source?

So he gets overseas financing in exchange for foreign distribution and them comes back and sells the finished film to Hollywood.

Of course.

It has nothing to with his brilliance or his difficulty (both which are overstated by the Hollywood establishment).

Huh? I said his films are brilliant but difficult.

Everybody will be paid off and the Hollywood studio that picks up the film will have their nice prestige product.

THE NEW WORLD lost money in the end.

jaredsap wrote:

Except that he wanted 90 mil and they were only willing to put up 70 mil.

I don't believe that for a second. Source?

I meant those as hypothetical numbers. I have no idea what the real numbers are. I read $150 mil somewhere but that can't possibly be true.

Has the "funding from India" been confirmed at all, ever? Hasn't it been just a rumor since the project's announcement three or four (or more) years ago, when Mel Gibson and Colin Farrel were supposed to star?

Jeff wrote:Jared posted more or less what I was just about to. The Tree of Life was financed by some very wealthy dudes in India, not by any Hollywood Studios (who would ultimately be licensing to Criteiron). The film still does not have a North American distributor.

Since we're probably about a year away from anything resembling a rough cut, I don't think we'll see any North American distributors signing on until they can see something. That said, while no studio is financing this thing, Brad Pitt's Plan B is one of the production companies, and given it has the potential of being a prestige pic in IMAX, sooner or later a studio will sign on.

GringoTex wrote:I meant those as hypothetical numbers. I have no idea what the real numbers are. I read $150 mil somewhere but that can't possibly be true.

With all due respect, your hypothetical numbers are absurd. You think a studio is offering $70 million to Malick to make a "Malick" movie? Not a chance in hell.

THE THIN RED LINE, with every movie star on the planet, an exciting, marketable genre and seven Oscar noms, still only grossed $36.4 million. THE NEW WORLD, with two pretty big stars, grossed $12.7 million. The Malickian ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD with Giant Movie Star Pitt grossed $3.9 million.

jaredsap wrote:

GringoTex wrote:I meant those as hypothetical numbers. I have no idea what the real numbers are. I read $150 mil somewhere but that can't possibly be true.

With all due respect, your hypothetical numbers are absurd. You think a studio is offering $70 million to Malick to make a "Malick" movie? Not a chance in hell.

THE THIN RED LINE, with every movie star on the planet, an exciting, marketable genre and seven Oscar noms, still only grossed $36.4 million. THE NEW WORLD, with two pretty big stars, grossed $12.7 million. The Malickian ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD with Giant Movie Star Pitt grossed $3.9 million.

No one went to be AOJJBTCRF because Warner Brother's left it in post-production hell before burying it with a barely promoted limited release.

You can't blame Jesse James on the audience. That one was 100% company screw up. Thin Red Line though you can make a point of.

I remember combing the aisles of a Hastings video store back in my youth, just after The Thin Red Line came out on video and thinking, "Why would I want to see that? I already saw Saving Private Ryan? Why should I see this knock-off?"

Antoine Doinel wrote:No one went to be AOJJBTCRF because Warner Brother's left it in post-production hell before burying it with a barely promoted limited release.

knives wrote:You can't blame Jesse James on the audience. That one was 100% company screw up. Thin Red Line though you can make a point of.

When a studio does this, it's generally because their testing and tracking are already assuring them there's no chance of them recouping their investment. They're cutting their losses -- tossing tens of millions extra into harder marketing and distribution would be a waste. I think you guys give America way too much credit. I don't see any scenario in which AOJJBTCRF could have made over $20 million domestic, even if WB had given it their all.

jaredsap wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:No one went to be AOJJBTCRF because Warner Brother's left it in post-production hell before burying it with a barely promoted limited release.

knives wrote:You can't blame Jesse James on the audience. That one was 100% company screw up. Thin Red Line though you can make a point of.

When a studio does this, it's generally because their testing and tracking are already assuring them there's no chance of them recouping their investment. They're cutting their losses -- tossing tens of millions extra into harder marketing and distribution would be a waste. I think you guys give America way too much credit. I don't see any scenario in which AOJJBTCRF could have made over $20 million domestic, even if WB had given it their all.

....or as it was in the case of this film, WB had no idea what they had actually bought and refused to support the director or film. You should probably go over to the thread for this film which has countless articles about the troubled production history. The film earned two Academy Award nominations, including Best Supporting Actor, with barely any promotion or release. Who knows what it could've done had it been given the proper support.

Antoine Doinel wrote:....or as it was in the case of this film, WB had no idea what they had actually bought and refused to support the director or film.

Sigh. I know it's cathartic to work up this indignation, but it's really not that simple (or childish). No studio would ever risk alienating Brad Pitt and essentially throw the towel in on one of his films (which they're already invested tens of millions into) if they hadn't thoroughly crunched the numbers. I used to work in Creative Advertising at Sony -- you have to understand how scientific this all is. Obviously WB was disappointed that they got a Malick film rather than something easily marketable and they tried to resist that in post-production. But their fate was already sealed. The marketing materials they did come up with were quite strong. However, as I said, the idea of spending tens of millions more for a wide release and major TV exposure was simply untenable. I don't blame them.

I'm sure WB justified it to themselves however they wanted. My point is that many films have been championed by studios even despite whatever tracking or test screening has shown (why Hollywood or directors still insist on that as useful data is beyond me). But the studio really has to take the bulk of the responsibility here. You cast Brad Pitt in the lead role as a murderous, paranoid bank robber who gets killed at the end of the film. What do you think tracking from Oprah's audience is going to say?

And, I'm sorry, when you remove the director from the editing room, you are no longer supporting the film and when you bury it with a barely advertised limited theatrical rollout, despite strong reviews (even though press screenings were few and far between) you are no longer supporting the film (no matter how indignant or childish that sounds).

The fact that they got Academy Award nods (on top of strong feedback from the festival circuit) is proof enough that it could've done much better had they given it a halfway decent push they not only could've made some more coin on theatrical, but at least created some kind of anticipation for the DVD release.

Antoine Doinel wrote:But the studio really has to take the bulk of the responsibility here. You cast Brad Pitt in the lead role as a murderous, paranoid bank robber who gets killed at the end of the film. What do you think tracking from Oprah's audience is going to say?

Point is, WB needs Oprah's audience in order to justify spending tens of millions on heavy marketing and a wider-than-few-hundred-screens release. They're a studio.

I agree JESSE JAMES could have done better. As I alluded to above, the gross should have been closer to $20 million rather than a mere $3.9 million. But the solution was not WB giving it a stronger push -- they dug their grave and they had to lie in it. The real problem is that WB should have never greenlit the movie. It needed to have been made on a smaller budget and distributed by a Focus or someone of their ilk who specializes in patient roll-outs and more challenging fare. This gets back to my original point that Malick and "Malick" is not something the studios are willing to invest $70+ million in. Nor should they, given America's tastes.

Ironman, The Incredible Hulk, in the early stages Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Taken, and so any others didn't need the Ophrah club money to go above 100 mil as far as marketing went. If they had marketed to the same audience Gran Torino was they could have easily made 60 mil. Brad Pitt is a huge star who is really the only thing a marketing team, as proven by Burn After Reading, needs. WB was just stupid in hoping for a 3:10 to Yuma and not knowing how to handle a Days of Heaven.

Also given it made over 3.5 mil in less then fifty theaters with no push, had a push occurred it would have at least broke even rather then being a major loss.

You bring up a very interesting topic jaredsap, which is, where the line is drawn between a major studio attracting unique talent and unique projects versus not losing their shirts is drawn. Certainly, major studios have make pictures for the bread and butter of middle America to pay their bills, but if they are unwilling to do the things either financially or otherwise to get someone like Brad Pitt or Terence Malick or whoever to join their roster, they risk stagnating within the industry. It's certainly more complicated than simple finances, as I would imagine someone like Brad Pitt now has the clout to walk into WB and say, "Ok, I'll do Ocean's 14, but this my pet project that I love and I want you guys to do it next for me." It's a balancing act of egos, Oscars, finances and industry credibility. The unfortunate thing is that it results many projects geting lost in the shuffle, being over-or-under financed or not handled the way they should be.

knives wrote:Ironman, The Incredible Hulk, in the early stages Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Taken, and so any others didn't need the Ophrah club money to go above 100 mil as far as marketing went.

I was using Oprah as a metaphor for mainstream America as I assume Antoine was doing. I was not referring to a specific all-female demographic. Although, FYI, Jolie is huge with Oprah's crowd.

If they had marketed to the same audience Gran Torino was they could have easily made 60 mil. Brad Pitt is a huge star who is really the only thing a marketing team, as proven by Burn After Reading, needs.

I think this is a vast simplification and we'll have to agree to disagree. JESSE JAMES (icy and leaden) is a completely different beast from GRAN TORINO and BURN AFTER READING (both very funny and palatable, from major filmmakers who have proven time and again they can connect with mainstream America), and far, far more difficult to market.

Also given it made over 3.5 mil in less then fifty theaters with no push

It was released in 301 theatres.

The theater thing is the only one I'll admit to. [-(
I can see where you're coming from, even though in hindsight I believe it could have at least broken even.

As for the original subject, who knows where the funding for The Tree of Life coming from? Malick obviously has a decent amount to throw around. He's using an A-level crew (in all departments) and hiring the visual effects technicians behind Speed Racer, The Golden Compass, and, uh, Douglas Trumbull. Do River Road and Plan B really have enough money to fund this kind of project? Certainly the two of them together could probably put in a decent amount, and assumedly National Geographic is also putting up a little, but is that enough? I imagine that as more details come out we'll see that Malick has attracted all sorts of investors from all over (maybe even taking funding from the Indian company that initially proposed bankrolling the entire project), and I wouldn't be surprised if he already has a deal with a major studio. Given the history of Q and the participation of Plan B, it's not hard to imagine Paramount being involved on some level.

Unlike The New World or The Assassination of Jesse James, this seems like it has potential to actually make a decent amount of money. The concept in itself promises an unbelievable spectacle that could pull in a wide amount of interest. The only problem is conveying such a premise to the audience (and playing down the Malickian aspects). Still, this will probably be Malick's biggest success at the box office.

I would imagine the Brad Pitt and Sean Penn are working on scale pay, and I would assume a lot of the effects people are taking a pay cut as well to be able to work with Malick on this.